Next President and why [Archive]

Lilred

01-17-2008, 05:47 PM

What I find so amazin is that most all the candidates are like hippies. They do whatever feels good at the time, not thinkin of what might be goin on next year, it's all love, flowers and crap.....until we get a bomb dropped on our pansy asses.
They wanna represent change today...but what about 3 years from now. This so called "change", who's best interest is it in?
Obama, Hillary and Julianna ( i spelt that correctly in my book) are all pansy ass sissies who couldn't lead the overtakin of a McDonald's with a bunch of fat kids on welfare.
We'll all be a bunch of disarmed sissies beggin Iran and N Korea not to take our minivans if we let those fools in office. Oh wait, maybe Oprah could send em the book of the month as a peace treaty....:rolleyes:
I could go on and on, but I wont...I'll git back on track and say that the southern democrat is no more...just as the president for the average joe and pride in the US is no more. There is no pride.
That bothers me...but anyway...I gotta stop preachin like it's Sunday mornin...
Ole Fred is tops so far...Romney is crap. Seen that in MI. OK Michiganders...what's gonna bring MI back to life?? Well, let's start with the big 3. How ya gonna get em back makin all them cars & trucks?? People gotta buy em.
Unless that fool can stop foreign cars from comin into this country...the big 3 will never return. You can blame the American people for that...and he can promise no such thing to MI's economy. Yet, he won MI based on his promises to fix the economy there.
It just goes to show ya how ignorant he is, and how easy it is to seduce voters these days. No president, jackass or elephant ass will let America rely on America for even half of it's products. Why? Cause on counta they are asses no matter how ya look at it.

Huckleberry (yes, that was on purpose too)...I'm not to sure what to make of him yet...I'm still studyin on him. He leaves a bad taste in my mouth for some reason...and I caint say I know why.
Ole Fred however...he seems to have a calm about him that we need and he seems be the best of the bunch. The fact that the supports the second amendment didnt hurt him none either ;)
And I like his immigration plan...if he actually puts it to use.

BILLY D.

01-17-2008, 06:44 PM

Lilred, Rocky and I have all mentioned the about Freds calming attitude and easy going nature. Yes, I do think we need that in the White House, and it would be beneficial at this time.

Maybe Fred is playing it smart at this time and hasn't put all his cards on the table yet, unlike Rockys frothing, yapping, dog fighters.

The only thing the dumpocrts have going for them in my estimation is the same old CLASS WARFARE card. Like there are no rich D's. Ever notice how they try to dress like po' folk? They have about as much class as a 50 cent beer.

Back to normal broadcasting.

Best wishes, Bill

skeeter@ccia.com

01-18-2008, 10:12 AM

Yes so true A to M. As Frasier would say, people do listen. No excuse for letting the fingers talk before my brain was awake and I spoke of Huck instead of Richardson. OOps...I do think Huckleberry (as our favorite story teller calls him) did well with the tax relief he promised while governor. He at least followed through with his promise to the people unlike our Pa goobernor. Two times elected by I still can't figure out who (gamblers) and we are still waiting for property tax relief. (But we are getting casinos) I guess that would be a plus for Ole Huck. Just about any Republican but McCain is not the man for our President. I don't like his stand on the second for one. Too soft. Juli? Na. As for the dems, it is just a race to be a first. First woman or first black man. That is all. In the later, I think the VP will be an important factor. Richardson is one that has dropped out and is the one I was seeing as wanting to be VP to Clinkton. Maybe since he worked for them he figured he had a chance but is still suckin up to all the Dems..to be VP? Gotta watch who is VP if dems get elected.

DON WALKUP

01-18-2008, 11:44 AM

guys. guys...i hate to say this and i'm going to choke on it, but i believe h-h-h-hilllary is most likely to be our next CIC simply as a result of the remark she made that "i promise gas prices will go down the day after i become president..."

i watched a financial news segment on tv yesterday and the wall street/financial gurus are finally admitting that the oil prices are driving us into recession/inflation.

it doesn't take a genius to figure out that paying $3.50 for a gallon of gasoline/deisel (actually, deisel is closer to $4.00 a gallon where i live) bites deep into the pockets of ANYONE and everyone who drives for whatever the reason.

the high prices of oil is killing the RV industry, raising food prices thru the ceiling etc and congress and govts are going to do NOTHING to stop it. why? they get more revenue from it, that's why.

if people believe hh-h-h-hillary can get those prices down...they'll vote for her...

Rocky Raab

01-18-2008, 12:18 PM

Oh it sounds good, and it'll get her some votes all right.

But would someone tell me how the President can legally change an entire PRIVATE industry based on supply and demand in one day?

There are only two ways: She could issue a Presidential Proclamation that reduces or eliminates the Federal Gas Tax (a DEMOCRAT lowering taxes? Yeah, right!)

Or she could nationalize the oil industry - which is socialism, plain and simple. And it wouldn't be the last. Next would be electrical power, medicine, airlines, and more.

Of course, she IS a socialist, so that'd be my prediction. Like the old saw says, be careful what you wish for, you might get it.

Rocky Raab

01-18-2008, 12:23 PM

Of course, there are two other options for her.

She could release the National Petroleum Reserves, which would in fact lower gas prices...by a few cents and for only a few weeks. But she COULD say she lived up to her promise. Slimeball that she is.

OR, she could do like Slick did with his "cut taxes" promise. Right after the election, she'd say "You know, I tried, and I've never worked harder at anything in my life, but I can't cut gas prices. In fact, we have to raise the gas tax because everybody lied to me about the real situation." Cloned slimeball.

LoneWolf

01-18-2008, 02:33 PM

I'm a Fred fan myself. And I seem to hear many people say he's their man, yet he is doing so poorly so far. While I'd like to think he's waiting for the right moment... how much longer can he wait to jump ahead?
I'm keeping my fingers crossed.

skeeter@ccia.com

01-18-2008, 07:38 PM

wow Rock, I can hear her saying those exact words....Would be kind of like our Pa governor saying he has to increase the gas tax by a few cents a gallon in one breath then in the next breath says he stopped the gas tax increase because he didn't go through with it...how is that for a pat on the back and going nowhere. Increase tax one day then take it back the next and take credit for cutting a tax.... Now all this talk about our leaders dropping the gas prices is this going to be after they let the 40cent highway tax go into effect? I did hear Bush is over talking to the Arabs trying to get them to pump more oil to help with our economy. If they think they have us by any kind of hairs, why would they pump more oil to help America? They say high oil costs is sinking our economy then why would they even talk about raising the fuel tax by 40 cents a gal?

fabsroman

01-18-2008, 09:54 PM

Honestly, I have no idea how any politician can promise lower gas prices. As a nation, we just need to get used to the higher gas prices, and we need to start thinking about alternative fuels. I honestly think twice before I jump in the car and go for a spin. If there isn't a good reason for it, I don't go. I also try to get as many things done in a single trip as I possibly can.

Lilred

01-19-2008, 08:43 AM

I do believe there will be a record amount of voters at the polls this year...my sister will be votin fer Hillary I think. The traitor!
We usually avoid political converstion...but I thought it was my civic duty to at least ask WHY she would do such a thing :rolleyes:
Needless to say, that was on Christmas day...and I've only talked once to her since lol
:p

She'll git over it, me and her are as different as black and white, you wouldnt believe it. But I was curious as to what she thought Hillary would do for our country. Gas prices was second on her list...:rolleyes:

Rocky Raab

01-19-2008, 09:59 AM

The reason it sounds like a Clinton, skeeter, is because that's the exact line Bill used about his promised tax cut, his first election. It lasted until about a week after the inauguration.

Folks, it may be hard to believe, but WE are the ones setting gas prices. Not directly, but through the futures traders on Wall Street. Now, I'm an enthusiastic investor - but not in futures.

When futures traders bid that they'll pay $100 a barrel for oil three months from now, that's darn well what they're going to be paying. If the idjits would stop trading in oil futures (or be forced to), this spiral would wind itself down. It isn't OPEC that's setting the price, it's future traders who are setting the offers.

As an alternative, if I were running the thing, I'd tell all those foreign oil producers that from now on, we'll match oil barrel price with wheat bushel price. You wanna eat? Either cough up billions or cut the oil price. Or eat sand.

Dan Morris

01-19-2008, 10:24 AM

Originally posted by Rocky Raab
The reason it sounds like a Clinton, skeeter, is because that's the exact line Bill used about his promised tax cut, his first election. It lasted until about a week after the inauguration.

Folks, it may be hard to believe, but WE are the ones setting gas prices. Not directly, but through the futures traders on Wall Street. Now, I'm an enthusiastic investor - but not in futures.

When futures traders bid that they'll pay $100 a barrel for oil three months from now, that's darn well what they're going to be paying. If the idjits would stop trading in oil futures (or be forced to), this spiral would wind itself down. It isn't OPEC that's setting the price, it's future traders who are setting the offers.

As an alternative, if I were running the thing, I'd tell all those foreign oil producers that from now on, we'll match oil barrel price with wheat bushel price. You wanna eat? Either cough up billions or cut the oil price. Or eat sand.

Good thought...however, arn't we GIVING the wheat? 'Hands across the sea'?
Dan

Rocky Raab

01-19-2008, 02:14 PM

Probably. That's why I'd make it a swap, even up. Heck, I'd maybe even offer 'em two bushels per barrel. But remind them that when their oil fields go dry, we'll still be growing wheat and corn, so expect to pay for it.

Dan Morris

01-19-2008, 02:17 PM

I'll support that!
Dan
:cool:

DON WALKUP

01-20-2008, 12:26 PM

congress needs to get offa their collective arses and open up drilling for our own oil! we have the technology, and the resources, to do it more environmentally soundly than in years past.

we need to stop buying oil from the saudi's and venezuela...we're providing them the income to finance terrorists among other things.

and yes we need to continue the quest for alternative fuel sources...but, do you think a vehicle powered by ethanol/gasahol/LNG/LPG/solar would tow your 25ft trailer/toy-hauler and get more than 3 MPG? not with today's technology.

here in the area where i live, diesel is nearing $4.00 per gallon. it's TRIPLED in cost in the last three years. unleaded regular is near $3.50 per gallon.

our congress does NOT help the AVERAGE american at all. even chuck shummer recoginizes that; he wrote a book about congress being out of touch with reality. ( cannot recall the title at the moment)

hillary will do nothing different...and i sincerely doubt any other newly elected pres will be able to much either; dem or republican.

in the end, it's all about one thing...$$$$$$$$$

skeeter@ccia.com

01-20-2008, 02:22 PM

Kwik Fill gas is our own oil from our own fields. They stress that fact on tv all the time. Kwik fill gas prices at the pump is the same as any other station. How are you helping by buying from there? Where the problem sits in a lot of the cases is the EPA air quality rules in different areas. They need to make the quality the same then thy wouldn't have to make one formula for Pa, another for Ohio another for Idaho..while they (refinery) are making it for Idaho standards, they are getting behind in the demnad in Pa. Then there is the supply and demand rule...Tax isn't helping at pump (so lets add $.40) and I know Kfill needs to keep up with the rest of the world but what if we now buy only Kfill gas and pass on sunoco or what ever? Now who will follow that plan? Not I said the guy next door. I won't sit in line when this one is open. Hurray for me. I have had small cars and I need my truck now. I hate to pay at the pump but I can't carry my tools in a small car. I think the trade for wheat and oil is a great idea and now we need to pass that rule. How can we get our government back to the people? Elections? We do that now. We need to meet at the courthouse steps with our signs like they did back in the 60's ... at least now the police won't be able to beat us with clubs etc etc.. We need a President that came from our ranks....not born into the ranks like Bush. Someone from the bottom.... Lilred?..you doing anything the next 8 yrs?

skeet

01-20-2008, 03:42 PM

Kinda been gone for a while. Darn ladders etc.. But it is a little known fact that we buy the majority of our oil..not from the Saudi's or Venezuela...but from the Country of Canada. Yes boys and girls right from the north. Everybody thinks we went to Iraq to steal the oil. Well if that is so...let's invade Canada and steal the oil from there. LOTS closer for certain. It ain't happening y'all. Second is a tossup..between Mexico and Saudi Arabia. This global economy thing really isn't working...especially for the good ol US of A. or the other countries we are allied with. We got the Nafta thing passed with the help of the members of Congress who are supported strongly by our own Unions:rolleyes: :confused: . Now the powers that wanna be want to give our rights away in the name of the UN. What is wrong with the politicians or the wanna be's of this country. We need to take to the streets like Skeeter said just to make ourselves be heard?? The politicians we have bnow know that the American sheeple are just that..lambs to the slaughter..yeah you all in Canada too. Can't even shoot a handgun on your own farm?? C'mon! We all need to wake up and smell the coffee.... before it's too late!

