David Stockman, Ronald Reagan's budget director speaks out - Politics and War Forum

Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.
David Stockman, Ronald Reagan's budget director speaks out
Tuesday, November 02, 2010 3:42 PM on j-body.org
The man speaks the truth.



THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.


Re: David Stockman, Ronald Reagan's budget director speaks out
Saturday, November 06, 2010 9:23 AM on j-body.org
Sobering but true. If we continue to dig into debt, we may never get out. Stockman understands this issue on a deeper level than most, and he sees the "lower taxes, no new taxes" ruse for what it is, just a way to mindfcuk the public into voting for a complete lie.

I dare any of our resident "patriots" to watch this and make comments that are somethng other than rote party rhetoric. Reality is a bitch...let's see them address it.






Re: David Stockman, Ronald Reagan's budget director speaks out
Sunday, November 07, 2010 8:06 AM on j-body.org
This discussion has gone around in the same circle over and over again. I will simply say that, as I have said many times, you can not look at the economy as a zero-sum equation. To increase revenue, and reduce deficit, you must move more people from the dependent side (unemployed, or underemployed) to the producer side (employed, tax paying). You must increase the economic activity to do this, and raising taxes will hurt economic growth in this manner.

Bill, I dare you to ever show how your argument works. And I don't mean showing us a public figure who says so, I mean showing how it has worked in the past. I have supported my argument with historical evidence. You have done nothing but nay-say, and throw out a hollow claim that "it won't work in this situation", yet you have never given evidence of any kind that your idea has worked in any situation.

That dare can go to you as well, Goodwrench, considering that over the years, you have never made a good argument with facts and articulated logic to support your case. I don't give a sh!t who you want to quote saying we need to do it. Show us where it has worked.







Re: David Stockman, Ronald Reagan's budget director speaks out
Sunday, November 07, 2010 8:43 AM on j-body.org
if you want to tax the rich to make up for the money the country is lacking why not tax the middle class as well. i just dont see the point in only taxing one group of people. tacking the example of washingtons a family making 500,000 a year is only taxes on the first 100,000 so there tax is an extra 5 grand. if im middle class and making 100,000 a year i should get taxed on the first 20,000 and im only paying roughly 100. why not make it more fair across the board instead of making the rich foot the bill. might be because the majority of people are middle class and they want to have your vote the next year. they dont want to cut any programs or any spending because it would effect who votes for them. i grew up believe that you have a balanced budget, if you dont have the money. you make cuts. if i dont have money for food for the week i would go without.


did like the point he brought up about how in 1985 the rich had like 8 trillion dollars, now the rich have over 40 trillion. what's the inflation over that 25 year timeframe. i mean in 1985 you could get gas for about 70 cents a gallon. bread was like 35 cents a loaf. of course that number should be way higher now then it was in 85.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
Re: David Stockman, Ronald Reagan's budget director speaks out
Sunday, November 07, 2010 9:07 AM on j-body.org
Quiklilcav wrote:

This discussion has gone around in the same circle over and over again. I will simply say that, as I have said many times, you can not look at the economy as a zero-sum equation. To increase revenue, and reduce deficit, you must move more people from the dependent side (unemployed, or underemployed) to the producer side (employed, tax paying). You must increase the economic activity to do this, and raising taxes will hurt economic growth in this manner.

Bill, I dare you to ever show how your argument works. And I don't mean showing us a public figure who says so, I mean showing how it has worked in the past. I have supported my argument with historical evidence. You have done nothing but nay-say, and throw out a hollow claim that "it won't work in this situation", yet you have never given evidence of any kind that your idea has worked in any situation.

That dare can go to you as well, Goodwrench, considering that over the years, you have never made a good argument with facts and articulated logic to support your case. I don't give a sh!t who you want to quote saying we need to do it. Show us where it has worked
.

Yep. Figured you'd take my "patriot" bait, then dodge the point as usual. Just wanted to hand you that opportunity to uselessly pontificate once again!

After all, why should you listen to an expert like Stockman, whose Reagan-era efforts you applaud...oh, and sorry to pinch you in that obvious contradiction! You know more than any of them, why would you even bother!





Re: David Stockman, Ronald Reagan's budget director speaks out
Sunday, November 07, 2010 11:39 AM on j-body.org
Loved that it took 5 days to answer the "elephant in the room thread" (no pun intended.) Probably the "knee to the balls" effect was so painful, that it took time to heal in order to make a useless come back.

Take Back the Republican Party wrote:

Quiklilcav wrote:

This discussion has gone around in the same circle over and over again. I will simply say that, as I have said many times, you can not look at the economy as a zero-sum equation. To increase revenue, and reduce deficit, you must move more people from the dependent side (unemployed, or underemployed) to the producer side (employed, tax paying). You must increase the economic activity to do this, and raising taxes will hurt economic growth in this manner.

Bill, I dare you to ever show how your argument works. And I don't mean showing us a public figure who says so, I mean showing how it has worked in the past. I have supported my argument with historical evidence. You have done nothing but nay-say, and throw out a hollow claim that "it won't work in this situation", yet you have never given evidence of any kind that your idea has worked in any situation.

That dare can go to you as well, Goodwrench, considering that over the years, you have never made a good argument with facts and articulated logic to support your case. I don't give a sh!t who you want to quote saying we need to do it. Show us where it has worked

Yep. Figured you'd take my "patriot" bait, then dodge the point as usual. Just wanted to hand you that opportunity to uselessly pontificate once again!

After all, why should you listen to an expert like Stockman, whose Reagan-era efforts you applaud...oh, and sorry to pinch you in that obvious contradiction! You know more than any of them, why would you even bother!

Do you expect any better from the jackass? He will not answer you, trust me I've asked him thousands of times the same questions, like asking a politician... where are you going to cut spending... he'll beat around the bush and results to a ignorant comeback. People like that, you have to let them go and let them set sail in search for the end of the Earth and prove the world is flat.

sndsgood wrote:

if you want to tax the rich to make up for the money the country is lacking why not tax the middle class as well. i just dont see the point in only taxing one group of people. tacking the example of washingtons a family making 500,000 a year is only taxes on the first 100,000 so there tax is an extra 5 grand. if im middle class and making 100,000 a year i should get taxed on the first 20,000 and im only paying roughly 100. why not make it more fair across the board instead of making the rich foot the bill. might be because the majority of people are middle class and they want to have your vote the next year. they dont want to cut any programs or any spending because it would effect who votes for them. i grew up believe that you have a balanced budget, if you dont have the money. you make cuts. if i dont have money for food for the week i would go without.

