Sportbike Racing Forum banner
1 - 20 of 27 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
832 Posts
Interesting correlation.

So that pre election rant letter (that wasn't so eloquently put) was truthful after all.

I also went searching and it is really is true that the only state that allows gay marriage (Massachusetts) really does have the lowest divorce rate in the country.

But post election what has changed? Nothing.
Gun laws are still just as useless, stupid and prevalent as ever.
TV is just as sleazy, dull and popular as ever.
Soldiers in Iraq are still asking why they have to dig through the trash for scraps of metal to armor their vehicles with, and still being lied to by Rumsfeld.
Bush's friends are getting rich ripping off the American public, while the public is distracted by the terrorism bogeyman.
The budget deficit has continued and will contimue to spiral out of control.
The US will continue to kiss the ass of Saudi Arabia (you know that country that gave us the 9/11 hijackers?)for their precious oil instead of really looking for alternatives.

Oh, wait, something has changed, Powell, the only person in the administration who was worth a damn, finally quit. The rest of the cabinet is still a bunch of boot licking yes men (and women) reporting to Rumsfeld and Cheney. :808993-banghead:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,370 Posts
That's why I always laugh when republicans complain about how the overwhelming number of welfare recipients come from blue states. We in the blue states have always known who the true welfare recipients are... :lol:


Here's an in-your-face screenshot, in case your denial prevented you from clicking the above link. :grin:


 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,314 Posts
...and the dems constantly complain that the rich don't pay enough in taxes. :lol:


Basic flaws with the article:

1) assumes that "Blue states" mean that 100% of the population is democratic. In many cases were taling 49-51%.

2) assumes that democrats in "blue states" are paying the majority of the taxes. In America the wealthiest pay the majority of the taxes. According to democratic party, the evil weathy business owners are all republicans.

3) assumes that the opposite color in each state are the benefactors of majority of the "welfare". Again, in many cases we're talking 49-51. For instance in Michigan, I would bet you a LOT of money that democrats (the vast population of detroit) are making out much better in the state as far as taxes go than the republicans in the state.


So aside from all that, if it makes you mad then start supporting the repbulican initiatives to reduce taxes, and limit welfare. After all, you're only gonna screw all those republicans you hate. :grin:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,758 Posts
It's a shame they didn't include many details (if any) in that piece. "The huge gaps are driven by higher average incomes in the "donor" states" Also keep in mind that if 2 people were working the exact same job doing the exact same thing with the exact same job title...the person in California will make more money than a person working in say Kansas. They'd have to just to cover the much higher cost of living in California compared to Kansas. Thus, they will pay more in taxes...

Plus we all know how many huge international corporations love to set up shop in Idaho (catch the sarcasm) or how Nebraska is groud zero for investment types. Just think of the automotive industry, America Honda and America Toyota both located in southern California....yeah I'm sure Oklahoma is going to have businesses like that with corp. HQs with no seaports :rolling:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,290 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
[ QUOTE ]
TheDude27 said:
So aside from all that, if it makes you mad then start supporting the repbulican initiatives to reduce taxes, and limit welfare.

[/ QUOTE ]

I make no comment about the article. but I will about this. I quite fail to understand that bush is up to. Republican used to mean fiscally conservative. That means reducing government expenditure. the idea of reducing taxes is to to not collect money that the govt is not going to spend.

I don't understand how spending money freely is consistent with fiscal conservatism. I read that Bush did not veto one single spending bill in his first term. not just 9/11 related. NONE.

this is where you interject that running deficits is not bad. thats right, it isn't upto a point. because if you are running a deficit, you are using other people's money and as long as the net benefit exceeds the net cost, its good run deficits. thats why people buy cars on 1.9% interest and stash their cash in a 3% a year account.

maybe I am wrong thinking that bush fiscal policy is insane. You think its right. do you think its right just because you're a republican and automatically support the home team and automatically believe everything the media tells you that favors your position, or have you individually tried to do some research and get some education to figure out what the deal really is?

do people educate themselves or do they support specific policies just because they are "my team's" policies?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,314 Posts
Also to add, if you built say a highway through Montana. Its going to cost approximatey the same as one through another state. If only 6 people live in Montana :lol:, obviously the numbers are going to be a little skewed. If you'll note the majority of the sates that benefit have significantly less population that the "losing" states.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,314 Posts
I personally could do with a little(or lot) less spending. However, the majority of the spending increase(granted education and a few others are also up) is obviously related to the military action, so I am willing to tolerate it.

I don't like growth in the government, so I'll admit the homeland security thing kinda irked me as well. The FBI and CIA should have been able to handle this and that is another irritaing aspect of the policy of this administraton. However considering the alternative, its much better than national health care, and ridiculous social handout programs that would have been advocated by the other side.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,314 Posts
[ QUOTE ]
Haru said:

maybe I am wrong thinking that bush fiscal policy is insane. You think its right. do you think its right just because you're a republican and automatically support the home team and automatically believe everything the media tells you that favors your position, or have you individually tried to do some research and get some education to figure out what the deal really is?