Rocky Raab

01-20-2008, 04:45 PM

I understand the sentiment, skeeter. But this nation had its experiment with a "common man" President - and Jimmy Carter was the worst one in history, bar none.

He almost single-handedly ruined the economy, gave Iran the boost it needed to become the royal pain in the behind it is today, and darn near kissed (certainly kissed UP to) Araphat, which gave courage to today's terrorists.

No thanks to another down-home loser!

Lilred

01-20-2008, 05:33 PM

Hey watch it Rocky..I aint no loser...I just have special needs...;)Seriously, I think foreign dependency seems to be the biggest problem we have..now and in the future.

The Constitution was written for a nation bound to noone but itself. Independent and governed by the people.
If the country would stick to the same principles laid out by our foundin fathers, we would be better off.

But then some would argue...how many factories would we have to build to support ourselves? A helluva lot...but it would also take a helluva lot more farms and jobs to support em. Aint that the way we became the superpower that we are to begin with?
Understood, the dynamics are different today..like population..but my God, we aint doin nuthin but funding our or our descendants demise.
Thanks fer the nomination skeeter, but iffin they put my crazy butt in office...there would be hell to pay cause the first thing I'd be changin...the US would start callin more of the shots in our future instead of every other country across the pond. Cause if we caint fend fer ourselves, aint nobody gonna do it fer us that's fer dam sure.
Hell naw, I'd be assasinated fore I even sat in the oval office LOL :D

Jack

01-21-2008, 01:48 AM

The sad truth is, if we drilled every bit of oil under our control, we still wouldn't have enough oil to quit importing oil.
I have never figured out why diesel is more expensive than conventional gasoline... diesel takes less refining that standard gasoline- seems to me it should therefore be cheaper.

Rocky Raab

01-21-2008, 11:46 AM

Lilred, it's obvious that you're no loser - because you're smart enough to NOT run for Prexy!

Jack, Diesel has to compete with heating oil and jet fuel production, all of which are very similar and come off the distillation process at about the same point (if I recall correctly). Gasoline comes off farther down the line, and actually costs more to produce, but has no competing products so it ends up being cheaper by the gallon. Odd, but true.

skeeter@ccia.com

01-21-2008, 08:22 PM

back to the big question......who should we put in our office for the next president?......can see how someone like Carter can just let people get away with things...and we get tramped on ..then if we have someone that pounds his desk and says it is gong to be this way....I don't think he (hope anyhow) will get many from other countries to listen or maybe they will be afraid of him.....

fabsroman

01-21-2008, 08:39 PM

You should have posted a poll of the available candidates. That might have gotten you a better answer, with an option for None of the Above. Honestly, I am not the list bit moved by any of these candidates.

By the way, I am sort of pissed at GW right now. The Justice Department just entered an amicus brief in the DC gun ban Supreme Court case, and they are taking the position that the case should be sent back to the DC Court of Appeals to review it under a higher level of scrutiny, which would avoid the Supreme Court from ruling on it. In his defense, the brief also does take the position that the 2nd Amendment provides for an individual right.

Nulle

01-22-2008, 06:04 AM

Dan: I could run I guess under the Bush/Winston ticket.
Give some of these voters or non-voters a 6 pack and a carton and life is good lol
Only one I would not vote for at this time and thats Msssssss Clinton.

jl1966

01-23-2008, 09:12 AM

I will not vote for Obama. Do not want to vote for Hillary, but may have to. Will not vote for Huckabubble the religious fanatic. McCain, maybe, but he is soft on guns. Thompson? What, who? Actor, not President. Romney and Giuliani, yankee elitists. Regarding the tax issues, and Bill Clinton, we also were able to read GW's daddys lips about new taxes, that really held up:rolleyes: , and in my own state of Va. we had Governor Jim Gilmore a few years ago. He got elected on doing away with the car tax, which he did. However he neglected to figure out how to replace the revenue lost in his nice little tax cut. The result was cuts to the budgets for law enforcement, wildlife programs, education, pretty much everything across the board. Of course he was out of office by then. Everyone likes a tax cut, but it is a simple law of economics that, when you bring in less, there is also less to spend.

Rocky Raab

01-23-2008, 09:27 AM

You can choose to vote Democrat to "teach the Republicans a lesson" or you can vote for some third-party no-chance loser, or even stay home as a protest. But none of those things will change the fact that SOMEBODY is going to be elected President.

ANY action other than voting Republican is gonna result in President Hillary.

And ANYBODY else is a better choice than Hillary. She is going to ban your guns, she is going to nationalize the health industry (and maybe the oil industry), she is going to double your taxes as well as the welfare programs. In short, she'd create a socialist state, with her as dictator.

None of the Republicans are stellar, I'll admit. The best of the pack is probably Romney now that Thompson is out. Romney at least would be a genius on the economy, as that's his proven strength.

But none of them would be the national horror that Hllary (or Obama) would be.

Vote Republican, whoever that is.

Purebred Redneck

01-23-2008, 09:47 AM

Originally posted by Rocky Raab
I understand the sentiment, skeeter. But this nation had its experiment with a "common man" President - and Jimmy Carter was the worst one in history, bar none.

He almost single-handedly ruined the economy, gave Iran the boost it needed to become the royal pain in the behind it is today, and darn near kissed (certainly kissed UP to) Araphat, which gave courage to today's terrorists.

No thanks to another down-home loser!

It didn't help much that Reagan/Bush negotiated with Iran and bribed them with weapons to keep the hostages there a year longer than they had to.

I haven't voted since 2000 and will probably never again under the current election process (it just goes to show you that our votes count even less than ever).

But I'm pulling for another 8 years of a Clinton Whitehouse.
We should all ask --- Are we better off now than we were 8 years ago?
With all the homework the dems are doing on Reagon and the fact the repubs are doing the same, I would be shocked if the dem nominee didn't make that quote.

Anyway I think we'll see Clinton with either Edwards/Richardson/Webb --- either one would be a fine choice

As far as the republicans, it's ovbouisly too close to call. I think Romney pulls it out.
While I think it would be another 8 years of big business rule if he wins it all, I'll take my chances on him losing next nov to either dem candidate.
John McCain would be the choice if you bent my arm and forced me to vote repub. He's also the only one that stands a chance in nov.

No doubt, I'd like to see the democrats rule both houses and the presidency and get this country back in the hands of the middle class.
I'll settle on a dem controled house and john mccain if I had to though.

Skinny Shooter

01-23-2008, 10:28 AM

Originally posted by Purebred Redneck
It didn't help much that Reagan/Bush negotiated with Iran and bribed them with weapons to keep the hostages there a year longer than they had to.

That is utter nonsense and you should know better!
Prove it!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_surprise
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_surprise_conspiracy
So with that statement you ally yourself with the kook fringe on the left. Is that where you stand?
What it comes down to is that those people hate anything Conservative!

But I'm pulling for another 8 years of a Clinton Whitehouse.
We should all ask --- Are we better off now than we were 8 years ago?

Yeah, America just needs another 4, or even worse, 8 years of the Clintons :rolleyes:
And I am better off than I was 8 years ago.

While I think it would be another 8 years of big business rule if he wins it all, I'll take my chances on him losing next nov to either dem candidate.
John McCain would be the choice if you bent my arm and forced me to vote repub. He's also the only one that stands a chance in nov.

And what is wrong with big business??? Who do you think provides jobs for many Americans?
McCain is a RINO, no wonder you'd vote for him and is exactly the reason he shouldn't get the nomination.

No doubt, I'd like to see the democrats rule both houses and the presidency and get this country back in the hands of the middle class. I'll settle on a dem controled house and john mccain if I had to though.

Sure they would. Just keep drinking that kool-aid. :rolleyes:
They had over 40 years of majority rule in Congress and they did squat, except broaden the gap in the classes, make the poor poorer and what did they do to alleviate the tax burden on the little guy?

Rocky Raab

01-23-2008, 12:13 PM

Funny, that "back to the middle class" thing.

If you look at history, every single time that "power to the people," "workers' paradise," "rule of the proletariat" and similar rhetoric has been touted, we ended up with Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Pol Pot, Castro, Idi Amin, Manuel Noriega, Saddam, Hugo Chavez, Mao...

And if we believe it again, counter to all experience, we're gonna get the next socialist tyrant: Hillary.

And "the people" will end up just as powerless, just as screwed over, while the tyrant steals billions.

skeet

01-23-2008, 01:44 PM

That the power to the people types always think the Democraps are the ones that will do what they hope? I wish that we could get some good people in the political process but they only seem to want more money or more power and never give us po folks what is actually our due? Which is..Honesty in office !!! Just a question...why would anyone spend millions of dollars attempting to be elected to an office that pays 400,000 bucks or less. Unluckily I think that the Republicans are not any more honest than the dems but they at least let us keep an illusion of having some say in our government. The Dems always seem to tell us what is" best for us" as if we are too stupid to know. Such as the myth that we don't need guns.. The law is here to take care of us. And we don't need to work..we'll pay ya welfare so you don't have to worry about the next drug fix...and food stamps etc etc. When will it ever stop. Do illegals deserve all these things too?? The dems seem to think so:rolleyes: Personally I don't think that way...and I've been a lifelong (Southern)democrat too...mainly on a local level. But they are even changing at the local level. Too many soccer moms(and dads) with such liberal ideas. Where has the idea that we should be responsible for our selves and our own actions gone? Purebred Redneck.. If you are a Southern Democrat then you have seemed to have lost the conservative ideals of your forefathers. Sorry for the rants guys and gals!

BILLY D.

01-23-2008, 02:24 PM

skeet

Problem is your right. The day of the Southern Democrat went to the grave with J.F.K.

I too was raised in a Home of Democrats, so far I have voted for one Democrat, J.F.K. The rest have all been bums as far as I'm concerned. There were some Republicans that weren't so hot also but they were the "lesser of two evils" so to speak.

If I had a choice I wouldn't vote, however that doesn't solve any problems either. The only choices for me is to vote Party and hope the Presidential choice, even if a lousy one can drag some State Representatives with him into office.

Presently in my State we are stuck with the 3 clowns we have for the next 20 years. My Great Grand Children will be voting for them.

Solution, TERM LIMITS. Once these people get elected they are there for life. Let 'em get elected and after 8 years they can look for a regular job like the rest of us.

Best wishes, Bill

Rocky Raab

01-23-2008, 02:28 PM

Wonderful idea, Billy.

Now, how do we get the guys NOW IN OFFICE to vote themselves term limits?

Answer: Ain't gonna ever happen. And there's nobody else who can pass laws.

BILLY D.

01-23-2008, 03:00 PM

Rocky

Point well taken. Darn, I hate that. :D

Bill

Jack

01-23-2008, 09:12 PM

Skinny, I can't speak for Pure Bred Redneck, but I think what he was referring to re Iran is this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_contra

Jack

01-23-2008, 10:51 PM

I'll make a prediction: the personal, shake your hand and actually talk to you politics of Iowa and New Hampshire is over. In those small states, someone can spend time instead of money, and pull off an upset. Huckabee being a case in point in Iowa.
From now on, money's going to rule, and only well financed candidates will have a chance. Florida is the next primary, in a few days, and then comes the February primaries with 23 states holding primaries at the same time. No way a candidate can spend time instead of money in 23 states at once. Big bucks will rule in February. I've heard the figure that 3 million will have to be spent for a candidate to win in New York, and 4 million in California.
That narrows the field a lot, on the Republican side. Romney is the only candidate with enough money, right now. McCain may be able to raise enough to compete. Unless Guiliani pulls off a big win in Florida, he's done- he won't be able to raise enough money. Same for Huckabee.

jl1966

01-24-2008, 05:12 PM

Politics has become big business, instead of public service. The job of President only paying $400,000 a year? Please! The Bush White house is so secretive that there is no telling what kind of kickbacks are going on. What is wrong with big business? Nothing, not a thing, industry is what made America great. However when big business is allowed to run rampant and indulge the greed of corporate america, then we have a problem. We have had our share of democrats, and true enough, they have done little to improve the lot of the "common man" so to speak. They do make the big wheels of business nervous though.

fabsroman

01-24-2008, 06:06 PM

The whole campaign funding issue is horrible. They should pass a law that makes funding even across the board. Nobody should be able to influence a candidate by offering them campaign funding. Maybe taxpayers should pick up the campaign funding and make things fair. Sheez. No wonder nothing ever gets done. Big business is probably funding the campaigns, the sheeple need to vote for the candidates, and then the candidate is in a bind to do anything because they don't want to piss off their source of funding or their source of votes. Sheer stupidity.

jl1966

01-25-2008, 10:56 AM

A good idea would be a series of televised debates/ question and answer sessions, well mediated and not allowed to devolve into a shouting match. Financed by the government/ taxpayers, free tv time like the President gets. Each candidate has an alloted time to speak his mind and lay out his platform, then answer questions, posed from a mixed panel, no softball stuff and no soft answers, we dont move on until a direct answer to the question is given. Outside of these venues there would be absolutely no campaigning or ads and commercials, candidates cannot accept any money from any person, group ,or corporation. No showing up on Leno to smile and tell lies. Then when the guy got elected he would have to stand behind what he said on national television.

fabsroman

01-25-2008, 02:16 PM

That sounds like a great idea. On top of that, how about letting the American public impeach a President for not doing what he/she should be doing.