Partly to get your vote is correct. The other part is because the top is the one that uses up the most resources. From the use of their trucks that destroy public roads at a faster rate, to wars we go to expand globalism and set forth a safe territory for business, to the clean up of air or drinking water that companies spews out in manufacturing to name a few.
Much how you state the example on how you grew up, I was raised; you damage something, you pay for it. This is just that... pay for it.
But for the past 30 years it is all under credit... you can thank a good portion to China for the loans.

Quote:

did like the point he brought up about how in 1985 the rich had like 8 trillion dollars, now the rich have over 40 trillion. what's the inflation over that 25 year timeframe. i mean in 1985 you could get gas for about 70 cents a gallon. bread was like 35 cents a loaf. of course that number should be way higher now then it was in 85.
I will bet inflation was included in both figures as well. Stockman does seem the type that will spew out BS.


THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.

Re: David Stockman, Ronald Reagan's budget director speaks out
Sunday, November 07, 2010 11:55 AM on j-body.org
And now the spitting while you're down. You can avoid this one too.


THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.

Re: David Stockman, Ronald Reagan's budget director speaks out
Sunday, November 07, 2010 12:29 PM on j-body.org
Take Back the Republican Party wrote:

Yep. Figured you'd take my "patriot" bait, then dodge the point as usual. Just wanted to hand you that opportunity to uselessly pontificate once again!

After all, why should you listen to an expert like Stockman, whose Reagan-era efforts you applaud...oh, and sorry to pinch you in that obvious contradiction! You know more than any of them, why would you even bother!
LOL. So consistency is now a contradiction, huh?

Just a little FYI for the oblivious: a contradiction would have been if I simply went along with Stockman because of who he was. I hold my own viewpoint, regardless of who might give a different opinion. Yep, you failed at smearing again.


Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:

Do you expect any better from the jackass? He will not answer you, trust me I've asked him thousands of times the same questions, like asking a politician... where are you going to cut spending... he'll beat around the bush and results to a ignorant comeback. People like that, you have to let them go and let them set sail in search for the end of the Earth and prove the world is flat.
Nice job immediately stooping to name-calling.

You know that you're full of sh!t here that I've never answered you. Frankly, I've answered you so many times over the years, that I chose not to repeat myself over and over in response to your idiocy. It is you who have failed to support your views with anything more than "look who else is saying it".


Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:

Stockman does seem the type that will spew out BS.


So, Stockman spews out BS, unless he's saying something you agree with? THIS, folks, is contradiction, for anyone who doesn't get it.

You fools are two peas in a pod. LMFAO.







Re: David Stockman, Ronald Reagan's budget director speaks out
Sunday, November 07, 2010 1:43 PM on j-body.org
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:

Loved that it took 5 days to answer the "elephant in the room thread" (no pun intended.) Probably the "knee to the balls" effect was so painful, that it took time to heal in order to make a useless come back.

Take Back the Republican Party wrote:

Quiklilcav wrote:

This discussion has gone around in the same circle over and over again. I will simply say that, as I have said many times, you can not look at the economy as a zero-sum equation. To increase revenue, and reduce deficit, you must move more people from the dependent side (unemployed, or underemployed) to the producer side (employed, tax paying). You must increase the economic activity to do this, and raising taxes will hurt economic growth in this manner.

Bill, I dare you to ever show how your argument works. And I don't mean showing us a public figure who says so, I mean showing how it has worked in the past. I have supported my argument with historical evidence. You have done nothing but nay-say, and throw out a hollow claim that "it won't work in this situation", yet you have never given evidence of any kind that your idea has worked in any situation.

That dare can go to you as well, Goodwrench, considering that over the years, you have never made a good argument with facts and articulated logic to support your case. I don't give a sh!t who you want to quote saying we need to do it. Show us where it has worked

Yep. Figured you'd take my "patriot" bait, then dodge the point as usual. Just wanted to hand you that opportunity to uselessly pontificate once again!

After all, why should you listen to an expert like Stockman, whose Reagan-era efforts you applaud...oh, and sorry to pinch you in that obvious contradiction! You know more than any of them, why would you even bother!

Do you expect any better from the jackass? He will not answer you, trust me I've asked him thousands of times the same questions, like asking a politician... where are you going to cut spending... he'll beat around the bush and results to a ignorant comeback. People like that, you have to let them go and let them set sail in search for the end of the Earth and prove the world is flat.

sndsgood wrote:

if you want to tax the rich to make up for the money the country is lacking why not tax the middle class as well. i just dont see the point in only taxing one group of people. tacking the example of washingtons a family making 500,000 a year is only taxes on the first 100,000 so there tax is an extra 5 grand. if im middle class and making 100,000 a year i should get taxed on the first 20,000 and im only paying roughly 100. why not make it more fair across the board instead of making the rich foot the bill. might be because the majority of people are middle class and they want to have your vote the next year. they dont want to cut any programs or any spending because it would effect who votes for them. i grew up believe that you have a balanced budget, if you dont have the money. you make cuts. if i dont have money for food for the week i would go without.

Partly to get your vote is correct. The other part is because the top is the one that uses up the most resources. From the use of their trucks that destroy public roads at a faster rate, to wars we go to expand globalism and set forth a safe territory for business, to the clean up of air or drinking water that companies spews out in manufacturing to name a few.
Much how you state the example on how you grew up, I was raised; you damage something, you pay for it. This is just that... pay for it.
But for the past 30 years it is all under credit... you can thank a good portion to China for the loans.

Quote:

did like the point he brought up about how in 1985 the rich had like 8 trillion dollars, now the rich have over 40 trillion. what's the inflation over that 25 year timeframe. i mean in 1985 you could get gas for about 70 cents a gallon. bread was like 35 cents a loaf. of course that number should be way higher now then it was in 85.
I will bet inflation was included in both figures as well. Stockman doesn't seem the type that will spew out BS.

Done.


THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.

Re: David Stockman, Ronald Reagan's budget director speaks out
Sunday, November 07, 2010 5:38 PM on j-body.org
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:

Oh sh!t, I just got caught with my pants down. Let me see if I can backpedal out of this one.
Fixed.


And again, to either of you pompous fools...
Quiklilcav wrote:

I dare you to ever show how your argument works. And I don't mean showing us a public figure who says so, I mean showing how it has worked in the past...over the years, you have never made a good argument with facts and articulated logic to support your case....Show us where it has worked.







Re: David Stockman, Ronald Reagan's budget director speaks out
Sunday, November 07, 2010 10:47 PM on j-body.org
Pointing out the name calling like a hypocrite: Check.
Picking on typos and not making any sense on comebacks: Check.
Not keeping up with the thread, must result on other things just mentioned: Check.
Still not answering past questions and now plays the role of the questioner: Check.

