rhaig
-
Content
2,766 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Feedback
0%
Everything posted by rhaig
-
and were this country's government a democracy, we could all agree that you were correct. -- Rob
-
+1 I'd back him more than any of the others. He's less a politician, more a public servant. (note that less does not imply zero) But yeah... never going to happen. -- Rob
-
We can learn from the past or repeat it. I prefer to learn. Make sure you narrow your band of history you learn from sufficiently to support your position. -- Rob
-
Oh thanks. I forgot about that line "but what about 9/11!?!?!?!?" -- Rob
-
that's right.... think of the children, the greater good, and if all stops only one.... (oh wait, you already used that tired line) yay! security theater!! let's hear the applause!! I'm trying to be as good a cheerleader for the TSA as you, but I'm failing. sorry. -- Rob
-
Walgreens Employee Fired for Use of Concealed Weapon
rhaig replied to nbblood's topic in Speakers Corner
Just shop at places that post the appropriate sign for their state to disallow concealed carry on the premises, and you won't have to be pissed off that someone did something that might have saved your life. clerk made his choice, got fired. Has said he'd make the same choice again. company makes their choice, posts the sign that legally keeps employees and customers from carrying concealed on the premises. you make your choice, shop where there won't be anyone legally armed on the premises. sounds good to me. -- Rob -
that is 100% spot on. I mean why the hell do people do that? wait... oh shit... -- Rob
-
You guys think your political disagreements are SOOO important...
rhaig replied to SpeedRacer's topic in Speakers Corner
that's total BS!! I grew up in Kansas and it's "Coke" there. as in "Do you want me to get you a coke? Sure, I'll have a Dr. Pepper." -- Rob -
Walgreens Employee Fired for Use of Concealed Weapon
rhaig replied to nbblood's topic in Speakers Corner
Texas requires a large sign be posted (with very specific wording in contrasting colors and block letters), written personal notification, or verbal notification from someone reasonably considered a representative. Some states only require the dinky "no guns" red slashed circle sign. -- Rob -
so you're ok with the patriot act extension? -- Rob
-
http://blogcritics.org/politics/article/doj-threatens-to-turn-texas-into1/ Not much effect on me personally as my family doesn't fly for vacations, and when I travel (rarely) for work, I could care less if they feel me up in the airport. Some places you have to pay extra for that kind of action :) -- Rob
-
those are jokes? Let's see... you don't have the right to defend yourself in your own homes from an attacker. The pro-gun crowd used to joke about "knife crime" and "knife confiscation" as something that followed disarming of the people, but then it happened in the UK (well, at least the articles about knife crime started popping up). I see Brits as a society that is further down the road than we are. I'm hoping we can look at how things have gone over there and avoid the British mistakes that led to the bad things, and mimic the decisions that led to the good things. -- Rob
-
how about raise it to 90% of anything over a couple of million (so still plenty for the children of the rich to get on with). didn't you know, that old rich guy, just hours before his death, gave jobs to all his heirs. They bought some of his belongings from him for a dollar apiece. There's no way around that 90% gag. Nope, none whatsoever. And I'm sure my example will be torn to pieces by at least one person if not several, but it's not the only way. Or you could all just fess up that you would like income caps. Two words "laffer curve". -- Rob
-
"All federal and state taxes" != all income taxes. And even so, 38.02 < 40 wow... that's a nit if I've ever seen one. Go find a grammar, or spelling mistake. I'm sure it's less predictable. -- Rob
-
and when random data fed into the model produces the hockey stick everyone fears, then clearly the model is flawed. -- Rob
-
that's right. Research the sum total of 100% of the taxable incomes from all families making more than 100K. Compare that number to the annual budget. You'll quickly notice that raising taxes on the "rich" isn't the place to start. If you want a balanced budget, we need to spend less, and everyone needs to pay a little more. Even those 51% of households that don't pay any taxes. When the top 1% have 40% of the nation's wealth, it does suggest a good place to start. You aren't going to raise much revenue from a million homeless indigents. why reply to that post twice? did you think I was going to say that the rich shouldn't pay more? Did you not read the word "everyone" in the text you quoted? or are you just trolling now? -- Rob
-
that's right. Research the sum total of 100% of the taxable incomes from all families making more than 100K. Compare that number to the annual budget. You'll quickly notice that raising taxes on the "rich" isn't the place to start. If you want a balanced budget, we need to spend less, and everyone needs to pay a little more. Even those 51% of households that don't pay any taxes. -- Rob
-
http://www.alternet.org/economy/150995/the_great_switch_by_the_super_rich%3A_how_wealthy_americans_started_paying_so_little_in_taxes/ so what I see you saying is that the rich need to pay more. How is this an answer to my questioning your assertion that the poor are paying for the bailouts? If the average working Americans (median household income in the 60K range in most states) are depending on services for their daily needs (food/water/shelter/clothing) then they are living beyond their means and are abusing the entitlement system they are depending on. do you have any original thoughts, or are you a copy/paste bot? -- Rob
-
the bankers knew they couldn't be repaid so i agree we should blame them
-
the bankers knew they couldn't be repaid so i agree we should blame them
-
I think blaming people for taking out loans they should have known they couldn't repay is appropriate. -- Rob
-
the economists that thought up the fair tax mitigated the regresiveness by what they call the prebate. The prebate is an amount of money paid to a family each month to pay them for the estimated tax they will pay for necessary items for their family. This does 2 things. It eliminates the regresiveness, and at the same time increases the cost of admistrating the tax program. They should just not tax necessary items (no tax on non-prepared foods, and a few tax-free weekends a year for clothing and home electronics). The problem with implementing FT is that it would never be done all at once. It would be done as a VAT. Increase the VAT, decrease the income tax. But unless the income tax was decreased ahead of the pace of the increase of the VAT, then it would suppress spending and stunt economic growth. -- Rob
-
Is there any point in responding to you in this forum?
rhaig replied to champu's topic in Speakers Corner
have my views ever done a 180 from reading a thread? no. Have they changed slightly? Sure... all the time. I have learned things, I have modified my positions, and I have had some threads where I've considered them a complete waste of time. Is there any point in responding? not really. Depends on what your purpose is. If you want to make me see viewpoints the same way as you, don't bother. If you want to share your viewpoint, perhaps show something to someone that they might not have known, then go ahead. Because there are only a few posters here who know EVERYTHING. Just ask them. They'll tell you. -- Rob -
shh... we don't talk about that. We just hope that they won't ask for it back anytime soon. Because if they call in their markers, we can't drink anymore. -- Rob
-
Don't you mean "Here's your 10 beers for $100". and since the fixed costs are the same, the bartender is making more as well. Not only that, but some freeloaders were encouraged to exercise a little fiscal responsibility and go home and spend a little time with their family. -- Rob