Speaking of politics, can you believe an economic stimulus package has passed the House but might get stalled in the Senate. Some of the democrats in the Senate want to add additional items in it to take care of unemployment benefits beyong 26 months and increased welfare. Honestly, if somebody is unemployed for over 26 months, I really don't think they are trying to get a job, and don't even get me started on welfare. Again, a bill is in place from the House that the President is willing to sign, but the idiots in the Senate. I truly hope they come to their senses and pass this thing. As it stands right now, the IRS won't even be able to get the money to the people until the end of May, beginning of June.

skeeter@ccia.com

01-25-2008, 07:23 PM

I was thinking about this money they think will spur the economy. If it is spent and not saved I think China will win in the long run.. You can 't buy anything that isn't made in China. Where do they figure we will win on that one other than give the store clerks something to do. China will still be the biggest winner. We need jobs here and make things here. I live in the biggest steel mill area in the world and it is all flat now..they are stripping the soil where the mills once stood and selling the slag stone but also selling all the stainless, any other steel they find overseas to ....China. .We don't have any steel mills left to melt the stuff..
.I think the news media is at it again with their games... Clinton, Osama...the fight continues on news...this is free adds for them....every night on the news...people will think they are the only 2 running..... anyhow...I Will do the republican thing...like once said....you never worked for a poor man...for long anyhow....go big business but keep it home.

Rocky Raab

01-26-2008, 11:15 AM

Well, the way to keep it from going to China is simple: don't buy any more "stuff" with it. Save it. Invest it in stock, buy a mutual fund or even a government bond.

You want to stimulate the economy, plunk that money INTO the economy by investing in a good US company. One especially good stock to buy right now is Garmin. It's poised to double or even triple over the next few years. Before long, everything that moves is gonna have GPS in it - and Garmin is leading the pack.

rattus58

01-26-2008, 01:04 PM

Fred Thompson was my choice... but I took a poll asking how I felt on things and it turns out John McCain is 84% in agreement with how I feel....

And there is no way in hell I'd ever vote for McCain. He's a damn Commie in my opinion... he's anti capitalist, he's pro-environmentalist... he sleeps with the Democrats, votes with the Democrats but somehow he's got this poll buffaloed...

Next to McCain for me would be Romney or Huckaby... Huckaby is a hunter. Huckaby is 2nd Amendment. Obama would vote for the Akaka Bill that would essentially change Hawaii from a State to a foreign country.... that man is very dangerous for America.

Aloha... :cool:

Rocky Raab

01-26-2008, 01:56 PM

Because I'll be in Vegas on Feb 5, I voted early yesterday. I looked with disappointment at the Republican list, because Fred's name was still there even though he has pulled out.

Utah will go to Romney in a landslide, of course. I voted for him on economic grounds. I know he's a bit weak on RKBA, but he's probably the strongest of those remaining. Those that have a chance, that is.

rattus58

01-26-2008, 02:32 PM

Y'all should take the test in the following thread.... :)

Aloha... :cool:

denton

01-26-2008, 03:26 PM

I'd rather elect a syphillitic baboon than Hillary or Obama.

You do injustice to baboons and syphillis germs.

Hillary is basically a nasty person. The more people see of her, the less they will like her. Time is not running in her favor. The worse things get, the more Bill will interfere, and the more he interferes, the weaker she seems. People had almost forgotten how the Clintons operate. Fortunately, people are being forcefully reminded.

Obama is articulate, but very light in his loafers. Articulate and telegenic are winning attributes.

Edwards is a huckster, pure and simple. Watch who he tries to help after he backs out. That's who he thinks will win.

Huckabee will now fade quickly. His campaign is essentially out of money. It would take a major, early, unexpected win to rejuvinate the campaign. He would throw his support to McCain, but not to Romney, just on personal grounds.

Trends are running in favor of Romney, and he has financial staying power. That is incredibly important. He is clearly the most capable executive in the race. There are things I don't like about him, but he is very capable. His campaign could probably survive a defeat in Florida.

McCain is hard to predict. If he wins Florida, his campaign will have life. If not, the outlook is challenging. He's not near the executive Romney is.

Gulianni's strategy of sitting out the first few, and focusing on Florida has killed his campaign. He's done.

I think it will be either McCain or Romney against Obama. Hillary will be just a memory, and a lingering foul odor in the air.

But then, I do injustice to foul odors.

Jack

01-26-2008, 10:39 PM

"The whole campaign funding issue is horrible. They should pass a law that makes funding even across the board."
Fabs, they tried to do that. The bill was called McCain-Feingold, and it did pass.
The law has some flaws, for sure, but someone at least tried.
And take a careful look at who opposes it.

fabsroman

01-26-2008, 10:45 PM

Jack,

I vaguely remember a bill being talked about regarding campaign funding, but I don't remember much about it. Since I am in hunting season, the beginning of cycling season, and tax season, I just don't have time to read the bill that got passed. I'll have to rely on you for the synopsis.

Jack

01-26-2008, 11:05 PM

Fabs, rather than me flounder through trying to explain a law to a lawyer, take a look here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mccain-feingold

Tennessee Elkman

01-31-2008, 04:30 PM

After reading all these posts and the hundereds of posts I've read on this forum I have a question for most of the posters and readers out there. Are you better off today then you were 8 years ago? If you own your own business like me, you answer is probably no. I certainly am not, and I voted for "DUBBYA". What a mistake that has been. So these are my choices? Hillary the b***h according to all the write ups or the muslim in sheeps' clothing.
Jack and Rocky,
Another huge factor for the diesel fuel prices higher than gasoline is as simple as this. If you are involved in shipping or receiving ANYTHING bought or sold in the U.S.A., there are shipping costs and fuel surcharges placed on everything from beanie-weenies to boats, RV's and automobiles. So the truckers who grid locked Washington D.C. many moons ago now don't worry about the cost of fuel since it is BEING PASSED ALONG TO THE CONSUMER!!!! Ands you can thank DUBBYA for that also. How could I have been so stupid to vote for him.
I'm glad Fred dropped out because I might have made the same mistake in voting I did 4 & 8 years ago. I ate lunch and went to a Titans game with him a few years back and he's a great guy but I just can't deal with some of the things this political party does or brings to the table. Again, just me 2 cents worth....

skeet

01-31-2008, 06:32 PM

I have to just say this. Am I better off now than 4 or 8 yrs ago? Nope..Was I better off in the previous 8 yrs?? NOPE. What makes you think that you are going to be better off in any future time?? The liberals in the government are not going to leave. The middle level bureaucrats are the ones that really run this country. Ya think not? They can't be gotten rid of...they keep making themselves more and more important and they keep expanding their powers. If you think not just look at the welfare beaurocracy. Look at the ones who run it. If you really need help from that agency...you'd better have some strong help politically. The problems this country are facing right now have been coming since the late 80's early 90's...maybe before. When NAFTA was passed we lost big time. Also lost when the powers that be decided that we(the US) would be the worlds policeman(1970's BTW Jimmy Carter). We lost a lot of jobs with NAFTA and a lot of money being the policeman. The war on Terror has been an expensive proposition but in my opinion it has been working. We haven't been "attacked" as we were in 9-11. again. At least not yet. If we did not pursue this course I can tell ya that it would have happened again by now. Those namby pamby liberals would have given in to those low life scum by now otherwise....and as they say do we have the resolve to save ourselves? I can guarantee you that osamma bama or Hillary will not do what is necessary to save this country. And to be honest I wonder if there is anyone in the other parties who have the resolve either. Maybe McCain but I doubt it. Personally I feel that if you are concerned with money only then you don't deserve or should expect to keep the other rights that you enjoy in this country. Vote your pocketbook...but when the gestapo comes for your guns or to take away any other rights remember with whom the blame lies!!:rolleyes:

Oh and by the way..not flaming you personally..just had it up to my neck with people saying am I better off? Heck no... and I've never been better off after any presidential term in office. And I doubt if any one can say they were. May have made more money...but it sure as hell cost more to live too!!:(

jplonghunter

01-31-2008, 07:10 PM

skeet

You have it right my friend,the bureaucrats drive the agenda in Washington and until we the people take it back our republic is not going to improve. Regardless of who is elected as President. JMHO

jplonghunter

Tennessee Elkman

02-01-2008, 02:02 PM

Voting my pocketbook might be our last defense with the options we have on the Presidential ballot. Without $$$ I can't buy the guns I'm hiding from the Gestapo.
Look, I understand your point of view and I think we are saying the same thing....THERE IS NO CLEAR CHOICE FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!!! When this country picks of next President and only 25%-30% of registered voters cast there ballots and the winner wins by less than a 10% margin, have we really elected the best choice for this country or have we given the Presidential position to a candidate with the most money, by default. I am convinced, from whatever side of the political fence you stand becoming our CIC is not rocket science, but who you know and who you.... Money changes everything, just ask Cindi Lauper.(Lame 80's reference) Don't believe it? Obama mama raised $32,000,000.00 in the month of January alone. Are you kidding me? What do we need to do to have a President who has read and believes in what our constitution stands for?

skeet

02-01-2008, 03:24 PM

Voting your pocketbook is nothing but a lame excuse. If you don't vote your conscience...meaning voting for what is right then you are giving your rights away. Do I see a GOOD candidate? Of course not! But as Rocky said...I'd vote for a syphilitic orangutang than any or either of the Dems that will only tell you what they think is best for you...give more money to the non working leeches in this country and take everything from you to pay for it...as well as taking all the other rights and privileges you enjoy in this country. In 8 yrs with Osama and or Hillary you will have nothing left..not even what you think you are hiding. And NO...you won't be better off in 4 or 8 yrs no matter what you think now. Between Greenspan tax cuts and what the Repubs have done we have staved off the money woes that we have coming up in the near future. But the way the dems do things you'll be paying more and more taxes to pay for the ill advised things the liberals will foist on to us in the future. You know...I hid a few bucks and some other things during the BIG Y2K debacle.. I may have done it at the wrong time. Might be time to hide items that will mean real wealth in the future. Glad i have a little gold and silver and arms and ammo. All will be worth infinitely more in the future than they are now. Maybe even food! Oh in case you are wondering..yep I am REALLY worried!:confused: :rolleyes:

Tennessee Elkman

02-01-2008, 05:20 PM

Options are like...... well you know the rest. Perhaps you could find an island in the south pacific to rule over. SKEET ISLAND! Population 1 and don't anybody else come in! You can take your gold and silver and live of the land! A dream come true! No taxes, no worries, nothing to complain about. SKEET'S FANTASYLAND! Maybe you could build rides and have shows like a theme park!
Come on man! Wake up and quit blaming the government for everthing and start looking at friends, family, fellow bloggers, etc. and blame them for putting the moroms in the office in the first place. Politicians are the worst and we have no one to blame but ourselves. "Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone..."

skeet

02-01-2008, 07:15 PM

You were blaming GW for all the woes we are now and in the future going to enjoy. I also know there is no free lunch..especially for people that really care. They just make us pay. I don't blame the government ..at least the elected government. I blame people that vote their pocketbooks cause that is all they care about..their pocketbooks and what is it going to do for them. . And you ask are we better off now than we were 8 yrs ago. Look in the mirror. I also know there is no way to get away from all of it. No matter where you live or what you do it costs something to live...even if it is sweat equity. The people who vote for candidates such as the 2 democrats actually deserve what the get...sadly those idiots make the rest of us lose what we hold dear. I've never voted my pocketbook and don't think I ever will. Sadly I feel that too many look at the world through the same glasses you have. What is in it for me is their creedo! And with that said...I am done as greesd rules(and ruins) too many peoples lives

Jack

02-01-2008, 08:46 PM

I think it's a foregone conclusion that our next President, no matter what party they come from , will have to raise taxes. Why?
To lower the budget deficit. For the last 8 years, no one in government has had the guts to say that we're spending more than we're taking in. It's been easier to just say 'let the next guy solve the problem'.
Some of our more cynical politicians have discovered that we're dumb enough to elect them as long as they promise us tax cuts, and to spend tons of money on pork barrel projects like the bridge to nowhere.
You can blame one party, or beaurocrats, or black helicopters if you want. The truth is, that kind of irresponsible spending goes on because we let it go on.

