posted
Trinity is part of UCC and you argue UCC's opinion of trinity is unbiased? You cited UCC's page as an alternative opinion of Trinity, it has everything to do with what we were talking about and it isn't an unbiased alternative opinion.
Convernient how you continually attempts to call me out for avoidance. Will you acknowledge that not everyone who goes to a clan rally is a racist?
Let me add "that has nothing at all to do with what we were discussing" to my list of: you're a racist, you're a homophobe, you're stereotyping, I won't waste my time with you, you're a hypocrit, and you're a sexist of avoidance techniques.
I'll use one of your tactics. I'm not going to waste my time with your ignorance.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: Avoiding explaining ones position with accusations of hypocracy, prejudice, etc is truly pathetic.
When I read this, I literally experienced a moment of intense full body giggles.
This was from the post just before that one:
quote: Nice take, considering it comes from their own website, very unbiased.
:giggle:
So, do you get the rambling offhanded self-satisfied postulations from Dennis Miller, and the incoherent fantasy constructions from Michael Savage? I mean, really, Savage most reminds me of a conservative talk show host as played on the fake radio in a movie by an unsubtle director about American middle class ennui. You can just tune him in and get these serialized repetitive mantras and nicknames for every idea and public personality imaginable. It's as if Savage is written in order to mirror some unseen situation- meant to be a metaphor for some destructive force in the protagonist's personality, or the world.
Actually, come to think, Rush is even *more* like that. He always strikes me as a very poorly directed voice actor doing satire of conservative talking points.
quote: No one agrees with everything in the particulars but the core tenents are undeniable. You keep pulling out the not everyone bs argument. Some people go to clan rallies for the beer, don't judge them as racists. See your false logic?
Now you've really forgotten what you were arguing for. We were talking about what Wright *said.* I wager you know nothing about the core theology of the UCC- and that theology is not spelled out in a speech which you did not even read.
So the question again, as it has been posed to you many times, is whether Obama should be held responsible for *Wright's* beliefs. You have not shown in any degree that Wright's statements, of which you actually remain ignorant (making this discussion increasingly taxing on everyone else because they have to spell it out for your lazy ass), are likely to be representative of his church. You have argued that Obama is responsible for the beliefs of his church. I grant that as mostly fair (to a point). I am willing to extend that to the prevailing outlook of his own particular congregation, during the time in which he attended the church. You have not gone an inch to show me what that outlook was, whether Wright's statements were representative of that outlook in general, whether the outlook was in a state of change, or in fact, anything whatsoever about any related matters.
The onus is on you. YOU- to substantiate any claim about Obama's beliefs. It is not sufficient to whine and moan about how the media (the "drive-by" media) doesn't do this for you. The media owes you and your ideas nothing of the kind. It is very easy to research the founding principles and prevailing attitudes of Obama's church, which is why, and I can guarantee this with absolute certainty, many journalists did that research, and found nothing surprising to report. These journalists then did their jobs, and reported on the nature of Obama's church- a nature which surprised no one. It is not their job to find *something* negative to report. Their job is to report what they have found.
posted
First, I didn't claim that the UCC link was unbiased or unaffiliated; I wrote that it was a different take from the garbage that you were spewing.
Bear in mind, though, (not that you will, but others might) that the UCC is a predominantly white denomination - about 85% and that they clearly don't think that Trinity is the festering boil of anti-white hatred that you do. Nor do most people who know anything about it beyond the clips we saw in the news during the campaign.
Rivka, yup. Talking points in a blender.
ETA: Is there some sort of Turing test we can apply here?
quote:I make the assumption that a religious leaders positions apply to the congregation.
Even if that weren't a faulty assumption, Wright's church is big. Thousands. Do you really imagine they only have one religious leader?
quote: On the other hand, if I attended a clan rally, I doubt you would give me the same benefit of the doubt.
If you did? Well, you're finally right about something.
Anyway, it's been done to death that you were full of crap on the whole Wright argument. You'll never admit it of course, but that's no surprise.
You did lie about it, though. First you said, "They believe it," then you said, "I never said they believed it." Making you a liar so big your pants are surely aflame.
On a related note, I notice you haven't answered the question Tom and I asked about President Obama's defense of his budget.
How about this: I'll wait 24 hours. Surely you'll have regaled the forum with your nonsense repeatedly between now and then, so you won't be able to claim you were busy or forgot about it something. So do it. Find one time, even once, when Obama defended his budget by saying, "Who are you to criticize, you spent....."