So Limbaugh's Right Nut how's the hunt for the end of the world working for ya? Or are you beating still beating your husband/wife for the past 5+days to let the rage out because of this thread?
I'll see ya on the 6 o'clock news.... The up rise of extremism and domestic terrorism special.
Carry on.
And now the reply will consist of the same crap over and over. Loser! LuLz... All to easy.


THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.


Re: David Stockman, Ronald Reagan's budget director speaks out
Monday, November 08, 2010 5:18 AM on j-body.org
Quiklilcav sobbed as he wrote:


And again, to either of you pompous fools... I dare you to ever show how your argument works. And I don't mean showing us a public figure who says so, I mean showing how it has worked in the past...over the years, you have never made a good argument with facts and articulated logic to support your case....Show us where it has worked.

Fool. Show US how anything you rant about has EVER been applied to the VERY situation we find ourselves in NOW. You cannot, for we've never been at this particular juncture. Your "historical facts" are simply useless, for this is unprecendented.

I say this not to try and persuade you, for you are hopelessly lost. I say it for the benefit of others. No one in their right mind would ever believe the likes of YOU over an expert like David Stockman. I'm sorry that hurts so much to hear, but it shouldn't...you aren't much, and he's actually been part of all this. Accepting that would mature you...quite a bit.





Re: David Stockman, Ronald Reagan's budget director speaks out
Monday, November 08, 2010 5:30 AM on j-body.org
Quiklilcav ran out of anything to say, so he instead wrote:


You fools are two peas in a pod. LMFAO.

Actually, no..what we are is your worst nightmare. We have differing views, as Goodwrench leans farther to the left than I do. But what we do that makes you cringe and cry out in pain is something you prove incapable of even embracing, much less participating in: We find common ground. We don't let our core differences prevent us from understanding that consensus is the only real answer. We chuckle when you think that your extreme views are what wins elections. We know that you are your own worst enemy.

We are the future of this nation, and combined, we far outnumber you.




Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Monday, November 08, 2010 5:31 AM



Re: David Stockman, Ronald Reagan's budget director speaks out
Monday, November 08, 2010 11:08 AM on j-body.org
"Partly to get your vote is correct. The other part is because the top is the one that uses up the most resources. From the use of their trucks that destroy public roads at a faster rate, to wars we go to expand globalism and set forth a safe territory for business, to the clean up of air or drinking water that companies spews out in manufacturing to name a few.
Much how you state the example on how you grew up, I was raised; you damage something, you pay for it. This is just that... pay for it.
But for the past 30 years it is all under credit... you can thank a good portion to China for the loans."




its the companies that own the trucks that destroy the roads. not the person himself who will be taxed. the millions of cars that drive the roads to buy the goods from the trucks are to blame just as much the turck themselves wars are created by the goverment. this last war proved that. this is everyones country. to say every problem is created by the rich so they should pay for it just sounds like a cop out. the top is the one that uses the resources to create the companies that higher the middle class. without them creating the company that uses those resources none of the middle class have jobs. were all responsible.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
Re: David Stockman, Ronald Reagan's budget director speaks out
Monday, November 08, 2010 5:39 PM on j-body.org
LMAO at Goodwrench and Bill. You two seriously flatter yourself in so many ways. For one, nothing you could ever post on here causes me to do more than laugh. You're a couple of jokers who pride themselves in talking down to everyone that disagrees with you because you are the "enlightened independents" in the "sea of extremists". Get over yourselves.

Bill, you can continue to cry about how my suggested solutions will never work because this is an unprecedented scenario, but in all your rantings of such, you can not then claim that your answer is the correct one. If it's so unprecedented, how can you know that your answer is so right? As I have pointed out, one way has worked every time it's tried, and one way has failed every time it's tried. So far, it's failing again, so where's you're proof that you're right?

As for you and Goodwrench being of different sides of the fence and finding common ground, I'll say that the only common ground you have is that you both bash anyone on the right as extreme, and you both nay-say every conservative idea anyone posts. If you call that consensus, you might want to re-evaluate your vocabulary.

By the way, while sizing down my type may get you a few creative points, in reality it only serves to show how desperate you are to belittle me.







Re: David Stockman, Ronald Reagan's budget director speaks out
Monday, November 08, 2010 10:14 PM on j-body.org
sndsgood wrote:

its the companies that own the trucks that destroy the roads. not the person himself who will be taxed.

Company, or people, or person. Those hundreds to thousands of trucks that are running on the highways are the one maintaining the top's status high, and doing so, they are deteriorating the roads too.
Quote:

the millions of cars that drive the roads to buy the goods from the trucks are to blame just as much the turck themselves wars are created by the goverment.
Not clear what you're saying.
Quote:

this last war proved that. this is everyones country
And at what/whose expense?
Quote:

to say every problem is created by the rich so they should pay for it just sounds like a cop out.
Not every problem, but a good portion of using up our infrastructure are the big businesses. Think about how well these business would do today if their roadways were made out of sand or craters? Off topic... I will bet using more of the rail system will save the infrastructure and reduce traffic, but lately rails are less and less used.
Quote:

the top is the one that uses the resources to create the companies that higher the middle class.without them creating the company that uses those resources none of the middle class have jobs. were all responsible.
To a degree, yes. The top can (not always in this country though) create jobs. If the top doesn't create jobs, the middle will do so by means of small business. We are all indeed responsible there, therefore pay into it more on the group that uses the resources the most. No free rides.


THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.

Re: David Stockman, Ronald Reagan's budget director speaks out
Tuesday, November 09, 2010 10:01 AM on j-body.org
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:

sndsgood wrote:

its the companies that own the trucks that destroy the roads. not the person himself who will be taxed.

Company, or people, or person. Those hundreds to thousands of trucks that are running on the highways are the one maintaining the top's status high, and doing so, they are deteriorating the roads too.
Quote:

the millions of cars that drive the roads to buy the goods from the trucks are to blame just as much the turck themselves wars are created by the goverment.
Not clear what you're saying.
Quote:

this last war proved that. this is everyones country
And at what/whose expense?
Quote:

to say every problem is created by the rich so they should pay for it just sounds like a cop out.
Not every problem, but a good portion of using up our infrastructure are the big businesses. Think about how well these business would do today if their roadways were made out of sand or craters? Off topic... I will bet using more of the rail system will save the infrastructure and reduce traffic, but lately rails are less and less used.
Quote:

the top is the one that uses the resources to create the companies that higher the middle class.without them creating the company that uses those resources none of the middle class have jobs. were all responsible.
To a degree, yes. The top can (not always in this country though) create jobs. If the top doesn't create jobs, the middle will do so by means of small business. We are all indeed responsible there, therefore pay into it more on the group that uses the resources the most. No free rides.




sorry you know i suck at the quoting thing.