LoneWolf

02-02-2008, 11:05 AM

Jack, its been proven time and again, that rasing taxes doesn't give the gov't more money. Lowering them does. The larger problem is not them having more money, but finding ways to spend less.
In answer to a question posted ealier... yes I am better off than I was 8 yrs ago. But not just because of GW. I haven't waited to see what the gov't will do for me. I have busted my butt, worked harder, and tried to raise my children in the belief of nothing is free, there is no extra credit, and there is nothing you can't do... just things you haven't tried yet.

The biggest problem I have in the upcoming election is who I will vote for vs. who I'd have liked to vote for. I'm with Rocky on anyone but the Dem candidates, but I am really stuck on the Rep side. The guy I really felt I connected with was Fred, who has dropped out now. I really can't understand why he didn't step up more and push his beliefs. So now I look at the remainders. When I do the internet thingy that asks you questions on where you stand, it comes up with McCain then Romney. Thing is I McCain scares the hell out of me. Everything he supposedly is for, history shows the opposite. Except for his gun control stance, which so far I haven't found evidence that he has flip flopped on. Romney is for some gun control, but most of his beliefs are not mine.
So what do we do come November? Last I looked there isn't a box "none of the above, start over":rolleyes:

Jack

02-02-2008, 11:24 AM

"Jack, its been proven time and again, that rasing taxes doesn't give the gov't more money"
I'd question that, as you can easily prove it not to be true, too. Lowering taxes to increase revenue was tried in the 80's, and resulted in a budget deficit going from 77 billion to 334 billion.
In 2000, there was a budget surplus, and taxes were lowered- and now we have a deficit again- a big one.
It'd be nice to think you can lower taxes and make the deficit go away- it'd be nice to think you can run your car on water, too, and save paying for gas. ;)
Politicians aren't stupid- they know you want to hear that budget deficits can be eliminated without raising your taxes- so they tell you that.

LoneWolf

02-02-2008, 11:35 AM

I don't have the figures in front of me, or the time to search right now. Perhaps someone else knows them. But if I'm not mistaken, everytime taxes have been lowered it has resulted in more income to the gov't. The problem than falls into the gov't spending more still than what they have. Thus our deficit.

PS: I know also that when I get the money vs. the gov't I tend to spend more. Thus the economy is helped.

Tennessee Elkman

02-02-2008, 11:39 AM

Perhaps the candidate who can raise the most money before the November election and clear up the deficit can be president for 4 years. Opps, there I go again, thinking from my pocketbook....:p

fabsroman

02-02-2008, 12:21 PM

With the economy the way it is right now, I don't think the gov't can afford to raise taxes. However, I think we need a combination of both raising taxes and decreasing gov't spending to get this nation back on track. I'm not just worried about the budget deficit, but the national debt of $9,000,000,000. What is a budget deficit of $32 billion when the nation is already in debt by $9 trillion. Just think of what the interest is on $9 trillion a year. At 5% it equates to $450 billion.

Yep, I think we need to increase taxes and decrease gov't spending to get the nation back on track.

How about social security. If we were to raise the FICA tax right now an additional 3%, social security would be solvent well into the future. I could even retire and not have to worry about whether or not I would receive social security. However, whenever Americans hear that their taxes will be increased, they have a stroke.

Yes, it is bitter medicine, but it is medicine we need. Again, it cannot be done right now because the economy would completely tank, but it does need to be done. If taxes were left to a vote by the American people, it would probably be a landslide vote for no taxes, but the gov't and the nation would be up the creek without a paddle.

gun_nut2

02-03-2008, 12:28 AM

In my opinion the best choice for gun owners is Huckabee and not just because he is from my home state, after all so was Slick Willy. All polls show Huckabee to be the higheswt ranking candidate against gun controll. If can not vote for him just pick a Republican. The national Democratic party is way too left wing and liberal. A vote for the Democrats is a vote to lose your guns.

fabsroman

02-03-2008, 12:48 AM

I must have been busy the past couple of days, because I completely missed Tennessee's post.

The Roman Empire fell after it was rich. Right before its fall, they were handing out bread in the streets (e.g., welfare, food stamps, section 8 housing, Medicaid) and they were watching the gladiators in the Coliseum (e.g., NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL).

On a battlefield, tough choices need to be made. Sometimes, you just cannot save everybody. To save the nation, that is what might have to happen. We just cannot save every poor person out there, especially if they do not want to work.

To answer your question, I am definitely better off now than I was 8 years ago, and I'll probably be better off than I am right now 8 years from now. Not because of any specific President or other politicians, but because I work hard and save my money. This entire melt down has been coming for a while. The stock market went out of control on Clinton's watch, and then it crashed. When it crashed, people took their money out of the market and put it into real estate, and just like they got caught up in the stock market, they got caught up in real estate. Guess what, the real estate market crashed too. Now, people are scared of the stock market and the real estate market. Good, that is the way it is supposed to be. There was no easy lunch 50 years ago, and there isn't one now. One of my friends invested in an IPO 8 years ago and he made enough on it to pay off the mortgage on his house, but he didn't sell. He wanted more. So, he watched the stock fall to the point where he barely made anything.

Pigs get fat (i.e., they get fed), hogs get slaughtered.

This country is going through a tough time, and I seriously doubt that it will get better any time soon. The next President might be able to make a slight difference, but he or she won't make it all. Instead of blaming this economy on Bush, how about thinking about Greenspan and Bernanke. The FED is completely independent of the President, Congress, or the Supreme Court. Maybe they should have tightened monetary policy before the stock market got way out of control. Greenspan tried to warn people back then that they merely had a paper profit. Same thing goes for the real estate market. The FED kept the rate too low for too long, and house prices soared. They soared so high that people were worried about being able to ever afford a house, so they were desperate to buy. Along come the mortgage brokers that made a quick buck and came up with new, innovative products to sell. I know too many mortgage brokers and realtors that are broke right now, but they made a ton of money over 3 or 4 years. Problem is, they didn't save a thing.

Purebred Redneck

02-04-2008, 02:45 PM

There's far more important things than guns.
The economy (including immigration), healthcare, social security all trump gun control. That's not my opinion, that's common sense fact.

To me, it's who can take care of these issues best.

Economy: I want a crackdown on employers who hire illegals giving them no incentive to be here.

Healthcare: I want national healthcare.

Social Security: It obvouisly needs to be fixed but not nessisarily in the next 10 years if other things (ie immigration and healthcare) are stressed first.

As far as taxes is concerned, I think there needs to be some reform - in particular with writeoffs and capital gains (in the form of stocks being given as income bonuses). You have multi-millionares paying far less taxes than even working class families.
I'm almost tempted to support a flat 7-10% tax with no writeoffs. That falls into the catagory that most people pay anyway and it will allow for the rich to pay their fair share without weasling out of it.

I don't think the realestate housing crisis is being handled very well. No question, homeowners and banks have both been the cause of this. The solution is not giving assistance.
If someone is not able to afford their house, they need to sell it and move into something more affordable. Bottom line.

For my view of what's best for America, it leads me to Hillary Clinton.

skeet

02-04-2008, 04:54 PM

BUT PBR I think you ought to take another look at some of those issues. Alright..lets look at health care. Government run healthcare will ruin the medical profession in this country. Law suits have almost done it. Ya think Gummit run health care is better...look at Canada or even England. If you want good and prompt care you'll find a private physician. Immigration is an issue that really needs to be taken care of. You are right...crack down on the employers for certain.. Also deport all illegals..now the bad thing is the dems don't want to do that. The illegals in this country donate a lot of money to the Democrats campaign funds. As far as taxes...I'll go along with you on a 7% income tax on earned income at all levels. Flat taxes really sound good...but no country really has an actual flat tax so there must be some sound reasons for not having them. The things you are talking of are things that all sound good until you look at the actual costs attributed to universal health care and such. Take a look at the SS problems. The gummit is running it and look at the problems. Look at welfare...The gummit is running it and look at the problems and the costs that escalate. We have people on welfare that have no earthly reason for being there. We really ought to have work fare for those who can work...and no BSing about ability to work. And it isn't a black issue as about 55% or more of those on welfare are not black. Time to make changes there but our politicians(especially the Dems) will not even attempt to change the rules with that. People really ought to be responsible for their own actions instead of the government bailing them out all the time. And as far as the housing industry...they build what they think people want...and most are so greedy nothing less that the best is what they want. What is wrong with starter homes...remember them?? That is what I started with.. Now as far as guns..Hillary and her ilk will attempt to take them from you for certain. The only thing that makes you and me free citizens in this country is the right to have firearms...and without them you will be nothing....other than what the king of England considered you to be in 1775...a serf who was subservient to him. And I hate to tell ya...Hillary ain't even close to being a King George. She is actually worse. So is Osama obama or what ever his name is. Sorry bud...but you really have to wake up...Oh BTW if ya think I feel the republican candidates are a whole lot better...you're wrong! But oh my..anything would be better than those 2 democrats. The dems will give you a flat tax eventually...only it will be in the 90% range and then you'll get exactly what you want..the government taking care of you from cradle to grave. Again y'all...what is wroing with us being responsible for ourselves and our own families??:rolleyes: BTW PBR...are you a Socialist or Communist?? Not an accusation...just a question :confused:

Jack

02-04-2008, 05:44 PM

Steve Forbes was pushing the flat tax idea a number of years ago. By his estimation, it would have been about 17 %, and that sounded ok to a lot of people.
Then a few independent groups checked the math :eek:
Turns out the flat tax would have to be about 33-34 % to equal the revenue stream we have coming in now...suddenly, the flat tax idea faded away.

skeet

02-04-2008, 06:05 PM

The actual figure for a flat tax to equal the taxes we pay now is in the 40-45% range. Maybe more. Figure all the taxes you pay..income local federal and state..fuel taxes sales taxes property taxes.licensing fees for cars boats etc etc tolls even hunting licenses(and they are a tax) Time you get done and it gets pretty high. Oh don't forget the tax we pay on our guns and sporting items...even fishing stuff:( Now add in the costs of government run health care and other things and it's starting to get into the 50-60% range really easily.. But you do have to admit...our gummit really "loves" us!:D right to the poor house

Purebred Redneck

02-04-2008, 06:10 PM

thanks for being respectfully skeet.

I really can't compare socialism to communism. One is an economic system and the other is a political system.
communism incorporates socialism.
It would be possible to have a democratic government with a socialist economy.
I am 100% for democracy. I think too many people vote republican against their own (everyone's) economic interest. I think if people would actually sit down and look openly at what the democratic party offers, they might not change their mind but perhaps they would be less hatefull.
As for 90% taxes - let's be realistic. That's not going to happen. I'm certainly open to raising taxes to pay for things society can benifit from --- free undergrad college for instance. It may also be time to start implementing public works projects if the economy does not improve --- of course that will probably include greencard workers :rolleyes:

Yes, we definatly need to deport illegals. Both parties have too much invested in them. But we are getting to a dangerous job market in which something absolutly needs to be done.

But on social and economic issues, I certainly follow the FDR path. His policies (which are still in use today) help a lot of people.

Healthcare - I have talked to a few canadians on the internet over the last couple years on this issue.
It's funny that canadians like their healthcare. I think it's actually the US citizens criticizing something they don't know much about.

Welfare to me is really not an issue. People complain about people feeding off it like worms. It's just not the case. The number of people on welfare is actually very small. Most people who qualify for it don't even take it.

Have good evening

Purebred Redneck

02-04-2008, 06:12 PM

I'm talking a flat federal income tax

If you're talking about including everything in one lump sum, it definatly needs to be more than 10%

As far as health care, we pay a large amount in premiums anyway. I pay close to 1000 dollars for myself. Whether or not I pay it to private parties or the government, I don't care.