If it's happened so many times you've lost track, certainly you can find one time.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I make the assumption that a religious leaders positions apply to the congregation.
Even if that weren't a faulty assumption, Wright's church is big. Thousands. Do you really imagine they only have one religious leader?
In fact, Trinity has six or seven associate pastors. Rev. Wright is the emeritus pastor and plans for him to step down from leading the congregation were in the works even before the campaign last year.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Avoiding explaining ones position with accusations of hypocracy, prejudice, etc is truly pathetic.
When I read this, I literally experienced a moment of intense full body giggles.
This was from the post just before that one:
quote: Nice take, considering it comes from their own website, very unbiased.
:giggle: [qb]
----- You are truly dense...I didn't accuse her of being a hypocrit. I pointed out citing a UCC website to give an alternative opinion of Wright's church is not at all alternative. If I linked Clear Channel networks stance on Rush Limbaugh you would call me out on it, justifiably.
So, do you get the rambling offhanded self-satisfied postulations from Dennis Miller, and the incoherent fantasy constructions from Michael Savage? I mean, really, Savage most reminds me of a conservative talk show host as played on the fake radio in a movie by an unsubtle director about American middle class ennui. You can just tune him in and get these serialized repetitive mantras and nicknames for every idea and public personality imaginable. It's as if Savage is written in order to mirror some unseen situation- meant to be a metaphor for some destructive force in the protagonist's personality, or the world.
---------Wow...Thanks for your opinion, now go listen to NPR and Air America where they talk about how tone Michelle's arms are and how articulate Obama is.
Actually, come to think, Rush is even *more* like that. He always strikes me as a very poorly directed voice actor doing satire of conservative talking points.
--------I didn't denfend Rush but I sure can tell he bugs the hell out of you. In fact I stated his arrogance is off putting for me. I don't care what you think about an entertainer, that's a matter of taste.
quote: No one agrees with everything in the particulars but the core tenents are undeniable. You keep pulling out the not everyone bs argument. Some people go to clan rallies for the beer, don't judge them as racists. See your false logic?
Now you've really forgotten what you were arguing for. We were talking about what Wright *said.* I wager you know nothing about the core theology of the UCC- and that theology is not spelled out in a speech which you did not even read.
--------I know quite a bit about Black Liberation Theology, hell I tool a class on. Here, read about it yourself. The core tenents are racist and marxist. Wright's church is cited as the prime example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_liberation_theology
So the question again, as it has been posed to you many times, is whether Obama should be held responsible for *Wright's* beliefs. You have not shown in any degree that Wright's statements, of which you actually remain ignorant (making this discussion increasingly taxing on everyone else because they have to spell it out for your lazy ass), are likely to be representative of his church. You have argued that Obama is responsible for the beliefs of his church. I grant that as mostly fair (to a point). I am willing to extend that to the prevailing outlook of his own particular congregation, during the time in which he attended the church. You have not gone an inch to show me what that outlook was, whether Wright's statements were representative of that outlook in general, whether the outlook was in a state of change, or in fact, anything whatsoever about any related matters.
----------I have in fact said repeatedly, I DO NOT BELIEVE OBAMA BELIEVED THE RACIST CRAP HE SUBJECTED HIMSELF TO. He went to that church for political purposes. The senior pastor is a white hating racist, you attend that church you are supporting that sentiment despite what may or may not be in your heart. What Obama is responsible for is being a political hack who would use the racist sentiments of that church to advance his political career. What is even more damning of him is he would discard his life long spiritual leader and God father to his children when it became politically necessary. I can't really assign any belief system to that man, I see nothing but a political opportunist.
The onus is on you. YOU- to substantiate any claim about Obama's beliefs. It is not sufficient to whine and moan about how the media (the "drive-by" media) doesn't do this for you. The media owes you and your ideas nothing of the kind. It is very easy to research the founding principles and prevailing attitudes of Obama's church, which is why, and I can guarantee this with absolute certainty, many journalists did that research, and found nothing surprising to report. These journalists then did their jobs, and reported on the nature of Obama's church- a nature which surprised no one. It is not their job to find *something* negative to report. Their job is to report what they have found.