1. so if its the companies problem destroying the roads you tax the company then, not the person who owns the company. they are two diffrent things.

2. my point about the millions of cars on the roads is that they share the roads with the business trucks so they should bare the responsibility along with the trucks.

3. the whole war thing was started by the goverment, not the people who's expense was it at? the peoples and the country as a whole considering the beating we took about it by just about every other country. again the country as a whole to blame, the country as a whole should pay.

4. if the roads were craters and sand the business would do as well an anyone else who uses them. the goods would still get there it would just take more time to do it. but s the business make the deleveries all the citicizins must drive to get the goods. both are using the roads and schools and fire deptartments etc etc etc.

rail is questionable. it worked good when each city was central and the population was much smaller. now that things are so spread out away from railyards and the quantity needed is so much greater its more beneficial to use other methods of travel. this is why im not a fan of the light rail system. in small urban areas its great. but what is the point if i have to drive my car to the railways to use it and drive it home. thast a complelty diffrent discussion though.

5. it seems like you dont want to seperate the business from the owner. the owner is a seperate person from the business. most of these taxes are just based on how much money you make, not about what business you own and resources you use. by your examples you should be taxed by how much resources you use. instead its just a money grab by those that have been the most sucsesful or lucky depending on how you see it. i just believe everyone should pay there fair share instead of just saying that guy has more then us. lets just take it from him because we have the votes.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
Re: David Stockman, Ronald Reagan's budget director speaks out
Wednesday, November 10, 2010 10:17 PM on j-body.org
sndsgood wrote:


sorry you know i suck at the quoting thing.
1. so if its the companies problem destroying the roads you tax the company then, not the person who owns the company. they are two diffrent things.

I gather you want to add another tax then? Are you, actually suggesting this?
Quote:

2. my point about the millions of cars on the roads is that they share the roads with the business trucks so they should bare the responsibility along with the trucks.

We all input our "road fee" through taxes. The point you are not grasping: those 18 wheelers, delivery trucks, commercial vans, consume and deteriorate the infrastructure at a faster rate then a commuting automobile.
Quote:

3. the whole war thing was started by the goverment, not the people who's expense was it at? the peoples and the country as a whole considering the beating we took about it by just about every other country. again the country as a whole to blame, the country as a whole should pay.

More like war was started through businesses that lobbies at DC. It is all a matter of expansion of Globalism. Also it is our expense through lives and your tax money.
Quote:

4. if the roads were craters and sand the business would do as well an anyone else who uses them. the goods would still get there it would just take more time to do it. but s the business make the deleveries all the citicizins must drive to get the goods. both are using the roads and schools and fire deptartments etc etc etc.
With craters and sand would do well... Do you know about time is crucial in business, especially in the 21st century? Quit while you're not ahead because your stance approaches borderlines "bitching for the sake of bitching."
Quote:

rail is questionable. it worked good when each city was central and the population was much smaller. now that things are so spread out away from railyards and the quantity needed is so much greater its more beneficial to use other methods of travel. this is why im not a fan of the light rail system. in small urban areas its great. but what is the point if i have to drive my car to the railways to use it and drive it home. thast a complelty diffrent discussion though.
I was talking about freight trains, not passenger trains. Trains would cut down on so many things, congestions, infrastructure destruction, fuel usage, accidents, etc. The only place trucks would be used, would be train yards to business location.
Quote:

5. it seems like you dont want to seperate the business from the owner. the owner is a seperate person from the business. most of these taxes are just based on how much money you make, not about what business you own and resources you use. by your examples you should be taxed by how much resources you use. instead its just a money grab by those that have been the most sucsesful or lucky depending on how you see it. i just believe everyone should pay there fair share instead of just saying that guy has more then us. lets just take it from him because we have the votes.
Oh brother you got so many things backwards. You do know the business represents the owner & vice-versa, no? And yes- BINGO! "You should be taxed by how much resources you use." They are partly successful because their roads have been paved, literally. Which is why I said if roads were sand dunes, their business would be on life support at best today.




THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.

Re: David Stockman, Ronald Reagan's budget director speaks out
Thursday, November 11, 2010 4:06 AM on j-body.org
I believe Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. one thing you are not spelling out properly is WHY those trucks tear up the road faster. It might not be obvious to all. Its not a matter of quantity(considerable as that may be), but weight of the vehicle fully loaded(or overloaded if they can get away with it) with cargo. Now you might think that cars outnumbering the trucks would make up the difference, and you would be wrong. The issue is the amount of force being exerted all at once against the road. The more weight applied by the tire, multiplied by the speed of the tire, the higher the force the road materials must absorb all in an instant. If it absorbs the force without changing the molecular bonds holding it together, then no damage at all is done. Its when that force is greater than the road's ability to absorb it that you have damage. Another thing that is harmful is the need to accelerate/brake/steer. The force needed to modify velocity is applied through the tires against the road. The force needed to do these things is MUCH greater in a loaded semi.

In short, 20 separate 4000 pound vehicles do not cause near the wear/damage that one 80,000 pound vehicle does.

Of course as stated, companies profit disproportionately from these roads when compared to average citizens. Maybe not ALL companies - only companies needing to move products and/or materials. A financial company etc... not so much. But the vast majority do. The modern American manufacturing transport, and, sales business world is only possible thanks to our extensive road system. These companies in general... are owned by the wealthiest. Its a fact. Roads are only ONE example of the system that taxes maintain. So much of it is taken completely for granted because its been there all our lives.

Paying back into the American system - the system that allows people to make themselves up from nothing to billionaire in one lifetime - that is not too much to ask. Its the very system that allowed them to become so wealthy. For all that people harp on the Government, the system it provides is like no other in the world in the opportunity it makes possible. We're talking about the system that is the very core foundation of the American dream. But there are no free lunches - someone always must pay. Its not perfect but this is a great system we have - and it cost alot of money to build and maintain.

It isn't about "punishing success," or any such nonsense. Its not about "robbing the rich and giving to the poor" nor any other similar misconception. Its about those who have the means to pay back into the very system that made their own success possible. Some people who have made it and got theirs often don't care to keep the door open behind them. Then you have people like Bill Gates, Warren Buffet - richest men on the planet. They don't think the uber-rich pay NEARLY enough in taxes.