[/ QUOTE ]

Actually I voted for Clinton over Dole and Perot over Bush. So call me a republican if you like, I was the last two elections. I'm socially concervative(people can do for themselves), but am pro choice (on abortion or who you marry(gay marriage) or what kind of drugs you put in yourself, etc.).
 

·
eStarbucks
Joined
·
17,313 Posts
[ QUOTE ]
ENP83 said:Just think of the automotive industry, America Honda and America Toyota both located in southern California....yeah I'm sure Oklahoma is going to have businesses like that with corp. HQs with no seaports :rolling:

[/ QUOTE ]

Or Toyota's huge manufacturing plant in Georgetown, Kentucky?

Because Kentucky, as we all know, is the small Import-Car capital of the world; with all those yuppies driving their slammed type-R Civics or boosted Integras.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,314 Posts
What aspect? The majority of his fiscal policy is driven by his foreign policy. Yes I agree with his foreign policy, a strong show of force usually works, apeasement does not.

If you're asking about the tax cut, yes I agreed with it. No, I dont care if the rich got the most(dollar amount) back since they paid the most. Also, the "rich" run the companines many of which are S-corps(like the one I own) that employ people. They are also the ones that invest in other corporations. Money gets spent, no matter where it gets put back, so you might as well give it back fairly.

Those are the "high exposure" and largest expenditures and I agree with them for the most part.

...And why would he veto much, its not like the democats control congress?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,758 Posts
[ QUOTE ]
SpikedLemon said:
[ QUOTE ]
ENP83 said:Just think of the automotive industry, America Honda and America Toyota both located in southern California....yeah I'm sure Oklahoma is going to have businesses like that with corp. HQs with no seaports :rolling:

[/ QUOTE ]
Or Toyota's huge manufacturing plant in Georgetown, Kentucky?

[/ QUOTE ]
The plants that manufacture the cars/trucks don't sell them to individual dealership, the corporations do. The plants don't make taxable profits, the corporations do, and just where are the corporations located? Exactly. The dealerships have to "buy" the cars/trucks from Honda/Toyota motor Corps. before the dealerships can turn around and sell them to you. The money made from every single Honda/Acura and Toyota/Lexus/Scion sold to all of the individual dealerships throughout the entire country ("invoice") is taxed in California where the corporation is located.
 

·
eStarbucks
Joined
·
17,313 Posts
My local community here sees HUGE benefits from Toyota setting up a plant in Cambridge.

Every employee gets a salary which is taxed, the business is taxed, the railroad gets $$ which is taxes, the local suppliers to Toyota ... ad nauseum.
We too are far from Toyota's HQ.

But, on a related note: why are you blaming foreign companies for this? Toyota and Honda probably set-up shop as close as possible to their main HQs in Japan, while still being close to a large skilled employee resource.

Why not blame the home team for failing you: GM and Ford.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,758 Posts
:808919-icon_police: When did I blame anybody?? Nobodies failing me... /wwwthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif

And like I said, the manufacturing plant doesn't get taxed for "selling" cars/trucks because they don't sell them...the corporation does, ofcourse the workers paycheck is going to be taxed, ofcourse it will bring more traffic to the area and peope will spend money in the area on gas/food and be taxed ect.
 

·
eStarbucks
Joined
·
17,313 Posts
Something along the lines: I don't see how he can use that excuse when Wisconsin and Minnesota, of all places, are on the plus side.
Tho; Minnesota probably sees a lot from 3M and I guess the Cheese and trucking industry are doing well for Wisconsin.

There's a lot more to it than simply corporate HQs. And yes, the HQ is taxed in its home state; the manufacturing complex generates a massive amount of spin-off revenue which, in many cases, can easily be close to the HQ's taxed income.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,512 Posts
[ QUOTE ]
Haru said:
whether you vote republican or not is not the main thrust of my post. it is whether you consider bush fiscal policy sound and if so why.

[/ QUOTE ]

I consider Bush's fiscal policy sound.

After the collapse of the tech industry, the arline industry, enron, and the dot com bubble bursting, 9/11, the effect on the country was a mild recession. Believe it or not, the economy is strong now and is still getting stronger.

Oil prices are down, now that we've realized there is more supply than was previously thought. They're down so much in fact that OPEC is reducing production to drive costs back up toward $50/bbl... The stock markets are back up, the dollar is re-gaining strength, consumer confidence is high, unemployment is improving, even the amount of trash we produce is increasing per capita, which suggests that consumers are buying (and thus disposing of) more stuff.

Bush's fiscal policy is sound. If there is a sluggish economy reduce interest rates and encourage consumer spending by lowering taxes.

All the worry-wart dems who cried over the economy 6 mos ago have considerably less wind in their sails now.
 
1 - 20 of 27 Posts
Top