-------- If the items reported "suprised no one" and they found "nothing negative" he wouldn't have left that church. The media did point out how the leader of the church he attended was a white hating racist, typical to Black Liberation Theology. I cannot believe that you are even attempting to argue the head pastor of a church for 36 years is not "representative" the views of that church. That is a completely rediculous argument. You continue to use your tired tactic of pointing to one possible exception as disproving the rule. Keep writing speeches if you like, you still fail to make a point or defend your position. If you would like to focus on something more specific, I'll gladly shred you with it.
quote:Keep writing speeches if you like, you still fail to make a point or defend your position. If you would like to focus on something more specific, I'll gladly shred you with it.
You can start by answering my question.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I make the assumption that a religious leaders positions apply to the congregation.
Even if that weren't a faulty assumption, Wright's church is big. Thousands. Do you really imagine they only have one religious leader?
In fact, Trinity has six or seven associate pastors. Rev. Wright is the emeritus pastor and plans for him to step down from leading the congregation were in the works even before the campaign last year.
He was the HEAD PASTOR ro 36 years until the camapaign caused problems in 2008. He was the Head Pastor of the church Obama went to for 20 years. I must be crazy to think he was significant in any way.
Pastor Emeritus The title "Pastor Emeritus" usually refers to a pastor who has been involved greatly in a congregation's life. This pastor may have been the one who founded the particular church body, or one who had just retired.
Sounds like someone who has/had very little impact on the church.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, he could start by going back like a week and a half (minimum) and answering some of the many questions he's either outright ignored or shotgun-response answered.
But your question is a recent and clear-cut question for him to do one of those two things with.
ETA: It's only been two hours, so statistically speaking I'm not surprised you haven't answered.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Keep writing speeches if you like, you still fail to make a point or defend your position. If you would like to focus on something more specific, I'll gladly shred you with it.
You can start by answering my question.
No, I don't believe a vast-right wing conspiracy went after the Clintons.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
They may seem like shotgunning since I'm up against the Borg. I'm beginning to believe you people just do this to affirm your own beliefs rather than interact with a different opinion.
If you have a direct question, ask it. Your avoidance tactics are getting really old.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: They may seem like shotgunning since I'm up against the Borg. I'm beginning to believe you people just do this to affirm your own beliefs rather than interact with a different opinion.
If you have a direct question, ask it. Your avoidance tactics are getting really old.
Why do you feel your "up against" anyone? I was on this forum for over a year before any of my threads garnered 9 pages of posts. Maybe you're new here so you're not used to who talks in what way. I hope you'll stick around, but you do seem to be somewhat defensive, it would serve you well to just relax and not feel like folks are gunning for you.
Perhaps you should contribute to a few threads that are not volatile subjects so people get used to how you write and you get used to them.
We've had quite a few people suddenly show up with all their big ideas, fast links to wikipedia or www.uberconservative.com, avoid responding to points for fear of looking stupid, and then getting angry when somebody called them on it.
Some folks are not being very nice, I'm sorry you're getting that sort of reception, but I am fairly certain the animosity is coming from both directions at this point.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:No, I don't believe a vast-right wing conspiracy went after the Clintons.
Well, that's nice to have answered; it says a lot about you. But I actually meant my other question: how many times (or, for that matter, when -- singly) did Obama actually say anything like what you're attributing to him in an attempt to defend his budget?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I'm sure there were many contributing factors to the decline of Detroit. If if Detroit wants the jobs to return they need to reduce taxes and create an environment freindly to business. How did "white flight" hurt detroit? Lose your tax base. Detroit should be a Jeremiah Wright paridise. Not much whitey to keep them down anymore.
Alright, here's a new tactic: Produce for me the tax rates of the cities and states you're talking about. And more specifically to Detroit, pinpoint the end locations of the diaspora of people leaving.
I'm generally fairly willing to take a lot of things on faith when discussing subjects here, but your refutation of every one of my points has been some variation of "high tax rates."
Okay, if high taxes are the source problem and low taxes the all powerful solution, show me all the data to prove it. I think it's true that high taxes can drive business away and low taxes can lure them in, that's why Chicago stole Boeing Corporate HQ from Seattle, and that's why Deleware is a corporate mecca. But I think you're vastly overstating their importance in relation to other issues, with specific respect to the problems that have been mentioned in the last two pages of this thread.