There is another aspect often ignored - where as many around here are awfully fond of following the founding father's "original intent" (or should I say what they perceive to be their original intent according to their own world view), somehow this doesn't translate to the current tax structure. If you want to know what the founders would have done - look at what THEY DID. Until FDR(Liberal savior and Conservative Satan), this nation was in every aspect financed EXCLUSIVELY through taxing the rich. The lower and middle class(or at least as much of one that existed) was not taxed one bit. I personally wouldn't go that far as to make the rich and uber-rich pay for everything, but that IS what the founding father DID DO.

There is so much complaining about taxes in this country, and so much misunderstanding about taxes in general. I recall recently, someone on JBO saying he was trying to not work too much so he didn't get taxed at a higher rate. That also is born of ignorance on tax rate structures. Paying taxes is unpleasant, but its VERY necessary. It is NOT tyranny. Next time someone wants to tell me how the rich pay too much, allow me to break out my tiny violin for them.





Re: David Stockman, Ronald Reagan's budget director speaks out
Thursday, November 11, 2010 5:32 AM on j-body.org
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:

sndsgood wrote:


sorry you know i suck at the quoting thing.
1. so if its the companies problem destroying the roads you tax the company then, not the person who owns the company. they are two diffrent things.

I gather you want to add another tax then? Are you, actually suggesting this?

im not suggesting it, what im saying is that if you believe its the company fault that we need all this tax money then you tax the company, not the individual. the owner owns the company but there is a vice presidents and managers that make tons of money but you get hung up on the owner of the business there are plenty of rich people out there that don't own the business so your argument about busineses just seems misguided

Quote:

2. my point about the millions of cars on the roads is that they share the roads with the business trucks so they should bare the responsibility along with the trucks.

We all input our "road fee" through taxes. The point you are not grasping: those 18 wheelers, delivery trucks, commercial vans, consume and deteriorate the infrastructure at a faster rate then a commuting automobile.

your right the trucks do more damage i know this. but they are doing that damage bringing goods to those people in the cars. if the people in the cars didnt need all those goods you wouldnt need the trucks, everyone is responsible not just the business owners. my point is its everyones responsibility not just a tiny group of society that is to blame for everything

Quote:

3. the whole war thing was started by the goverment, not the people who's expense was it at? the peoples and the country as a whole considering the beating we took about it by just about every other country. again the country as a whole to blame, the country as a whole should pay.

More like war was started through businesses that lobbies at DC. It is all a matter of expansion of Globalism. Also it is our expense through lives and your tax money.

all busineses and lobbyists can do is lobby and state there case. its those in power in washington that send us to war and most are people WE voted in. again it all of our faults for voting in the wrong people. its a shared responsibility.

Quote:

4. if the roads were craters and sand the business would do as well an anyone else who uses them. the goods would still get there it would just take more time to do it. but s the business make the deleveries all the citicizins must drive to get the goods. both are using the roads and schools and fire deptartments etc etc etc.
With craters and sand would do well... Do you know about time is crucial in business, especially in the 21st century? Quit while you're not ahead because your stance approaches borderlines "bitching for the sake of bitching."

yeah yeah time is money uh duh! something that needs delivered in 1 day gets delivered in 1 day because we have the ability to do it that way. if we had craters and sand to drive on the only thing that would change would be the timeframe, instead of 1 day deliveries it would be two day deliveries other then that nothing would change. i'll ignore the quit while your behind remark because its kinda childish were are debating a topic, just because my opinion goes against yours doesn't make it bitching


Quote:

rail is questionable. it worked good when each city was central and the population was much smaller. now that things are so spread out away from railyards and the quantity needed is so much greater its more beneficial to use other methods of travel. this is why im not a fan of the light rail system. in small urban areas its great. but what is the point if i have to drive my car to the railways to use it and drive it home. thast a complelty diffrent discussion though.
I was talking about freight trains, not passenger trains. Trains would cut down on so many things, congestions, infrastructure destruction, fuel usage, accidents, etc. The only place trucks would be used, would be train yards to business location.

i know you were talking freight trains wich is why in the beginning i remarked about railyards and quanities, then i branched into light rail which is the same pourpose but people driven instead of material drivin. as you said in the above remarks its the 21st century. people dont want to wait around for there item and trucks are faster,


Quote:

5. it seems like you dont want to seperate the business from the owner. the owner is a seperate person from the business. most of these taxes are just based on how much money you make, not about what business you own and resources you use. by your examples you should be taxed by how much resources you use. instead its just a money grab by those that have been the most sucsesful or lucky depending on how you see it. i just believe everyone should pay there fair share instead of just saying that guy has more then us. lets just take it from him because we have the votes.
Oh brother you got so many things backwards. You do know the business represents the owner & vice-versa, no? And yes- BINGO! "You should be taxed by how much resources you use." They are partly successful because their roads have been paved, literally. Which is why I said if roads were sand dunes, their business would be on life support at best today.


a busines represents 1 person the owner. we are not talking about taxing the owner, we are talking aout general tax on the rich. every rich person doesnt own a company there is your flaw in your thought process. your assuming if someone is riched they must be a business owner who owns trucks that destroy the roads. so you think you should be taxed by how much resoucres you use. okay so that means tiger woods who proably has half a billion dollars shouldnt be taxed much at all because he's not a company owner who owns trucks that destroy roads??? again your going by the logic that everyone owns a business.

again if roads were sand dunes businesss wouldnt be on life support things wouldnt be much diffrent. 100 years ago before roads they had business right? the only diffrence would be the times it took to delivery and recieve goods. nothing else.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
Re: David Stockman, Ronald Reagan's budget director speaks out
Thursday, November 11, 2010 7:30 AM on j-body.org
bk3k wrote:

I believe Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. one thing you are not spelling out properly is WHY those trucks tear up the road faster. It might not be obvious to all...

Thank-you for the side note, I guess I'm giving to much credit here.

sndsgood wrote:


im not suggesting it, what im saying is that if you believe its the company fault that we need all this tax money then you tax the company, not the individual. the owner owns the company but there is a vice presidents and managers that make tons of money but you get hung up on the owner of the business there are plenty of rich people out there that don't own the business so your argument about busineses just seems misguided

So you are suggesting it, admit it already. The vice president and managers are all working in tandem with the CEO/owners, in other words, out to make a profit, now how much is the profit, enough to sustain a business afloat. Now if they are afloat they are using an example of the resource service provided by the government.

Quote:

your right the trucks do more damage i know this. but they are doing that damage bringing goods to those people in the cars. if the people in the cars didnt need all those goods you wouldnt need the trucks, everyone is responsible not just the business owners. my point is its everyones responsibility not just a tiny group of society that is to blame for everything
Again (for the x3) we are all paying for it. It is the top has a cut rate/per usage.