And you know, in both issues it's going to be roughly the same for the vast magority of us.

skeet

02-04-2008, 07:19 PM

It may be possible to have a socialist democratic society but there really isn't one in the world today. There are a couple countries that are socialist but not really democratic. Democracy is different than you may think. We have a republic here It's not working the way it was envisioned. There were no provisions for the social reforms that have been enacted. The constitution did not envision social security and welfare but we have found a way to incorporate those ideas into our very governed way of life. I think there are more people on welfare than you may believe and to be very honest I know of too many people that need the welfare programs and really didn't know how to get approved for them. Many of the people that you think that don't get welfare aren't able to get past the screening process. Talk about a beaurocracy. Hate to break the news to so many people but a repulican(not repub party) government with socialism at it's core will not long endure. At least not in the manner in which this country was designed by our founders. BTW I have talked to many people from Canada and quite a few really were not happy with the health care provided. As far as countries that have flat taxes...I think Sweden comes closest to your ideals...cradle to grave care by the government and the tax rates there are horrendous 70% or so plus I think they have a VAT too

fabsroman

02-05-2008, 01:32 AM

I didn't see anything about balancing the budget, getting rid of the national debt, and bringing back manufacturing jobs to the US, but I guess those aren't important either.

Now, if we all of a sudden go to a flat tax, what do you tell the person that bought a residential rental property with the intention of depreciating it over 27.5 years. How about the person that buys a larger house because he is currently subject to the AMT and home mortgage interest is almost always deductible under the AMT. How about the corporation that just spent $1,000,000 on new equipment because they can depreciate it?

Yes, I agree that the rich shouldn't receive the benefit of a 15% capital gain rate, but that could easily be taken care of by increasing the rate to 25% for those in the higher income tax brackets.

As far as the rich not paying any taxes, that is almost impossible with the AMT. AMT stands for Alternative Minimum Tax, and it was enacted because some genius rich guy in 1960 something started bragging about how he made a ton of money and paid absolutely nothing in federal income tax. Congress got wind of this and they passed the AMT which was targeted toward the rich to make sure they paid their fair share. The AMT was not adjusted for inflation over the years, so now it is hitting more and more people. My wife and I were hit with it this year, and if it wasn't for the temporary AMT patch that Congress passed in the 11th hour, we would have had to pay an additional $1,500 in taxes and we are far from rich. The AMT was geared to apply to people earning 6 figures back in the 1960's. Guess what, 6 figures was a heck of a lot more in the 1960's than it is today. Anyway, the patch they passed in late December 2007 only applies to the 2007 tax year because they have no idea how to recoup the lost revenue.

What do you tell the poor married couple with two kids making $30,000 a year right, barely getting by, but not having to pay any taxes because of the standard deduction, personal exemptions, and very low tax rate. According to my calculations, based upon the scenario above, and taking into account the child tax credit, the couple wouldn't have to pay anything in taxes until they exceeded $43,000 in income. What do you tell them when they have to pay $4,300 in federal taxes at a 10% tax rate? What do you tell them when they have to pay $6,450 at a 15% flat tax rate.

Everybody wants to cry about taxes, but it really isn't that bad right now. These are some of the best tax rates we have seen in quite a while, and EVERYBODY is enjoying them. Don't just tell me that the rich are enjoying them. By the way, I forgot to mention that in the above scenario, if the couple only makes $25,000, they get nearly $2,000 back from the government for the EIC, Earned Income Credit, and that is without them paying a single dollar in taxes. How do you break the flat tax news to them?

Being in the middle class and paying close to $15,000 in taxes, I'm all for a 10% flat tax because we would pay $3,000 less. Now, go break that flat tax to the rich and the poor. Something tells me that the rich won't mind it all that much. They probably wouldn't mind a 15% flat tax either. However, remember to keep this thing flat, with no deductions, credits, exemptions, etc. or other special treatment for anybody.

Yep, the flat tax sounds like a great idea until you really get down to it. The democrats talk about it, but do you really think they would pass a true flat tax. Their supporters would hang them.

I could go on for quite a while about the rest of this stuff, but you can just take a gander at my "The Senate is Killing Me" post. They cannot even get the economic stimulus bill passed without adding more pork to it. Do you really think they could get a flat tax passed? Now you are kidding yourself.

Social Security. Can you believe that the government is not earning a decent rate of return on the money put in that fund, because the money is actually being borrowed by the government itself. The SS trust fund is solvent, but it has no money in it because the US government has borrowed it all, and it doesn't pay much other than a minimal interest rate on it. If the money were invested by a decent fund manager, then social security would be able to stand a chance. Also, if a 3% increase were made to the FICA tax, the fund would be solvent well toward the end of this century. Now, try selling that 3% increase and a 10% flat tax to the poor.

Health care. I think I've said this before, but I'll say it again. The federal government cannot even administer Medicare and the state governments cannot even administer Medicaid, yet you want to put them in charge of the entire health care system. Yep, I see that being run just as well as social security. By the way, what would be the additional tax for this. We would just add that to the 3% hike for social security and the 10% flat tax. Do you think 5% could cover it. Okay, lets go with 5%. Now, go break it to the poor that they have to pay a flat tax of 18% so that we can make sure this county runs smoothly.

Does the 10% flat tax take care of the budget deficit and the national debt. Maybe we need a little more. So, tack on another 2%. Now, we have an even 20% flat tax. I'm sure the couple I mentioned above with two kids, making $25,000 a year, usually getting close to $2,000 in free money from the government each year will be jumping for joy knowing that instead of netting $27,000 a year because of the EIC, they will actually be netting $20,000, because 20% of $25,000 is $5,000 that they will have to fork over to Uncle Sam. Please, go tell them that, and make sure you tell them that we are putting this flat tax in place to make sure everybody pays their fair share, the rich included. If they own a gun, they will probably shoot you with it.

Everything sounds great in theory.

Jack

02-05-2008, 07:58 AM

Fabs, I agree that the flat tax idea is one of those simple things that sound great, but is unworkable.
Just for the record, I've never heard a Democratic party candidate advocate the flat tax- it's been raised in Republican primary races, to my knowledge. Steve Forbes made it a cornerstone of his campaign platform a few years back, and now Mike Huckabee's talking about it.
In my earlier post about the flat tax, the 17% and 33-34 % figure I quoted were only for federal income tax, not all the other local and state taxes we pay. Sorry I wasn't clear about that.

skeet

02-05-2008, 11:07 AM

Those points you were making is exactly what I was saying. The government can't even run to the bathroom in a straighteorward manner. I can't see them running anything else. All the flat rate thing and the health care thing sound good in theory. What PBR and others that support these ideas don't see is who will be paying for it. It won't be the rich or the poor..it'll be the guys in the middle just like themselves. Anyone who thinks the rich pay no taxes is foolish. Of course some get away with less some years...and then the next they pay more. The poor pay no taxes and in fact we help the poor along in this country with our taxes paid to the government. Those tax moneys are mismanaged(PBR and Tennessee both alluded to that...and then they want to give the government even more irresponsibly managed money to spend. Sheesh. I can't believe they would be so blind. Personally I would like to make a clean sweep of the whole executive branch or the government and start over with citizen legislators as it was meant to be. The aristocracy we have in place now is unresponsive to the needs of this country...but not to their own "needs". You know...the "need" to be re-elected:rolleyes: And then we have the non-thinking group such as PBR and TEM who want to elect people who will take more from them and give them less than they feel they deserve.

Oh and another little known fact.. In the countries where the govenment cares for you cradle to grave you MUSt be accepted in to most everything you want to do. Wanna go to college and get a degree?? Gotta take tests and beat out a certain amount of people to get a place in one of the universities. All that sounds good to some but again..where does the personal responsibility come into play??

Lilred

02-05-2008, 04:49 PM

I'd like to make a note on personal responsibility iffin I may...

I'm a FIRM believer in..."Iffin you made yer bed then sleep in it."
MY and YOUR money...are bailin the friggin idgits out of the hole they dug themselves. I aint rich...and I NEED my friggin money!
I wont stupid...I went with a mortage I could actually afford.
Not my problem.
How many folks do you see at Wally World sittin in the the motor wheelchair/cart thingy that really need it? How many times have you seen a old timer with a walker barely walkin round the wal-mart cause all the carts are took by some 20 yr old?
TOO many times. Same with welfare. God ferbid iffin I ever needed help, I'd never git it. Here's a concept...dont ask fer no dam help and git up off yer ass and go to work at mcDonalds er somthin. Really...how many trailers did the taxpayer buy fer Katrina "victims" and how many are still livin in the friggin things??

Democrats are pushin "fer the people....we're ALL about the people"...well...I'm sick of payin fer the "people" and I say that we are once again in 1776....taxation without representation.
Solutions...nobody, dem er pub will actually have the guts to do what needs to be done....cause there's too many Americans relyin on the government to bail em out of mortages, gittin a job and findin their own place to live where they actually have to pay fer it.

Dont git me wrong, people somtimes fall on hard times and need a lil help...I am more than willin to pay my fair share fer that...but...give an inch take a mile...and the mile done went to lightyears. Candidates can promise all they want...but they aint gonna do crap about it. That goes fer the illegals too.

At least that's how I see it.

skeet

02-05-2008, 05:56 PM

Whyncha tell us haow ya really feel. I feel the same way kiddo:D

Andy L

02-05-2008, 05:59 PM

Lil Red, I couldnt have said it better. :cool:

With the mortage thing, I know alot of folks that got caught, my mother included. A good democrat I might add. It didnt take a rocket scientist to see it coming. When you get a champagne house on a beer budget with a ARM or intrest only loan, when it comes time to pay the piper, your up shirts creek without a paddle.

I love my mother, but I told her it was a bad deal. Anyone that got caught in that mess, well, its not the governments fault and its damned sure not my fault and we shouldnt have to pay for it. Plain and simple. Ive made plenty of mistakes in my life and paid for every single one. Never got a penny from the government for anything and wont.

As for healthcare, get a damned job that has a group plan or at least one member of your household get one. Hell, thats the only reason my wife is working. She makes good money, but the main reason is so we have healthcare. Again, not rocket science. And damned sure not the government or my place to make sure you got free or cheap healthcare. If you want something get it from the lawyers pockets. They are the reason its so damned high to begin with. My wife works for a doctor and its a crying shame what people will hire an attorney and try to sue for to get something for nothing.

PBR, I can see you havent gone up any IQ numbers. Your too far gone to even discuss things with. However, guns are a big deal to some of us. Even the black guns that annoy you when your on the range.

Im done for now. :)

Lilred

02-05-2008, 08:03 PM

I do my best ;) :D

fabsroman

02-05-2008, 11:28 PM

Andy,

Good post, but of course I'm going to disagree with you about attorneys being the ONLY reason that health care costs have gone up. How about the drug companies spending $19 billion on advertising a couple of years ago? I don't know what the most recent numbers are, but I can guarantee you that I haven't seen any less commercials from the drug companies.

How about the sophistication of today's medicine. MRI, Cat Scans, X-Rays, brain surgery, etc. 100 years ago, if you got something like cancer you were SOL. Now, they can operate and do a million other things to try and save you. Guess what, those million things cost a bunch.

Yes, attorneys are approached by clients too often to sue over stupid stuff, but sometimes the lawsuits are actually for real. If something bad were to happen to you in a hospital because of a careless doctor or nurse, I'm sure you would want to be compensated too.

Now, I will admit that attorneys do drive up the cost of health care to a degree, but we aren't the only reason for it. I'm all for tort reform. Put a cap on pain and suffering and allow economic damages to the extent they are incurred. Plain and simple.

PJgunner

02-06-2008, 02:28 PM

Could this be the solution to the problem?
Paul B.

THE 545 PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR AMERICA

BY CHARLEY REESE

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits? Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does. You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does. You and I don't write the tax code. Congress does. You and I don't set fiscal policy. Congress does. You and I don't control monetary policy. The Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president and nine Supreme Court justices - 545 human beings out of the 300 million - are directly, legally, morally and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered but private central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman or a president to do one cotton- picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it.

No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.

A CONFIDENCE CONSPIRACY

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a SPEAKER, who stood up and criticized G.W. BUSH for creating deficits.

The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it. The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes.

Who is the speaker of the House? She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow Democrats, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto.

REPLACE THE SCOUNDRELS

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts - of incompetence and irresponsibility.

I can't think of a single domestic problem, from an unfair tax code to defense overruns that is not traceable directly to those 545 people.

When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair. If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red. If the Marines are in IRAQ, it's because they want them in IRAQ.

There are no insoluble government problems. Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power.

Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exist disembodied mystical forces like 'the economy,' 'inflation' or 'politics' that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible. They, and they alone, have the power. They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses - provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees. We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess.

Purebred Redneck

02-07-2008, 09:39 AM

PBR, I can see you havent gone up any IQ numbers. Your too far gone to even discuss things with. However, guns are a big deal to some of us. Even the black guns that annoy you when your on the range.