So, go ahead. I'm willing and receptive to you dropping some knowledge on me.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
"When it comes to how we approach the issue of fiscal responsibility, again, it's a little hard for me to take criticism from folks, about this recovery package, after they presided over a doubling of the national debt. I'm not sure they have a lot of credibility when it comes to fiscal responsibility," Obama said responding to a question during his maiden press conference as the US President.
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I'm sure there were many contributing factors to the decline of Detroit. If if Detroit wants the jobs to return they need to reduce taxes and create an environment freindly to business. How did "white flight" hurt detroit? Lose your tax base. Detroit should be a Jeremiah Wright paridise. Not much whitey to keep them down anymore.
Alright, here's a new tactic: Produce for me the tax rates of the cities and states you're talking about. And more specifically to Detroit, pinpoint the end locations of the diaspora of people leaving.
I'm generally fairly willing to take a lot of things on faith when discussing subjects here, but your refutation of every one of my points has been some variation of "high tax rates."
Okay, if high taxes are the source problem and low taxes the all powerful solution, show me all the data to prove it. I think it's true that high taxes can drive business away and low taxes can lure them in, that's why Chicago stole Boeing Corporate HQ from Seattle, and that's why Deleware is a corporate mecca. But I think you're vastly overstating their importance in relation to other issues, with specific respect to the problems that have been mentioned in the last two pages of this thread.
So, go ahead. I'm willing and receptive to you dropping some knowledge on me.
Fastest growing first to last. (Bottom ten is larger due to ties of equal suckiness) Check for yourself.
Utah, Arizona, North Carolina, Texas, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, Wyoming, Georgia, South Carolina to...................Maryland, West Virginia, New York, New Jersey, New Hamshire, Connecticut, Pensilvania, Vermont, Maine, Ohio, Rhode Island, and last place MICHIGAN (percent growth -.5).
Sorry Michigan's last again, but there's hope California's not far behind. Move to The Dakotas, Wyoming, or Utah, gtg.
I can't find much on Detroit taxes except there are 500 million in unpaid taxes owed there. That can't be good. It's beyond the breaking point, they could bring investment back through corporate incentives though. There are plenty of unemployed willing workers.
What blows my mind is Michigan is beautiful and Utah looks like a wasteland. Plus it's difficult to get beer over 3.2% in Utah. As with anything in life, there are many contributing factors that are undeniable. Racial tensions in a given area can't be changed overnight but the government could incentivize the city to industry. With as much talk we've heard about New Orleans, I think Detroit has been ignored. I'm against much of the bailout, but if any city deserves bailout money, it's Detroit. Clean it up and sell it to industry. (not literally sold)
I'm not a huge Michael Moore fan but I did like Roger and Me. What I saw in that movie was greed on everyone's part. Union workers unwilling to give concessions to a struggling industry. Industry only concerned with the bottom line. Government only concerned with tax revenues. Attempting to change Flint into a tourist trap. Tourism wouldn't employ all those people but it was hoped would bring outside dollars in. Maybe it's a catch 22, how does a government lower taxes with so much public need? Raising taxes to meet the needs seem to be a short term solution for a state.
Are states rights getting in the way? I suppose if all states had equal laws and industry and taxes were federalized, there would be no reason to go to Utah or Alabama.
posted
Hahaha, I still love the disconnect in ideas that your posts bring. Utah looking like a wasteland (I agree) and the alcohol laws have little to do with the taxes. Utah is just a desert with lots of dust and the buildings reflect it. You also get a lot of smog. The alcohol laws are a reflection of how the local state government legislates morality. (I grant the reason they give is that it will help decrease public drunkeness and help curb drunk drivers, but I find it deliciously ironic that the reddest state in the nation doesn't believe in personal responsibility for ones actions. )
But more to the point, there are other factors that are taken into account in population growth than just taxes. You're mixing causation and correlation here. This can be seen through your own links. Wyoming is #8 on population growth, right? Yet they're #2 on highest taxes. North Carolina is # 3 on fastest growing, yet #29 or about half way down the list for tax burden.
What's more, the difference in taxes between folks from NC and MI is about $350. That's not an overly large number. Or at least not one that I'd typically take into account.
A better approach* to see why those states top the list of population growth would be to look at the average number of persons per household/a fertility rate. Here's a link that does just that.
You can't measure people leaving states by which states have population growth. It's like comparing apples with oranges. You have to find statistics talking about inter-state emigration/immigration. It eliminates babies from being taken into account.