Quote:

all busineses and lobbyists can do is lobby and state there case. its those in power in washington that send us to war and most are people WE voted in. again it all of our faults for voting in the wrong people. its a shared responsibility.
If they want to get re-elected the lobbies will win their case. Case in point, Jimmy Carter.

Quote:

yeah yeah time is money uh duh! something that needs delivered in 1 day gets delivered in 1 day because we have the ability to do it that way. if we had craters and sand to drive on the only thing that would change would be the timeframe, instead of 1 day deliveries it would be two day deliveries other then that nothing would change. i'll ignore the quit while your behind remark because its kinda childish were are debating a topic, just because my opinion goes against yours doesn't make it bitching
Sorry to inform you, but something that goes from California to New York via ground, and there are sand dunes verses asphalt, it will not take just a day longer. If you're carrying merchandise through the dune, it will arrive there probably as quick as the old pony express. This is where time is money today, business is moving forward because government is paving the way... literally (x2). Ignore the quit while your behind remark, but your lack of reasoning proves otherwise.

Quote:

as you said in the above remarks its the 21st century. people dont want to wait around for there item and trucks are faster,

False, trains are faster. You have miles of goods going to point A to B, with no traffic, almost non-stop. What on Earth will make you think that trucks are faster. Here again the lack of reasoning.

Quote:

a busines represents 1 person the owner. we are not talking about taxing the owner, we are talking aout general tax on the rich. every rich person doesnt own a company there is your flaw in your thought process. your assuming if someone is riched they must be a business owner who owns trucks that destroy the roads. so you think you should be taxed by how much resoucres you use. okay so that means tiger woods who proably has half a billion dollars shouldnt be taxed much at all because he's not a company owner who owns trucks that destroy roads??? again your going by the logic that everyone owns a business.
You're right every rich person does not own a business, and also every "tiger wood" in society is a extreme minority. Lets face it, the ones with the big bucks work in corporate America, not in a playing field.
Second you are hung up to much on my example with the infrastructure. When the rich pays into society, in general, government establishments are better funded, and provides a better service to the public. That's (a) example. The other is lowering the debt that usually the top majority created because of (just quick examples) the reasons I mentioned to you in the beginning.

Quote:

again if roads were sand dunes businesss wouldnt be on life support things wouldnt be much diffrent. 100 years ago before roads they had business right? the only diffrence would be the times it took to delivery and recieve goods. nothing else.
Which is why I stated 21st century as we are accustomed to paved modern roads. I'll say this, it is today and the funding for infrastructure has been cut (lack of funding). Maintenance is non-existent. Paving done for. How well do you think this economy will do after this, mind you the rest of the world is working just the same. Do you honestly think our economy will not be on life support in this world economy with this situation?



THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.


Re: David Stockman, Ronald Reagan's budget director speaks out
Thursday, November 11, 2010 10:09 AM on j-body.org
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:

bk3k wrote:

I believe Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. one thing you are not spelling out properly is WHY those trucks tear up the road faster. It might not be obvious to all...

Thank-you for the side note, I guess I'm giving to much credit here.

sndsgood wrote:


im not suggesting it, what im saying is that if you believe its the company fault that we need all this tax money then you tax the company, not the individual. the owner owns the company but there is a vice presidents and managers that make tons of money but you get hung up on the owner of the business there are plenty of rich people out there that don't own the business so your argument about busineses just seems misguided


So you are suggesting it, admit it already. The vice president and managers are all working in tandem with the CEO/owners, in other words, out to make a profit, now how much is the profit, enough to sustain a business afloat. Now if they are afloat they are using an example of the resource service provided by the government.

if they could come up with a plan more blananced and fair id be for it. so if the vice presidents and managers are all working in tandem to make money, isnt the lowly employee also working in tandem to make profit? so then doesnt that mean every employee in the company is using the resources provided by the goverment? so doesnt that mean they should all share the burden?


Quote:

your right the trucks do more damage i know this. but they are doing that damage bringing goods to those people in the cars. if the people in the cars didnt need all those goods you wouldnt need the trucks, everyone is responsible not just the business owners. my point is its everyones responsibility not just a tiny group of society that is to blame for everything
Again (for the x3) we are all paying for it. It is the top has a cut rate/per usage.

according to the washington example in your video. no not every is paying, they were just wanting to charge the rich, no one else.

Quote:

all busineses and lobbyists can do is lobby and state there case. its those in power in washington that send us to war and most are people WE voted in. again it all of our faults for voting in the wrong people. its a shared responsibility.
If they want to get re-elected the lobbies will win their case. Case in point, Jimmy Carter.

so every member that signed off to go to iraq was under the lobbyist thumb intresting.

Quote:

yeah yeah time is money uh duh! something that needs delivered in 1 day gets delivered in 1 day because we have the ability to do it that way. if we had craters and sand to drive on the only thing that would change would be the timeframe, instead of 1 day deliveries it would be two day deliveries other then that nothing would change. i'll ignore the quit while your behind remark because its kinda childish were are debating a topic, just because my opinion goes against yours doesn't make it bitching
Sorry to inform you, but something that goes from California to New York via ground, and there are sand dunes verses asphalt, it will not take just a day longer. If you're carrying merchandise through the dune, it will arrive there probably as quick as the old pony express. This is where time is money today, business is moving forward because government is paving the way... literally (x2). Ignore the quit while your behind remark, but your lack of reasoning proves otherwise.

from cali to new york just take a plane. you have issues with my reasoning but your example is that every road suddenly turned to sand dunes.


Quote:

as you said in the above remarks its the 21st century. people dont want to wait around for there item and trucks are faster,

False, trains are faster. You have miles of goods going to point A to B, with no traffic, almost non-stop. What on Earth will make you think that trucks are faster. Here again the lack of reasoning.

i havnt spent much time riding the rails but i'd think the train going from point a to point b will be stopping at 30 cities between the two. i could load a truck up and send it non-stop. i dont beleive most trains went non stop. reason why a truck can be faster. there isnt enough railways for sending enough goods non-stop from city to city. you'd have to increase the tracks probalby 10x do be able to do that. you said it yourself time is money. so if that is the case, and the railway is the super duper fastest way to get from point a to point b that people would be using it? hmmm no there not. probalby a reason for that. oh yeah. faster delivery.