I can see you haven't gone up in IQ either.

It's funny, you're the only one who has been unreasonable to me both last year in a thread as well as now.

Everyone else has been very reasonable and respectfull.

Learn a little manners

Andy L

02-07-2008, 11:12 AM

Fabs,
I know lawyers arent totally responsible. I know some doctors that abuse the system as well. Still if the system wasnt abused, whether by patients, doctors or lawyers, there would still be plenty of room for research, ect... and healthcare would be more affordable.

PBR,
I have a hard time being civil to someone who supports socialistic views. I wont do it. If others want to tolerate you, thats their decision. Mine is to not.

You and others that think like you serve no other purpose than to undermine our way of life. You do this so you and others can have, without earning it, what others have worked hard for.

I remember your argument that someone annoyed you with an "assualt rifle" at a shooting range. That was your excuse for jumping on the "ban wagon". Your arguments dont hold water and its a typical democrat/socialist view. And people like you are going to be the death of the greatest country that has ever existed on the face of the planet.

No, I wont be civil.

skeet

02-07-2008, 03:21 PM

I guess I just have to say:D ...somebody annoyed me with an original assault weapon one time. Ya know..it was a rock. I even decided I would get me one of those assault weapons so I went out and dug up an assault rock that ya put on a stick. Indians used to call 'em tomahawks. I don't know whether PBR is a socialist or whatever...but to be honest. Maybe he just hasn't thought the whole process through. Then again maybe he has. I really don't know so I ain't accusing anybody of anything. But you are correct. Socialists and communists are going to be the death of this FREE country. The people who exist and breed while living on the teat of this country should actually have no say in the running of it. It used to be that the only ones who could vote in this country were what they called free men and landholders. Not advocating slavery understand...but I do advocate the idea that if you do not have an earned income..you shouldn't be able to vote. The people that earn an income are the ones paying for the ones not working. If they(the ones not working) have the vote then they can perpetuate a system that gives to the non working to the detriment of the ones that do. I would ask PBR what he feels about that idea. Just to tell ya something. There aren't all that many people here in Wyoming. The unemployment rate is supposedly just under 2%... and as someone told me those are the ones who just don't want to work or the few who can't physically work. Pay is not high here but the living is just as expensive. People live here for the freedom that they have compared to many states farther east(and west). Now I know there are many places where the unemployment rate is much higher. Also a question for PBR... do you feel that people that are on either welfare or unemployment should do some kind of work for the common good if they receive government handouts...if they are able to work?? Even FDR had the CCC and other programs that did much for the common good. My father worked for the CCC way back when. Of course that was when people really wanted to pay their own way. And a final question for PBR ..what allows you to keep the freedoms you have always enjoyed in this country..ie. is there any specific amendment to the constitution that has always guaranteed that freedom? And another question for anyone ..should we seal our southern borders and deport all illegals from this country? I ask this just for my general knowledge.

Oh and Andy...you know that attorneys are the single biggest problem we have in this country. Don't quibble with Fabs...just cause he is a good guy even if he is an attorney!!!:D :D Oh...wait a minute. Maybe i was wrong. I'll quibble a bit too. Ya know...he might just sue me if I ain't careful:confused: :eek: :D

Andy L

02-07-2008, 04:09 PM

Just dont paint your rock black, Skeet. Some liberal bozo will wet their panites and they will have to get Pelosi and company to ban black rocks. :rolleyes: :D

Oh, and stay away from semi auto rocks. Obama says hes going to ban them. Make sure you have a bolt action or single shot rock. Those cant harm people. Those evil black semi auto rocks are good for nothing and a danger to society.

See how ignorant the liberal cry sounds when you replace one word? :rolleyes:

Aim to maim

02-07-2008, 06:27 PM

Originally posted by skeet
...It used to be that the only ones who could vote in this country were what they called free men and landholders. Not advocating slavery understand...but I do advocate the idea that if you do not have an earned income..you shouldn't be able to vote. The people that earn an income are the ones paying for the ones not working. If they(the ones not working) have the vote then they can perpetuate a system that gives to the non working to the detriment of the ones that do...

Amen and preach on. I'll probably be flamed for saying it, but the whole concept of "universal suffrage" will lead to the eventual downfall of any form of representative government.

Andy L

02-07-2008, 06:57 PM

I agree. If you dont have a stake in things and contribute, then your a leech on society. Why should leeches be making any decisions?

Voting age needs to be looked at too. What the hell do 18-22 yr olds know about how the world works? All they know is what a bunch of liberal teachers and professors have washed their brains with. Thats a big problem this time around. There is a huge movement of liberal youths shouting for change. If you sat them down alone, dollars to doughnuts not a damn one could say what or why they acutally want something changed.

I live in rural Missouri. This is a heavy republican county. Farming and ranching are the main source of income. Farm and ranch life and activities are the norm. All this said, I cannot believe what the teachers tell our kids. They are almost all extreme left wing. Anti gun, anti hunting, social healthcare, ect... you name a secular progressive movement and they are for it. If its that bad here, I cant imagine what the bigger cities are going through with these clowns. Im not real sure I want my kids taught in a college that teaches this manure either.

Im glad my kids pay enough attention to see through it and even have a little fun at the clowns expense at times.

Purebred Redneck

02-07-2008, 06:57 PM

Thank you skeet, I'll try to address all of your questions

The idea of socialism is not feeding off of someone else. It's an economic principle that provides a more equal distribution of wealth and it provides incentives for the lower class to pull their weight more. I'm by no means calling for a soviet union style of government where everyone lives in a white house of the exact same design. That's ridiculas.
I would create a "living wage" for those who work full time. You know, ditch diggers and fast food workers benifit everyone and I think their hard work (regardless of those people's past) deserve more than 6 dollars an hour. Likewise, I don't think someone who has a luxury office and plays golf all day deserves 50 million dollars. I would want to put a cap on salary. And you know what, when you have more money than God, you're not going to miss a couple million.
Even Warren Buffett thinks the rich needs to pay more taxes.

If you look at primitve tribes in the middle east, africa, or the amazon - there is a equal distribution of wealth. Sure, there is a hierarchy. However, everyone from a high priest to a berry picker is highly valued. That's what we need here - everyone needs to be appreciated for their contribution to society. In turn, individuals have a higher self worth, low crime, etc.

Well this is a democracy (ok, a democratic republic...) and the people decide through their reps what direction and laws they want passed. And the government is designed to move slow to make sure laws are not passed too quickly without a lot of thought.
But with a majority rule (specifically the law making process), I think the people can make whatever laws or changes they wish (with some exceptions). If the working class is feeling financial pressure, with enough votes in congress they can somewhat alter the burden. Likewise, it works the opposite way. The republicans were able to get enough votes to pass the bush tax cut in favor of the rich. That's just the way things work with a 2 party system --- you win some, you lose some. Quick changes are pretty minor and large ones are a long time comming (national health care for example).

Welfare
When union workers get laid off, many times they have to go to the union hall and wait for charity work to be assigned to them. I would like to see something like this for welfare recipiants - whether it be at varouis locations in cities or towns, county seats, etc. I would like to see reform in the job search requirements. Jobs are out there - they might suck - but they are out there. And that is why I think a living wage and a more equal distribution of wealth will help. When you feel positive about the job you're doing and you can make living off it - your situation appears in a different light. There's no factory workers that like their jobs - but it gives their family what they need (or at least it used to).

The constitution actually is a pretty meaningless document when you consider that ammendments can be ammended. Now don't all jump me - because I'm not bashing the constitution (I'm sure it will still be interpreted that way). It's symbolic factor is very high and it does represent the current laws. The fact is that the constitution and amendments can be changed - Prohibition for example. The fact is it's easier to pass laws in other ways - and that's what happens today though --- Abortion for example. Some states have a amendment stating their constituation can not be ammended. To my knowledge, the US does not. Therefore there is really nothing concrete about the federal law.
Think about that for a minute - whether you agree with me or not.

Have a good night

BILLY D.

02-07-2008, 07:15 PM

Well it appears the Republican race for Prez is over untill 2011. Unless there is a miracle at the convention, McGrumpy will get his fanny handed to him in November.

I'll be voting independant. He just turns me off totally. The only thing he has going for him as far as I'm concerned is his Vietnam Service.

Bill

Andy L

02-07-2008, 07:22 PM

In a nutshell, I hit it on the noggin right off the bat. Your just like the other clowns, PBR. You want your cut to be the same as everyone elses without having to work for it.

So, if someone goes to school for 20+ yrs of their life, takes the risk of opening a business and is successful, there should be a cap on how much money they can make so some worthless POS that partied the first 25+ yrs of their life can sober up and get a sizeable cut. Thats exactly what your saying. Not?

The USA was founded on hard work and self reliance. Not suckingn off the government teat and relying on others that work harder and are smarter than yourself.

Get a life.

Andy L

02-07-2008, 07:24 PM

I'll be voting independant

Thats exactly why the republicans will lose this time. There are enough of the right wing that do stupid stuff like this to hand it to the commies.

I dont like McCain very well myself. But hes a damned sight better than the alternative, no matter which one it is. Voting independent is nothing more than tossing your vote in the trash. You might as well save the gas money and stay home.

BILLY D.

02-07-2008, 07:55 PM

Originally posted by Andy L
Thats exactly why the republicans will lose this time. There are enough of the right wing that do stupid stuff like this to hand it to the commies.

I dont like McCain very well myself. But hes a damned sight better than the alternative, no matter which one it is. Voting independent is nothing more than tossing your vote in the trash. You might as well save the gas money and stay home.

Well now, help me pick a trash pile. Should I choose the Hitlery/Osamama trash pile, The Mcain trash pile or the possible Paul or whoever trash pile?

No way in HE!! I'd vote for the first option. I don't like the second a whole lot more, he's anti against everything I'm for.

I have voted in every election since 1960 and theres no way that I will not vote. Do we still have write ins? I've never done that.

I don't have to worry about gas expence. I live a block and a half from a precinct. :(

Bill

skeet

02-07-2008, 09:45 PM

I hate to just agree with the bluntness of Andy but he hit it on the head. You are talking redistribution of wealth. Hate to say it but That is not socialism at all. That is basically communism. I agree that the somewhat primitive tribes in those locales do share and share alike although you really didn't go far enough looking at them. They do that mainly for one reason..survival as a group. Also another thing you don't state although i am sure you know it but everyone works that can work. Even the ones who cannot do much still contribute what they can. I don't mind helping those who are unable to work..but giving the able even a living "wage" for doing nothing goes against the grain. I feel anyone who tries to make something of themselves by going to school and learning something to make a better living should NOT have his income taxed to take care of thos who don't even try. Evidently you have a business of your own..If you have an employee do you share the profits of the business with him equally? Even if he doesn't work as hard as you? I doubt it but if you do I commend you. If not then I feel I. should say this..according to your statements you are saying you should. As you didn't answer the question about welfare trying to confuse the issue by talking of a living wage I would still like to see your feelings on that. Should people that are able to work be made to work on projects for the common good to earn their welfare? Now when it comes to the Constitution the Bill of Rights are inviolable in my opinion. The liberals pass laws to get around them but that is our fault for not watching who we elect. Why should we have to give up rights just because people think it is best for us? Now do you feel that people who contribute nothing and just live off the dole (the ones able to work) should be able to vote? If so tell me why. Please don't confuse this issue with living wage ideas etc. I don't feel that a living wage for everyone is the same amount. I also don't think you do although you seem to want to do as Robin Hood did and take from the rich and give to the poor. Possibly a commendable idea given the circumstances of that story. But is that the scenario we are living in this country? I really don't think so

Lilred

02-08-2008, 07:00 AM

And another question for anyone ..should we seal our southern borders and deport all illegals from this country? I ask this just for my general knowledge.

The answer is yes, skeet. I dont care iffin it cost the US and it's taxpayers 5 mill week to operate, I'm sure it's very close if not cheaper than what we pay fer illegals now and it's simply the GP of the whole thing that's worth every dollar spent. (GP= general principle)

I also believe that people on welfare should not have the right to vote, however, many people these days vote fer their own lil agendas that dont mean crap. Like women votin fer Hillary, cause she's a woman. :rolleyes:
The best way to git people on welfare to git offa welfare is just to take away the dam check...lol Helluva lt cheaper too.
I also think the votin age should be raised..2 er 3 generations ago, when you turned 18...you actually acted like a man instead of it just bein a legal age. That time has come and gone and I see folks in their 20's actin like teenagers with no sense of direction.
Hell, my bro in law is 30 and all he does is sit around and play video games livin offa my sisters money.