*I qualify this as a better approach because new people being born into the state is a direct increase to the population and is a causal reason. Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Vadon: Hahaha, I still love the disconnect in ideas that your posts bring. Utah looking like a wasteland (I agree) and the alcohol laws have little to do with the taxes. Utah is just a desert with lots of dust and the buildings reflect it. You also get a lot of smog. The alcohol laws are a reflection of how the local state government legislates morality. (I grant the reason they give is that it will help decrease public drunkeness and help curb drunk drivers, but I find it deliciously ironic that the reddest state in the nation doesn't believe in personal responsibility for ones actions. )
But more to the point, there are other factors that are taken into account in population growth than just taxes. You're mixing causation and correlation here. This can be seen through your own links. Wyoming is #8 on population growth, right? Yet they're #2 on highest taxes. North Carolina is # 3 on fastest growing, yet #29 or about half way down the list for tax burden.
What's more, the difference in taxes between folks from NC and MI is about $350. That's not an overly large number. Or at least not one that I'd typically take into account.
A better approach* to see why those states top the list of population growth would be to look at the average number of persons per household/a fertility rate. Here's a link that does just that.
You can't measure people leaving states by which states have population growth. It's like comparing apples with oranges. You have to find statistics talking about inter-state emigration/immigration. It eliminates babies from being taken into account.
*I qualify this as a better approach because new people being born into the state is a direct increase to the population and is a causal reason.
Babies aren't workers.
Population growth-low unemployment-low taxes-fastest growing economies
It was a four prong approach with some deviation. Take away the population factor if you'd like and still you're left with relative correlations of unemployment rates, booming economies and low taxes.
There are anomalies in any statistical correlation, ie Wyoming and this wasn't exactly scientific. Wyoming is an amazing state a lot of wealthy people are buying ranches there. Also, the tax burdon can be high in a strong economy, so they go hand and hand. The mistake is made when taxes are raised in a bad economy.
I'm not from Utah and I agree, it's nasty. Which makes it even more perplexing that it is growing so fast - booming economy - low taxes with a low unemployment rate while prettier states are shrinking? (had to link them for you)
posted
I'm fine with taking population growth out of your formula for trying to figure out unemployment numbers and economic growth. I was just taking an issue with how you were saying that high state taxes are the reason people are moving out of Michigan and using population growth to defend it. The population growth statistics you provided take children into account because the info comes from the census. So even if babies aren't workers, it doesn't change the fact that they're counted.
I don't want to get into the debate about Detroit, I'll leave that for folks like Lyrhawn. My purpose was and is to ask that if you're going to try to argue that people are 'running' from Detroit/Michigan, that you find numbers of people actually leaving (emigration) as opposed to a simple population decrease statistic.
Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sure unemployment is the main factor for a population decrease, not sure if any state would have a decrease in population if an iron curtain were placed around it. IMO high taxes harm economic growth and therefore economic development. People need to make a living and if you're in a place you love and have a good paying job taxes alone aren't going to push you away. If your unemployed or just barely getting by, either go to where the jobs are or become a criminal. Detroit has seen a fair bit of both of those options.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: Take away the population factor if you'd like and still you're left with relative correlations of unemployment rates, booming economies and low taxes.
I'm not sure what a "relative correlation" is in this case, or how you'd measure it. As an example: the reason Utah's on the top of that list is almost exclusively due to its birth rate.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
I'm going to get govt stats and crunch the numbers. Something I've always wanted to do anyway. I'll throw in crime rates as well. It'll take some time and it could very well dispell my assumptions.
Breaking news, California just announced an additional 1% sales tax. I'll have to adjust the list. Do you think losing another 1% of the population's expendible income will hurt or help the economy of California? Does 1% really matter to a person who is struggling financially?
One thing is undeniable about taxes, low tax states attract retiring baby boomers. I've been reading that has a lot to do with Utah. Lots of people with lots of money to spend in their retirement years.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: Take away the population factor if you'd like and still you're left with relative correlations of unemployment rates, booming economies and low taxes.
I'm not sure what a "relative correlation" is in this case, or how you'd measure it. As an example: the reason Utah's on the top of that list is almost exclusively due to its birth rate.
Oh I'd say illegal immigration is significant as well. Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I'm sure unemployment is the main factor for a population decrease, not sure if any state would have a decrease in population if an iron curtain were placed around it.