Quote:

a busines represents 1 person the owner. we are not talking about taxing the owner, we are talking aout general tax on the rich. every rich person doesnt own a company there is your flaw in your thought process. your assuming if someone is riched they must be a business owner who owns trucks that destroy the roads. so you think you should be taxed by how much resoucres you use. okay so that means tiger woods who proably has half a billion dollars shouldnt be taxed much at all because he's not a company owner who owns trucks that destroy roads??? again your going by the logic that everyone owns a business.
You're right every rich person does not own a business, and also every "tiger wood" in society is a extreme minority. Lets face it, the ones with the big bucks work in corporate America, not in a playing field.
Second you are hung up to much on my example with the infrastructure. When the rich pays into society, in general, government establishments are better funded, and provides a better service to the public. That's (a) example. The other is lowering the debt that usually the top majority created because of (just quick examples) the reasons I mentioned to you in the beginning.

my example of tiger was just one small example just as your roadway is one example dont get to hung up on it.

so when the rich pay into society things get better. imagine how much better we'd be doing if everyone was paying into it. im not saying just tax everyone 10 bucks. my argument was based of the washington example in the video where they were deciding to just tax the rich only and no one else. basically it comes down to. they have more money lets just take it. the majority are in the middle class and wont care that were taking it all from the rich.



Quote:

again if roads were sand dunes businesss wouldnt be on life support things wouldnt be much diffrent. 100 years ago before roads they had business right? the only diffrence would be the times it took to delivery and recieve goods. nothing else.
Which is why I stated 21st century as we are accustomed to paved modern roads. I'll say this, it is today and the funding for infrastructure has been cut (lack of funding). Maintenance is non-existent. Paving done for. How well do you think this economy will do after this, mind you the rest of the world is working just the same. Do you honestly think our economy will not be on life support in this world economy with this situation?


rich can pay in all they want but if you have a goverment that wont balance the budget your going to be screwed either way.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
Re: David Stockman, Ronald Reagan's budget director speaks out
Thursday, November 11, 2010 12:31 PM on j-body.org
sndsgood wrote:


if they could come up with a plan more blananced and fair id be for it. so if the vice presidents and managers are all working in tandem to make money, isnt the lowly employee also working in tandem to make profit? so then doesnt that mean every employee in the company is using the resources provided by the goverment? so doesnt that mean they should all share the burden?
Funny you should say on a plan...
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/11/president-obama-reacts-to-debt-commission-report-were-going-to-have-to-make-some-tough-choices.html
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/senate-budget-committee-chairman-kent-conrad-deficit-fury-12118196
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/debt-commission-mulls-social-security-benefits-cuts-tax/story?id=12111270
There is a huge difference between those lowly employees and the managers. For one, one follows orders, two-doesn't make business decisions, three- they are making 4 or 5 digits salary, they are not making the 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 figures that the top is making, just because they are "lowly workers." If they all made roughly the same and had the same business input/decisions from top to bottom, then burden would trickle down too; as they themselves are in the process of profiteering, not just following orders. That being said, the lowly worker is NOT in the same category as the top, just because they are making the capital for X employer, not figuring out into how to expand and be viable. So the short answer is no, they don't share the burden.

Quote:

according to the washington example in your video. no not every is paying, they were just wanting to charge the rich, no one else.
I just focused on what Stockman said.
Quote:

so every member that signed off to go to iraq was under the lobbyist thumb intresting.

Yes, it is called the Oil lobby. That's what you get when you put oil tycoons in office. You should get informed on ex-CEO Cheney's Haliburton and the no-bid contract to do work over there. BTW illegal.

Quote:

from cali to new york just take a plane. you have issues with my reasoning but your example is that every road suddenly turned to sand dunes.

I have issues with your "so-called" reasoning because they are not reasoned. A business in a search to maximize profits, will not be taking goods via air all the time, because of the cost of air travel. The sand dunes is an example to wake you up to see what government is doing to make this economy move. The point of it all is: pay for it.

Quote:

havnt spent much time riding the rails but i'd think the train going from point a to point b will be stopping at 30 cities between the two. i could load a truck up and send it non-stop. i dont beleive most trains went non stop. reason why a truck can be faster. there isnt enough railways for sending enough goods non-stop from city to city. you'd have to increase the tracks probalby 10x do be able to do that. you said it yourself time is money. so if that is the case, and the railway is the super duper fastest way to get from point a to point b that people would be using it? hmmm no there not. probalby a reason for that. oh yeah. faster delivery.
Sometime I just face-palm at your answers (bitch for the sake of bitching is all I read from you). Lets put a quick scenario. Detroit to LA. 500 Cars to ship out. 200 cars fit in one train, 9 cars in a truck. Which will be more cost effective and the quickest way for that company? (insert Jeopardy music here)
Why we are not using trains? Ask the more powerful truck lobby that topples the train lobby and congress/senate why.

Quote:

so when the rich pay into society things get better. imagine how much better we'd be doing if everyone was paying into it. im not saying just tax everyone 10 bucks. my argument was based of the washington example in the video where they were deciding to just tax the rich only and no one else. basically it comes down to. they have more money lets just take it. the majority are in the middle class and wont care that were taking it all from the rich.
Everyone pays in a proportion. Yes, partly they can afford it. The percentage is so minuscule, that if we were all taxed the same, services will never be funded correctly. Higher gross, higher percentage pays into it as well. Hey X company got to where they are at because of the tax fee and service provided for them. Let see them make the same progress where taxes doesn't exist and you got to do everything on your own; like in Somalia.

Quote:

rich can pay in all they want but if you have a goverment that wont balance the budget your going to be screwed either way.

Read/Watch the links I posted. An attempt and ideas are out there being started.



THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.

Re: David Stockman, Ronald Reagan's budget director speaks out
Thursday, November 11, 2010 7:21 PM on j-body.org
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:

sndsgood wrote:


if they could come up with a plan more blananced and fair id be for it. so if the vice presidents and managers are all working in tandem to make money, isnt the lowly employee also working in tandem to make profit? so then doesnt that mean every employee in the company is using the resources provided by the goverment? so doesnt that mean they should all share the burden?
Funny you should say on a plan...
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/11/president-obama-reacts-to-debt-commission-report-were-going-to-have-to-make-some-tough-choices.html
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/senate-budget-committee-chairman-kent-conrad-deficit-fury-12118196
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/debt-commission-mulls-social-security-benefits-cuts-tax/story?id=12111270
There is a huge difference between those lowly employees and the managers. For one, one follows orders, two-doesn't make business decisions, three- they are making 4 or 5 digits salary, they are not making the 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 figures that the top is making, just because they are "lowly workers." If they all made roughly the same and had the same business input/decisions from top to bottom, then burden would trickle down too; as they themselves are in the process of profiteering, not just following orders. That being said, the lowly worker is NOT in the same category as the top, just because they are making the capital for X employer, not figuring out into how to expand and be viable. So the short answer is no, they don't share the burden.

everyone follows orders in the company except for the president. so thats out the window. i make desicsions everyday on the projuects i put out and im not the owner or boss i can make a mistake and cost my company millions. me a lowly peon so that one is out the window as well. our field guys are what our customer sees if he doesnt treat the customer good were not likely to get that customer back, he has a direct link to helping the company make money, and when we make money the company gives back to us. we share in our companies profite, allot smaller for us but thats the way it works. so now are you saying that if your a manger should they get taxed more or just the vice presidents or where does that line get drawn?