I think I'm gonna join the army, take out some of my aggressions on some terroist somewhere in Arabville lol

fabsroman

02-08-2008, 09:52 AM

There has to be a middle ground for immigration. We cannot just seal up the southern border and deport every illegal immigrant out there. First, both are monumental tasks. So, why not start by allowing the illegal immigrants to become legal. I'm not talking about all of them, but how about the ones that contribute to society? How about the ones that have not committed any felonies in this country? I know a couple of them that are here working on expired green cards, and what is really surprising is that they actually pay their taxes. How about we charge them a "back tax" to become legal, and then we go from there.

Then, we require law enforcement to crack down on the rest of the illegals. Most criminals will get caught again. So, how about requiring local law enforcement to communicate with INS. In the county I live in, it is local law enforcement's policy not to look into whether or not somebody taken into custody is an illegal immigrant. Heck, I know a guy that has been arrested twice, once for a DUI and another time for driving without a license, and after both trials they let him loose even though he is illegal.

I have a better idea, how about keeping all the hard working, law abiding illegals here and shipping the welfare recipients and criminally motivated illegals to South America. We can take care of two problems using an express lane.

skeet

02-08-2008, 11:05 AM

I am going to ask you too . What part of illegal isn't understandable? I have no problem with immigration but the illegal part is a real problem. Those people broke our laws to come here. It really doesn't matter if they are contributing or not. He!! a drug dealer could argue that he contributes to society. In fact a lot of the illegal Mexicans came here with the tacit approval of their government. They send an awful lot of money back to Mexico to the detriment of our country while bringing in moneys that help the Mexican economy. Why do you think Mexico's Fox wrote the manual on how to come across to this country? There have been wars fought over less my friends. This is for all intents and purposes an invasion approved by the Mexican government. You think what I say is extreme?? Seriously think about it. Those illegals are in some cases a real drag on our economy. I also saw the illegals in Md get turned loose after being repeatedly caught driving without a license, uninsured and illegally tagged vehicles. You would have been jailed for the same infractions. We cannot afford the illegals any longer no matter what work they do. PBR even in what I consider convoluted thinking is right about a living wage....and illegals just make it easier for companies to not have to pay a living wage. I still say seal the border and collect up all the illegals and send them back to where they came...or even better seal the border and put them all on the other side and let Mexico have to deal with them. That country helped them get here in some cases.:mad: And yes, that does make me mad. It should do the same for y'all, too! I have compassion for those people...but I have more for the people that are citizens of this country...especially the ones who came here LEGALLY!

Middle ground?? I feel we passed the middle ground long ago!

Purebred Redneck

02-08-2008, 11:48 AM

Originally posted by Andy L
In a nutshell, I hit it on the noggin right off the bat. Your just like the other clowns, PBR. You want your cut to be the same as everyone elses without having to work for it [...]
Get a life.

I don't know if you can't read or if you choose to read what you want to.

Never once did I say anything about feeding off the government, not working hard --- but you knew that.

It's hatefull, closeminded people like you that drove dozens of people off this fine site over the years. Anyone not exactly like you is dead wrong - democrats, moderate republicans, independants, apoliticals, or those that just don't want to read hatefull retoric
What a way to go through life.

As far as immigration goes, we absolutly need to take care of the problem as soon as we can.
1. A wall is not needed. The fact is that US employers knowingly hiring illegals is the problem. The crackdown needs to start there. Without jobs, there is no reason for illegals to be here. So I think we need to audit all the registered businesses in the US and look for employment verification. If we catch illegals while at work, we deport them. Likely, they will jump ship at the news and be back in mexico long before that happens. From then on, we fine the holy hell out of employers who engage in this activity when the government does yearly verification audits. And if the employers are repeat offenders, the government force closes their business and they are never allowed to open one in the US again.
That will be the end of the immigration problem.
As John McCain said a month ago in Michigan I believe, "We can't bring back the lost jobs, but we can create new ones".
And that might be what is best. We may have to chalk up the losses to mexico and china.

I'm all for small business - I think that's wonderfull. However, when a small business in the US has to send work to mexico for 5 dollars a day to make a profit, then they have no business being in business. It's better to merge companies or close up shop and work for someone else. Not all businesses can succeed and certain sectors need the benifits and stability of the numbers game that corporations provide.
To paraphrase Donald Trump, "There's not a thing wrong with working for someone else, raising a beautiful family, and retiring comfortably."

fabsroman

02-08-2008, 12:46 PM

PBR,

They are getting tougher on employees, but they just aren't enforcing it enough. Honestly, I think the IRS and INS should get tougher.

Way too many people cheat on their tax returns, which really kills me. The IRS should audit anybody that keeps switching tax return preparers. I cannot tell you how many people shop around for preparers that are willing to take inappropriate deductions. With a tax gap of $240 billion, they should really work on being the nasty IRS of the 1980's and not the newer, friendlier IRS of the 2000's. That is also changing, but not as quickly as I would like.

Regarding illegal immigrants, I agree with you completely. If penalties were actually enforced against employers, this entire subject would be a moot point. The current penalty is $25,000 per illegal employee, and the IRS and state audit teams are linking their data together whenever they find a violation. A way that employers try to get around this problem is by hiring illegals as independent contractors. Then, withholding doesn't have to be done until the 3rd year the employee works for them. Essentially, an IRS notice is sent to the employer the first year the "independent contractor's" tax ID information does not match SSA and/or IRS records. To prevent withholding, the "independent contractor" merely has to sign a SS-9 form. After the 2nd 1099 does not match SSA and/or IRS records within a 3 year period, the "independent contractor" must get a certified form from SSA regarding his tax ID number or the employer is required to do backup withholding. At that point, the employer could merely give the "independent contractor" a 28% raise and everything would remain status quo for the employee.

There should be a special task force that looks for these trends in businesses and then does a surprise raid and/or an audit of the worker's status to determine if they were improperly classified as an independent contractor instead of as an employee.

By the way, the fine for employee somebody that is illegal is $25,000.

Oh yeah, an employer can also register with the SSA so that they can look up the validity of tax ID numbers. Guess how many willingly do that. There really is no excuse for employers hiring illegals, so I say enforce and fine away. Maybe a couple of businesses need to be put out of business to get the message across.

The next problem is how do we catch businesses that pay illegals with cash? That might be a little tougher.

Purebred Redneck

02-08-2008, 01:15 PM

Originally posted by fabsroman

The next problem is how do we catch businesses that pay illegals with cash? That might be a little tougher.

Oh that's going to be incredibly difficult and expensive because someone would have to do a complete audit on the company. Then when money comes up missing, the gov would have to prove it went to illegals. Very very difficult.

Any leads would have to come from within (whistleblowers) and then it might be doable when the feds go waltzing through the front door one day after a long investigation. But you're walking a fine line of harrassment and discrimination - particularlly if an employee hates minorities and thinks they all work there illegally and he keeps calling the gov.

That's going to be tough

But yes, we need strict enforcement of the law

Oh and the tax writeoffs are ridiculas. Mortgage interest, children, IRA, education, etc are fine worthwhile writeoffs.
But when you have millionares declaring less than 10,000 dollars in taxable income (someone like K Fed that was in the news a couple months ago), something has to change.

PJgunner

02-08-2008, 01:57 PM

PBR said, "As far as immigration goes, we absolutly need to take care of the problem as soon as we can.
1. A wall is not needed. The fact is that US employers knowingly hiring illegals is the problem. The crackdown needs to start there. Without jobs, there is no reason for illegals to be here. So I think we need to audit all the registered businesses in the US and look for employment verification. If we catch illegals while at work, we deport them. Likely, they will jump ship at the news and be back in mexico long before that happens. From then on, we fine the holy hell out of employers who engage in this activity when the government does yearly verification audits. And if the employers are repeat offenders, the government force closes their business and they are never allowed to open one in the US again.
That will be the end of the immigration problem.
As John McCain said a month ago in Michigan I believe, "We can't bring back the lost jobs, but we can create new ones".
And that might be what is best. We may have to chalk up the losses to mexico and china."

FINALLY! Something we can agree on. Arizona passed a law which went into effect January 1, 2008 which basically sez, "If you hire an illegal alien and afre cought, your business license is suspended for ten (10) days. If you comit a second offense, your license is permanently revoked."
The end result of this legislation is the departure of thousands of illegal aliens either to other states or back to Mexico. And yes, AZ is enforcing that law.
You don't need a federal law to get rid of them. Just have all the states pass similar legislation and enforce it.So far, it's working for us.

Paul B.

billy ahring

02-12-2008, 10:09 PM

I wish I felt better about our government, but I don't and I don't feel that I'm in the minority on this. I voted for G W Bush and honestly I feel swindled. I'm ready for a change in President but I am not having good feelings about any candidate out there. I remember what my grandpa used to say about politics. " You can send an honest man to Washington, but he won't come back honest. No truer words have ever been spoken.

I fervently supported Bush up until the last 18 months or so and now I feel he has been an ineffectual buffoon of a president.. I fear he may go down in history as the WORST leader of this country ever. He has opened a can of worms that will have repercusions for no telling how long. One thing however will be certain, no child of G W Bush will be serving this country militarily and that you can take to the bank.

I even bristle at the thought of his "tax rebate" to spur the downward spiralling economy. I would gladly forfeit mine if some government official what have the cajones to stand up to big oil and say all right Mother Fers no more gouging the American public. You will charge a fair price for your product and nothing more. These god d!#n oil companies plead poverty and record record profits quarter after quarter.

Big oil runs this country and we as citizens can whine and complain all we want but in the end we have to roll over and take it like the weenies we are. You wanna go to work? Your gonna have to pump some gas and get raped in the process.

Makes my blood boil. Sorry for the rant but I've lost faith in my government

fabsroman

02-13-2008, 02:23 AM

Billy,

I think the oil companies should be investigated for price fixing, but otherwise, I think they should be able to set whatever price they want. With competition, they shouldn't be able to price gouge. Something tells me that there is some price fixing going on.

Telling the oil companies what they can charge is just like communism. Next, we'll be telling the doctors, attorneys, CPA, construction contractors, plumbers, etc. what they can charge.

If you don't want to drive too far to work, move closer. Problem is that most people bought their nice house with a nice yard over an hour away from work because they couldn't afford the same thing in the city. I had a client move over an hour away from work because he could get a house for 1/4 to 1/5 of what the same house cost by his work. At first, everything was fine. Then, he started complaining that the hour drive was getting longer and longer because the traffic was getting worse. Everybody had the same idea he had. So instead of spending 2 hours on the road, he was spending 4+ a day on the road. Because he was always late, he was always speeding. He got a ton of tickets, lost his license, got busted twice for driving with a suspended license, was sentenced to a month in jail, and lost his job.

I work from home, but my wife is currently driving 40 minutes each way to the job she just started 5 months ago, which is less than the hour plus she used to drive each way before that. We are looking to buy a house now, and we will be buying it in a more expensive area, closer to her work, just so she can cut down on her drive time, the mileage on the car, and the gas bill. I'll also be closer to my parents so they can help with baby sitting. It will probably cost us $100K more than buying it further away, but it will be worth it over 30 years.

Everybody wants the big house and the big yard for cheap. The thing is, the price paid for the house remains the same over 30+ years. The price of gas, cars, and vehicle service escalates.

High gas prices also helps prevent pollution because less people are willing to drive around just for the heck of it.

I could really get started on the number of trucks and SUV's that I see with a single person in them, but that would be a long tirade too. I figured out that at today's gas prices, it would probably be cheaper for a person to buy a second small car like a Ford Focus that gets 35 miles to the gallon, versus driving a truck or SUV that gets 15 or less miles to the gallon. At $3 per gallon and driving 15,000 miles a year, the gas savings between the two is $1,800. In 8 years or 120,000 miles, the Ford Focus will have paid for itself, not to mention the fact that the more expensive truck/SUV wouldn't be destroyed being driven on miles that its size/towing/hauling capacity are not needed on.

As you can probably tell, I'm not very sympathetic toward people crying over the price of gas. Those are usually the same people that have bought houses on the farms that I used to hunt on.