Uhuh. And how is employment in the fastest growing populations in Africa? Population decreases are tied to standards of living. Standards go up, populations stop growing.
I must stress that a "population decrease" is not the same thing has people having fewer children. The states you cite, Michigan and Utah, are experiencing massive migrations at an inverse rate- people are leaving michigan, and people are still going to Utah. That tells you little about the long term economics of high tax rates or low tax rates- it tells you something about where people are more willing to move in the moment- which is of course to a place with growing employment opportunities and lower taxes. Do you really think that state of affairs can last indefinitely? Growth eventually stops, and shifts somewhere else more hospitable- you have made that point yourself in this thread. You have never established the effect of tax rates on long term anything.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I'm sure unemployment is the main factor for a population decrease, not sure if any state would have a decrease in population if an iron curtain were placed around it.
Uhuh. And how is employment in the fastest growing populations in Africa? Population decreases are tied to standards of living. Standards go up, populations stop growing.
Huh??????????
You said, "Population decreases are tied to standards of living. Standards go up, populations stop growing"
Well if I follow your logic, Detroit must have the highest standard of living in the US.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: Take away the population factor if you'd like and still you're left with relative correlations of unemployment rates, booming economies and low taxes.
I'm not sure what a "relative correlation" is in this case, or how you'd measure it. As an example: the reason Utah's on the top of that list is almost exclusively due to its birth rate.
Oh I'd say illegal immigration is significant as well.
I totally agree illegal immigration has an impact as well but do you think illegal employees count in unemployment statistics? Unemployment rates are calculated based upon unemployment compensation applications. If I'm not mistaken, that's rather difficult to get for an illegal alien.
Wow, it must be REALLY great there if the unemployment remains so low and illegal immigrants are flocking there for jobs.
I'll address your point about the "longterm effect" of hight tax rates and low tax rates.
I've brought this up as well. Strong economies can afford high tax rates.....to a point.
People will move to a place that is economically to their advantage.
If you want to talk about "long term" then my perfect case in point is this.....California.
Once a great destination for retirees. They just added and additional 1% to their sales tax. Will people want to remain? Maybe one percent this year is nothing but when added to last years gas tax and the prior years property tax increases, eventually there is a breaking point. They'll milk it until they can't get anymore blood out of that turnip because the turnip has move to Utah.
You speak of long term, tax what you should, not what you can. Your residents are doing well, don't squeeze them.
A new one came out today. Congress is proposing a tax for each song that is played on the radio...no BS. I'm not a whiner about taxes but they need to end somewhere. With the govt, there is no end. They sit up there and think about what types of taxes they haven't thought of yet. Speaking of, the 45% death tax was to expire in 2010, your great leaders eliminated that today. You can't even die without paying your fair share.
"When it comes to how we approach the issue of fiscal responsibility, again, it's a little hard for me to take criticism from folks, about this recovery package, after they presided over a doubling of the national debt. I'm not sure they have a lot of credibility when it comes to fiscal responsibility," Obama said responding to a question during his maiden press conference as the US President.
posted
"When it comes to how we approach the issue of fiscal responsibility, again, it's a little hard for me to take criticism from folks, about this recovery package, after they presided over a doubling of the national debt. I'm not sure they have a lot of credibility when it comes to fiscal responsibility," ....Obama
They may have doubled what they inherited and that's his defense for tripling what he's inherited....and you buy it? Do you know what exponential means?
They both suck. 2000 Republican = 1960's Democrat 2000 Democrat = European Socialist
Both parties are big government, I wont deny that.
Maybe you need to read it again. The oldest trick in the book. My 5 year old pulls it on my 9 year old.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: They both suck. 2000 Republican = 1960's Democrat 2000 Democrat = European Socialist ...
With that kind of scale what would the Canadian Liberal and NDP equal? (Or the current European governments?)
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
2000 Republican = 1960's Democrat 2000 Democrat = European Socialist
I asked you this the last time you made this assertion: have you looked at what the tax rates were, say, between 1945 and 1979?
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
So you're arguing for Mormon theocracy in the rest of the country? Or are you saying that the primary reason for those stats is the tax rate?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Maybe you need to read it again. The oldest trick in the book. My 5 year old pulls it on my 9 year old.
Maybe you need to find what you said happened so often, instead of ignoring direct questions about where the quote is.