Quote:

according to the washington example in your video. no not every is paying, they were just wanting to charge the rich, no one else.
I just focused on what Stockman said.

and i was focusing on washington wich seemed to be a big focus of the story. wich was implying only the rich will pay. you seeemed to have mentioned several times that everyone pays but the rich pay more. so are you saying you believe that everyone(will say everyone that is above the pverty line) should pay taxes? or do you think its okay to just tax the rich and nobody else?

Quote:

so every member that signed off to go to iraq was under the lobbyist thumb intresting.

Yes, it is called the Oil lobby. That's what you get when you put oil tycoons in office. You should get informed on ex-CEO Cheney's Haliburton and the no-bid contract to do work over there. BTW illegal.


so if the oil company owns everyone were just screwed then. ill just leave that one alone.


Quote:

from cali to new york just take a plane. you have issues with my reasoning but your example is that every road suddenly turned to sand dunes.

I have issues with your "so-called" reasoning because they are not reasoned. A business in a search to maximize profits, will not be taking goods via air all the time, because of the cost of air travel. The sand dunes is an example to wake you up to see what government is doing to make this economy move. The point of it all is: pay for it.


i agree, lets pay for it. but lets all pay for it since we all use it.

Quote:

havnt spent much time riding the rails but i'd think the train going from point a to point b will be stopping at 30 cities between the two. i could load a truck up and send it non-stop. i dont beleive most trains went non stop. reason why a truck can be faster. there isnt enough railways for sending enough goods non-stop from city to city. you'd have to increase the tracks probalby 10x do be able to do that. you said it yourself time is money. so if that is the case, and the railway is the super duper fastest way to get from point a to point b that people would be using it? hmmm no there not. probalby a reason for that. oh yeah. faster delivery.
Sometime I just face-palm at your answers (bitch for the sake of bitching is all I read from you). Lets put a quick scenario. Detroit to LA. 500 Cars to ship out. 200 cars fit in one train, 9 cars in a truck. Which will be more cost effective and the quickest way for that company? (insert Jeopardy music here)
Why we are not using trains? Ask the more powerful truck lobby that topples the train lobby and congress/senate why.

okay yeah trucks will probalby be cheaper to run by train. umm great 1 commodity out of the millions of commities out there. great job. score one for your team. how about delivering computers from sheboigen ill, to paskalusa texas. chances are your not going to find a close train line or one that even makes since to use. I wasnt implying that every single good in the country will be cheaper or faster by truck, but the majority of stuff is or we would be using them more. i mean you'd think if trains were truly faster and cheaper we would use them. but in the last 30+ years we seem to use them less and less. i guess every corporation out there just doesnt know this, maybe you can spread the word.


Quote:

so when the rich pay into society things get better. imagine how much better we'd be doing if everyone was paying into it. im not saying just tax everyone 10 bucks. my argument was based of the washington example in the video where they were deciding to just tax the rich only and no one else. basically it comes down to. they have more money lets just take it. the majority are in the middle class and wont care that were taking it all from the rich.
Everyone pays in a proportion. Yes, partly they can afford it. The percentage is so minuscule, that if we were all taxed the same, services will never be funded correctly. Higher gross, higher percentage pays into it as well. Hey X company got to where they are at because of the tax fee and service provided for them. Let see them make the same progress where taxes doesn't exist and you got to do everything on your own; like in Somalia.

ive never suggested the rich shouldn't pay taxes, nor would i my responce was based off of the video you posted in washington. were they didnt want to tax middle or lowerclass, just the rich.
Quote:

rich can pay in all they want but if you have a goverment that wont balance the budget your going to be screwed either way.

Read/Watch the links I posted. An attempt and ideas are out there being started.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
Re: David Stockman, Ronald Reagan's budget director speaks out
Thursday, November 11, 2010 11:03 PM on j-body.org
Quote:

everyone follows orders in the company except for the president. so thats out the window. i make desicsions everyday on the projuects i put out and im not the owner or boss i can make a mistake and cost my company millions. me a lowly peon so that one is out the window as well. our field guys are what our customer sees if he doesnt treat the customer good were not likely to get that customer back, he has a direct link to helping the company make money, and when we make money the company gives back to us. we share in our companies profite, allot smaller for us but thats the way it works. so now are you saying that if your a manger should they get taxed more or just the vice presidents or where does that line get drawn?

Yes, one follows order and the other doesn't, that was the point, good for figuring it out and being that so... not in the same category as mentioned before. You, "lowly peon" is maintaining the company, you are not the one deciding to expand, that's you boss' job. Again not in the same category. Judging from your aimless shooting, I don't think you're quite grasping, or you're just flinging $hit to the wall in hope it sticks.
What line? What twist are you shooting for now?

Quote:

i agree, lets pay for it. but lets all pay for it since we all use it.
We are, what do you think that tax fee you pay in when you get your check goes to?

Quote:

okay yeah trucks will probalby be cheaper to run by train. umm great 1 commodity out of the millions of commities out there. great job. score one for your team. how about delivering computers from sheboigen ill, to paskalusa texas. chances are your not going to find a close train line or one that even makes since to use. I wasnt implying that every single good in the country will be cheaper or faster by truck, but the majority of stuff is or we would be using them more. i mean you'd think if trains were truly faster and cheaper we would use them. but in the last 30+ years we seem to use them less and less. i guess every corporation out there just doesnt know this, maybe you can spread the word.

It is not about scoring, I could care less. It is about using common sense. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and the truck's usefulness. Use trucks from the train-yard to retail, short distance trips (state-wide), low cargo, rural areas. Want to know why we don't use trains more? Again ask the groups I referred you to. Even Carter de-regulated the rail-roads among many things he tried to get industries to run free. Ask those people. But take a trip to Europe, Asia, S-America... and they will beg to differ as being useless.

Quote:

ive never suggested the rich shouldn't pay taxes, nor would i
I never said you did. I did say "Hey X company got to where they are at because of the tax fee and service provided for them. Let see them make the same progress where taxes doesn't exist and you got to do everything on your own; like in Somalia."
In other words, they don't want to pay in the resource they use, lets see the government pave the way for them then. And with our minuscule contribution that we put in because we don't make the millions, billions that the other do, good luck continuing running smooth.


THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.

Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.

 

Start New Topic Advanced Search