DogYeller

02-13-2008, 09:32 AM

You guys act like Oil and Gasoline belongs to you. You haven’t done any thing to find an oil producing area or lease the right to drill or invest your money in a venture that might produce oil. You don’t build oil storage facilities or provide infrastructure to support oil production. You don’t produce, you don’t refine, you don’t transport you probably don’t even invest. You don’t even understand how that gasoline in your tank got there. But let the price of gasoline go up 10 cents and it’s the fault of the people who do. It’s been a long time since the major oil producers had any thing to do with the pricing of a Bbl of oil.

skeeter@ccia.com

02-13-2008, 12:36 PM

Hey dog if the big companies have nothing to do with fixing the prices then explain this to me. Back in the late 70's when my brothers private owned station could not buy any gas, he was forced to close his doors. ...Due to lack of gasoline for sale to private owners..the little guy. Boron at that time bought his station from him and used his tanks to store their gasoline..yes filled them all up with excess gasoline. ... All this while we were sitting in a line because of a gasoline shortage????????..They closed every little guy around here. Now the last private owned station just closed this fall. It had came up for sale and the person that was leasing it at the time could not buy it. He wanted to but they demanded a Million dollar tank change. (just did that when he took over about 5 yrs ago) also demanded he post a million dollar fee of some sort to cover any future problems he might have and all this on top of the asking price of property. A large company now owns the property. The little guy moved out....is still closed.

skeet

02-13-2008, 01:11 PM

Telling the companies what they can charge is like communism. There is a little fly in the ointment though. The price of gasoline or whatever is set by the marketplace. They will continue to raise the price because the marketplace needs the gasoline. Remember the gasoline price wars. That was ehn the companies were in competition with each other. Now they seem to have the prices somewhat fixed with each other. Hate to even make the suggestion that we put a cap on the profit that a private company can make but that is what it seems may be necessary. personally I feel the big oil companies are in collusion with each other rather than competition. I also remember the 70's with the gas rationing etc. There wer oil tankers sitting in the Chesapeake bay loaded with oil. Pretty easy to tell if you've ever been on the water. They sat there for weeks with their loads of oil because there was not enough storage capacity on shore. Oil shortage??? I know better..Price gouging?? False shortage?? Yep. But in and of themselves..not illegal. Immoral I am sure...but not illegal. And as far as any party in the presidency I can guarantee ya that the big oil companies are not going to be bothered in the least.

Now quoting Fabs post. "I had a client move over an hour away from work because he could get a house for 1/4 to 1/5 of what the same house cost by his work. At first, everything was fine. Then, he started complaining that the hour drive was getting longer and longer because the traffic was getting worse. Everybody had the same idea he had. So instead of spending 2 hours on the road, he was spending 4+ a day on the road. Because he was always late, he was always speeding. He got a ton of tickets, lost his license, got busted twice for driving with a suspended license, was sentenced to a month in jail, and lost his job."

Well Fabs it was no ones fault but his own. He had to have known he had to go to work. All he had to do was leave a little earlier. He could have gotten to his job in a fair amount of time and without the tickets. He like a lot of others just wanted his cake and to be able to eat it too. I lived an hour...no let me rephrase that..60 miles from work. Drove it for 29 yrs and got no tickets and was always on time for work...even driving in snow fog and hurricanes. Soem of the people that lived 10 minutes from work were quite often late. Matter of responsibility my friend!
:D

fabsroman

02-13-2008, 03:00 PM

Skeet,

I don't disagree that it is a matter of responsibility. I'm just trying to show how these people want their cake and they want to eat it too. They want to live in a nice big home on a couple of acres, but they want it cheap, they want to drive a big SUV, but they want the gas for it to be cheap. They want to live an hour away from work and they don't want any traffic. Then, after they make their decisions and market circumstances change, they complain. Of course, I didn't hear him complainting when he miore than doubled his money when he sold his house in western Maryland and moved to Arizona.

As far as the oil companies are concerned, if they aren't price fixing, I say leave them alone. If they are price fixing, I say nail them to the wall. By the way, collusion in the market place by price fixing is illegal.

skeet

02-13-2008, 03:55 PM

I know collusion with price fixing is illegal.. I just mean there is no way to prove such a thing. If it were done there would be nothing on paper or on tape so it would go like this. Another attorney to Fabs. "Hey bud..lets fix the price of a no fault divorce at 500 bucks" Fabs says ok..ad nauseum to all the other attorneys ergo..the price is 500 bucks and nothing on paper to prove it. Is there anything to say they did it? Of course not. Oh one guy might get pissed off and say it happened..but there is nothing but heresay to "prove" it. And you and I both know that heresay ain't admissible.

Now as far as BIG OIL you and I both know what happened to Standard Oil many years ago. Now there are companies buying other companies and the government doesn't stop it. The oil companies are making beaucoup amounts of francs bucks Euros pesos etc. Record amounts. If they are making record amounts it isn't because of our fuel appetites alone. They are making much larger percentages of profits and now that the independant stations are mostly gone they can pretty much set their own prices. Not saying that the people themselves can't do something to make prices drop(just quit buying) but you know it ain't gonna happen in the ME generation. People are too into what they can get..have ...keep... before the other guy rather than the qualitiy of their lives. And it seems at the same time I keep seeing people that are perpetually unhappy ...and blaming how they feel on someone else.:rolleyes: Always saying..it ain't MY fault....Yeah, sure...it ain't their fault!:rolleyes:

fabsroman

02-13-2008, 05:41 PM

What most people don't understand is what hearsay actually is. Hearsay is getting up on the stand and saying "Johnny told me, that Jim told him that there was price fixing going on." Hearsay is not "I made an agreement with Jim to fix prices."

So, if somebody were to come forward to testify regarding price fixing, it would be admissible if he were privy to the negotiations. Then, it would come down to the he said, she said part of the matter. Kind of like Clemens and his trainer about all this steroid/HGH BS. Like Congress has nothing better to do than to hold hearings on this BS. At least they passed the economic stimulus plan before they had this hearing.

As far as people buying gas is concerned, I know that a lot of people think about it. They have to. When they cannot afford their house payment, they have to start squeezing things, and it might eventually mean that they get rid of the SUV for a more economical vehicle. Time will tell how everything plays out with my generation.

Valigator

02-14-2008, 10:08 PM

I can tell you Huckabee is my family name....and he is family...think my vote has been cast...

Andy L

02-15-2008, 10:04 AM

I havent done any research in a couple years, but I would bet its close to the same. A couple years ago when people first started screaming about big oil making big bucks while gas went up, Mobil was working on about a 10% (plus or minus a little) profit margin. There are not many business's in the country that operate on that small of a margin. They cant. That is not an excessive amount.

Whats driving the gas price is demand, for the most part. Gas obviously isnt too high. As mentioned before, there are plenty of SUVs and big cars on the road. People are still going on vacation and travelling. When gas gets too high, you wont see those things.

Personally, I have limited my driving as much as possible. And we have gotten a gas saver car for road trips for business that saves alot. Other than that, its business as usual.

Dont blame people for making money. Especially when they arent being excessive in the first place.

M.T. Pockets

02-15-2008, 12:32 PM

It seems one party is still up in the air, while the other has it's candidate pretty well chosen.

Now, who do you think the VP choices will be for each party ??

For the Democrats, do you think the stage is big enough for BOTH Obama & Clinton ? and would either one want 2nd billing ? I think Obama would sit it out and run for the big office in '12. Hillary will take any grasp at power she can get.

On the Republican side I think this is what is keeping Huckabee in the race. Nothing wrong with that. Romney is being awful nice, so he might be looking for a place behind the Pres. during the State of the Union speeches too. Another dark horse is McCain's campaign co-chair. Gov. Pawlenty from MN.

I think it's funny how people are starting now to endorse candidates in both parties. That's kind of like picking your favorite team when they've clinched the division. If you're going to want your endorsement to mean anything have the guts to do it before the first primary shows which direction the political winds are blowing.

Anyways, what does the VP selection look like to everyone here ?

skeeter@ccia.com

02-20-2008, 10:11 PM

MT, I think my tv here only shows Clinton / Obama. There is no mention of any other candidates anywhere. I feel they are trying that brain wash think...people will only remember those 2 names at the vote booth.....Guess have to see who pulls ahead in the C/O race....I hate McCain but has to be better than any of the other 2. Now I hate to say it but I think Kennedy will end up on someones VP list. Obama. This can work 2 ways. Enough people don't like Kennedy and wont vote for Obama just because of that and it will cost him....or the Kennedy plan is this. Since he never stood a chance to be Pres himself, this will be his way in office because if Obama gets elected, he won't last long....sad to say but that is my feelings...First I don't trust Kennedy...the rest is history....and I think Kennedy will have his chance to be Pres. Then again we need someone maybe that has not had their hands in the till like Clinkton or Kennedy and Obama will be good for us for a change....Is going to be a scarry election....
Back when Gore was running. He visited Pittsburgh Pa at the same weekend the Lewis / Clark expedition that was tracing their path was to stop and land in Pittsburgh....They were not able to land on the point because they had 'guns'....what, black powder ones?....Gore was afraid maybe they shoot his plane down or something?...That went over big here. But a bit of true history.

skeeter@ccia.com

02-21-2008, 12:09 AM

Telling the companies what they can charge is like communism

Telling the oil companies what they can charge is just like communism. Next, we'll be telling the doctors, attorneys, CPA, construction contractors, plumbers, etc. what they can charge.

You guys act like Oil and Gasoline belongs to you. You haven’t done any thing to find an oil producing area or lease the right to drill or invest your money in a venture that might produce oil.

I have something to say about the first 2 lines here that have been stated in past posts...Too late for that...first of all Fabs, isn't the cost of a gallon of milk produced by the farmer government regulated? The gov says what a farmer can plant, sell and how much he can sell it for...isn't the farm a private industry? How come nothing has been said about the gov telling the private farm industry what to do but we worry about everybody else...farmer makes 5 cents a gallon on milk but it costs us almost $4 gal with the lowest gov price..oh and Fabs that farm for sale here is now 560g....and that covers the second line by Dog... the 3rd line I can say I do get a check from oil companies that own the lease on a farm in WVA for oil drilling. They just won't drill for oil...it is there...it even floats on top of the water there...they just won't drill....so guess at least I did something to venture into the production...EPA has something to do with holding up drilling.

skeet

02-21-2008, 12:51 AM

Some of what you say is true...but the government doesn't set the price on most things the farmer produces.. They do tell ya what you can and can't plant but only if you take government subsidies such as CRP. As far as milk it is the same thing. If you are in governmet price support programs then they control the price of milk. If you as a producer want to stay in an open market program then the price is not fixed...or guaranteed. Now if ya want to go that far then any oil produced on governmet leases maybe should be price controlled. How would you control the price? Just say we won't let them sell it for more than 50 bucks a bbl and it can only be sold here in the US? As a farmer I sold my crops for the going prices...planted what i wanted and took the chances on the yield and final price. I didn't take subsidies but many farmers do...but they can buy out of those price contracts if they can see they can make more profit on their own. Hate to say it but you aren't comparing apples with apples. I am sure there are many other things you can think of though. Gummit controlled the steel industry for a while and ergo...no steel industry now. All they want to talk of now is a "global" economy...and look at the value of a dollar now...after globalization;) Oh BTW I do have an oil well here on the property...and I don't even own it...maybe a part but not the whole thing. You are right though...the EPA can be a pain in our A$$ or a pain in theirs

skeeter@ccia.com

03-06-2008, 08:29 AM

Tobacco is another private industry that has the lowest prices let by the Gov. A friend of mine and all his brothers were big big dairy cow farmers. Not a one of them got their farms through Gov loans but they were still held by rules that only milk cow farmers or gov loan farmers had to live by. Like only plant this many acres of corn etc etc.. They would just walk onto their farms with white hardhats and tell them when they were asked what they were doing on the farm to shut up or they would call in their farm loans. Well they got kicked off the land and the dairy cows were all sold. Now they do beef. Now they have no ties to the gov / farm thing. They are still big big farm people.
People say we should sell off our SUV or trucks and ride in one of those sardine cans but not all of us use our vehicles for a ride to work. Some of us use our vehicles in our line of work. Sure they use a little more gallons but that isn't the only reason oil costs $105 a gallon. Try packing a toolbox in the back seat of a hybrid next to the family. Our dollar that use to buy a barrel of oil isn't worth a dollar anymore..what is it worth now? Maybe 50 cents on the market? Now we need 2x the 50 cents to keep up with what the yen sells for. Our buck isn't a buck anymore...This is just one reason for the high oil cost. Different rules in different states on emissions set by the EPA etc etc etc...helps drive the cost at the pumps too...taxes at the pump?..What happened to the 40 cent a gallon they were talking about? Needed to pave roads. I seen them dump over $10000 worth of asphalt over a hill due the lack of one degree in temp. Gov waste at it's finest. We have to start watching out for that and get something done about it. Waste. Gov waste.