You don't have it yet. Less than half a day for you to find what you claimed happened so often you couldn't remember how many times it was said.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not a huge Michael Moore fan but I did like Roger and Me. What I saw in that movie was greed on everyone's part. Union workers unwilling to give concessions to a struggling industry. Industry only concerned with the bottom line. Government only concerned with tax revenues. Attempting to change Flint into a tourist trap. Tourism wouldn't employ all those people but it was hoped would bring outside dollars in. Maybe it's a catch 22, how does a government lower taxes with so much public need? Raising taxes to meet the needs seem to be a short term solution for a state.
The problem with the correlations you're drawing is that you're ignoring outside information. Michigan has the highest unemployment because the auto sector has been the hardest hit by the economic downturn, and where are there more autoworkers than any other state? Michigan. The governor has cut services and waste dramatically in the last six years in an effort to not raise taxes, and in doing so has also cut taxes pretty severely for a multitude of businesses and has offered a multitude of tax credits, and yet still businesses are leaving for places like Mexico, which makes the tax question moot. You can't get a better offer than zero taxes.
Flint for example collapsed when the factories left. What's left is one of the most dangerous cities in the country, and like you said, the problem was far more labor than it was taxes, as is the general problem with the auto industry. The US auto companies are in a tailspin because of overly generous union contracts inked during boom times when SUVs could be sold at huge markups and made Ford and GM billions and billions of dollars. Those same contracts at the dawn of the 21st century because a huge weight that they couldn't pull, especially when the rug got yanked out from under SUV sales and the press and Congress continually cast them in a negative light despite ample improvements in quality rankings from where they were in the 80's and early 90's.
Put that together with a banking and credit crisis and you have a massive drop off in the total number of cars being sold in the United States, which means an already struck industry is left reeling and has to shed workers by the tens of thousands and shutter plants to remain a viable company. Add to that a multi-decade decline in US manufacturing due to low wage overseas jobs and you have the foundations of the reasons for Michigan's current troubles.
Do taxes play a role? Yes. Michigan is I think the only, or one of the only states in the country with no state corporate income tax, but they make up for it in other ways. A wide range of tax credits has been offered to a lot of different companies and a lot of them are coming here, but in fits and starts, and it'll take a long time to replace a 100,000+ auto jobs.
My main point, in all this, is that you're far too unidirectional. Taxes are a piece, and in this case I think a smaller piece, of a much larger and more complex puzzle, but you're seizing a single piece of the puzzle and calling it the lynch pin. You're dismissing far more important factors.
Western growth for example is extremely short sighted. Yes, the West is growing by leaps and bounds for a variety of reasons, but it's not going to last for much longer. In a couple decades, the West will be far more expensive to live in than traditionally settled parts of the country, and it will have nothing to do with tax rates and everything to do with the environment. Systemic drought is going to be a huge problem in the west, and parts of the south. It will skyrocket utilities costs, and will create an interstate battle for resources. The Plains states are in for the same trouble. States like Iowa, Kansas and Nebraska are living on borrowed time in a lot of places. Water has always been an issue for them since heavy rain/drought cycles are a fairly known pattern, but the Ogalala (spelling is off) Aquifer, which was once a vast source of water that stretches across several states, has been overstretched beyond its capacity to refill with runoff and rainwater, and will soon be unable to support life as we know it on the Plains. Add to that the fact that nuclear power plants get shut down when there's a water shortage. It happened in Georgia this past Summer. Georgia being one of your vaunted tax haven states.
Luckily, a fifth of the world's fresh water is locked up in these lovely lakes that surround my awful, destitute, tax hungry state of Michigan. And you can't have any of it.
I'm not asking you to look outside the box, as helpful as that might be. I'm just saying that there's a lot more IN the box than you're currently paying lip service to, and you might find it easier to discuss things here if you don't make most of your posts look like cherry picking displays of smugness.
PS. Damn, I ended up writing a multiparagraph essay anyway. Guess I just can't restrain myself.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course, higher growth of any kind can also be an indication of how much room is left for growth...
