Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Watch, the fed will end up taxing one item, multiple times. Each time it changes hands it will have a sales tax. The states will have to still get their sales tax, too.
That is why VAT won't work. Federal & a State sales tax.
The Fed alone will have to charge a 22% VAT to put a slow dent in the deficit.
The states will need more to supplement what the fed has placed on them, so State tax will have to increase its sales tax, to keep up with the burden the Fed has placed on them.
With VAT, do you think they will abolish income tax? Your dreaming!
I assume you are referring to the "damage" caused by George W Bush.
No, not Bush in particular, but Republican 'conservatives' who had control of Congress since early 1990s and into 2007. Yes, dems are as guilty as the republicans, but I wonder why conservatives keep voting for the kind of people who created this mess in the first place.
But I am glad you said what you said, because it exposed you as just another partisan poster trying to blame one party and promote the other.
The Saudi's were another problem and indeed part of it. Most of the hijackers were indeed Saudi's. The attacks were however based out of Afghanistan, but we should have put more pressure on the Saudi's right from the start, which we did not do.
It's not the tail of the snake that gets ya, it the head .
They are still finacing raicals and our leaders are still bringing them in . This new the rapper who just bouced in this last fiasco will be the one who does us in,imo .
Well I prefer to stay out of the weeds and look at the bigger picture... 'Build me a car that drives 50 mph within 2 years'... the contractor builds me a car that drives 50mph 2 years later. I am happy. I don't need to know the technical complications involved with building the car or how management fought various aspects. I just want the car.
Now, I think everyone understands that the war against terrorism didn't work out quite as Bush had planned. Is Bush to blame for all of it? Technically yes, he authorized it. However, given better intelligence tools and resources would I trust Bush again with the same objective?
Yes, and this is the point I'm trying to make. I trust Bush's decision making despite the technical problems inherent with his past executions.
Wow, give me a break.
"Stay out of the weeds" = ignoring what really happened (and is still happening) in Iraq and Afghanistan. OK, your ridiculous car analogy is not worth ripping apart, so I'll ignore that.
You're not looking at the bigger picture at all, stop trying to paint yourself as some visionary. We haven't accomplished anything except the execution of Saddam Hussein, and more importantly, WE'RE STILL IN BOTH COUNTRIES. Is Al Qaeda gone? Is Bin Laden dead? Is the Taliban out? Is Baghdad safe? Is Afghanistan stable? Are our troops home?
You keep calling Bush's errors "technical problems" like someone's cable went on the fritz. These were not unforeseeable errors, they were born out of hubris and idiocy. Bush and his closest underlings did not allow dissident voices in his adminstration; he surrounded himself with sycophants, and as a result our nation is embroiled in two deadly, expensive, unnecessary wars.
The only worthwhile thing you've posted is this:
Quote:
Is Bush to blame for all of it? Technically yes, he authorized it.
And even this is wrong. First, it was both Bush and his adminstration. Cheney and Rumsfeld certainly had huge roles. Second, there is no "technically" about it. the blame rests on them entirely. It's not like he authorized it and then just stepped back. And if he did, that's even worse.
Yes, it was much better when we didn't have Social Security or Medicare and senior citizens starved or went without health care. Ah, the good old days.
I was referring to able-bodied people. Naturally if a retired person is to live independently they need retirement income- - I have no problem funding those, but I wish they were managed better. ... since you mentioned it, are you not concerned about more money coming out of SS and MR than is going in, possibly depleting it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnUnidentifiedMale
As for the debt, it costs money to run a civilized country. Are rich people about to run out of money? If so, that's news to me. Besides, Reagan and Bush didn't worry about the debt, so why should liberals?
So if I hear you correctly you are not concerned that someday we'll run out of their money. But, if the problem was debt incurred by past administrations, how is a solution found in spending way more by this administration? Each incoming admin has been left to deal with what was spent the previous one - democratic and republican alike....
Yes it was, my grandmother wh was born in the mid 1800s was cared for by her mother ,not put into a lonely old folks home or hospice to die, she died in mothers bedroom . my mother died in my front room also . I will more than likly die alone although I have kids and grown grandkids ..
Roosevelts New Deal was't such a deal after all . Before welfare and socilaism we took care of each other, so did the minorities matter of fact . Changes needed to be made and they were .
If there had been no need for these programs, they wouldn't have been enacted. I seem to remember hearing stories about "The County Poor Farm" from my grandparents (b. 1891-95).
Considering odds are pretty low that you've asked any world leaders anything beyond yelling at a TV screen, I can assure you Bush was a laughing stock of the world platform. Nobody respected him. He lacked intelligence, foresight, articuation, and a sense of the global commons that we all now share. Very dark period in U.S. history.
Maybe that's why over 30 other countries joined us in Iraq.
What makes you think being 'liberal' means agreeing with current economic policy?
Because liberals are generally in favor of big government - - am I wrong? I asked the question because I don't want to rely on my assumptions of what you are thinking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kodaka
What kind of proof are you looking for? Lacking the social safety nets that we have today, like unemployment security and TANF, 7 million people starved to death in the great depression and millions more literally worked themselves to death. Is that the kind of proof you want?
But if the system is out of money, there is no money to fund these programs - - right? Unless of course we just print more... which brings on its own set of problems, equally devestating.
The 7 million people figure, I believe, is largely disputed, as that would have represented 8% of the 48 states population in the 1930's. Possibly numbers related to the drought?
Watch, the fed will end up taxing one item, multiple times. Each time it changes hands it will have a sales tax.
You obviously don't know what hell your talking about. V.A.T. stands for Value Added Tax. This simply means taxing the value of an item when it move along the supply chain. For example, IF you buy a piece of wood for $1 and turn into an ax handle and then sell it to an ax maker, you are taxed on the value added, not the cost of the wood. The ax maker and retailer would be affected in the same way.
IT'S NOT A SALES TAX!!!!!!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