For instance, MA is pretty flat, growth-wise for several reasons, with taxation being a lesser issue, even though I presume MA is pretty high up on the list. It's biggest problems are a simple lack of space, and the fact that it has been so developed/had so much growth (it's had 200+ years on most of the rest of the nation after all) that most of it's growth is made by converting out of one type of industry into another (which MA has an advantage at, IMO, with it's large pool of highly educated workers, thanks to all the universities around the state). BioTech is quickly supplanting software here as far as the latest and greatest economic growth goes.
posted
Lyrhawn- I think blaming labor costs for the auto industries problems fails close scrutiny. You might want to look into that more, as your post seems to indicate you think labor is the biggest problem facing the detroit automakers.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's one of the biggest. I think legacy costs are the single biggest factor, and of those, health care costs add the most cost to individual cars over the price that someone would pay for a comparable car made by the Japanese. But all of those fall under the umbrella of labor.
I think they got caught flat footed by a drastic shift in demand for different types of cars, but I don't think that was specifically their fault. Everyone asks why they kept selling SUVs for so long and it's because they were a cash cow for more than a decade. But even still they had a nice lineup of smaller cars, and Ford has traditionally done extremely well in this area, even as the F-150 is their best selling vehicle even now. Besides, the Japanese and Korean automakers were pushing SUVs just as hard during that time period, and to this date still offer a lot of them as well. The difference between Japanese and US labor is almost entirely health care costs. Once the new health care agreement goes into effect in 2010, Ford's hourly rate, including all legacy costs, will be one dollar on average more than Japanese domestic auto plants, which goes to show the wide disparity that existed before this deal. And it's a deal that wasn't possible before this crisis because the UAW was unwilling to make these sort of concessions until the situation had gotten this bad, but I think PART of why it got so bad was the extremity of the labor cost disparity.
There's also the credit crunch, and a grandiose overestimation of the capacity of the US automarket to absorb new car sales. These companies were planning for 16 million units in a market that after this is over will probably settle back into the 12 million range, and right now only support 9 million. So they were making too many cars, and though they've scaled back dramatically, there was still a huge cost to fix the problem.
My main point was that taxes weren't a major factor in their slow crawl towards disaster.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, government health care will be cheaper than private health care.
Give me one example of government services that are cheaper than private ones.
Education is definitely a wrong answer. What do you think costs more a government employed secretary or a public secretary?
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
One example? You mean like the government health care systems in many other countries, that have lower costs, higher patient satisfaction, and better health outcomes than ours?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Czech republic is an example. Government health plans allow for doctor visits at approximately 3 USD- I have known people (only residents, not even citizens mind you) who have had surgeries performed under their public health plans for nothing past the original doctor's referral. In fact, I'm waiting for my public health to kick in (along with my official residence papers) in a few months so that I can get my tonsils removed finally.
The Czech public health plan is kind of a simple concept that works fairly well. Doctors are not exorbitantly compensated for their work, and make only slightly above the average salary. Everyone who pays taxes here has the option of paying into public health, which is around 3% of your income- at a flat rate. This means that for someone like me, my health care will cost about 40 dollars a month, and will be all inclusive. A few people pay a whole lot more, but since it's at a flat rate, it will never be a prohibitive cost- and if you make a ton of money, you can always opt out of public health and get private insurance.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Yeah, government health care will be cheaper than private health care.
Give me one example of government services that are cheaper than private ones.
Government health care.
That's a prediction, not an example.
I'm asking for cost of services not cost to you. Section 8 housing might be free for the resident but the amount PAID is more than the going rate. I'm in that predicament, I don't want sec 8 in my house but it's guaranteed rent that is higher than prevailing rent. The gov pays more than the free market.
One example, please....
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Yeah, government health care will be cheaper than private health care.
Give me one example of government services that are cheaper than private ones.
Government health care.
That's a prediction, not an example.
Wrong! The US isn't the only country in the world. All those countries which have some form of either Government health care or Government health insurance, have health care costs that are a fraction of what we pay for our private system in the US. It's not just one example, its many.
quote:Give me one example of a government project that has concluded under budget?
Off hand, roconstruction of I15 in Salt Lake County which concluded in 2001 concluded under budget and ahead of schedule. I'm sure if I put more than 2 seconds into it, I'd come could come up with some more examples.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Canadian or Czech health care is hardly a prediction
As for another example:
quote:Qinshan Phase III Unit 1 and 2 located in Zhejiang China are powered by two CANDU 6 reactors, designed by AECL, are owned and operated by the Third Qinshan Nuclear Power Company Limited. The first two CANDU units in China were delivered four months ahead of schedule and under budget. The project holds the record for the shortest construction schedule ever accomplished for a nuclear power plant in China.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
