Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 7401 - 7420 of total 9765 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Aug 25, 2011 - 10:51am PT
when does a 500-mile trip actually require 1,000 miles of air travel?

when you're obamas:

"Before it had even started in earnest, the much-maligned vacation became a PR nightmare, after it emerged this morning that he and his wife took separate government jets to Martha’s Vineyard just hours apart.

Michelle Obama was revealed to have arrived at the Massachusetts retreat, only 500 miles from Washington, four hours before her husband yesterday.
She was accompanied by their daughters and landed at around 2pm – four hours earlier than the President.

The extra transport to get the the First Lady to the island for only a few more hours of vacation time will have cost taxpayers thousands in additional expenses.

The costs related to Mrs Obama’s solo trip mainly include the flight on the specially designed military aircraft she took instead of Air Force One, as well as any extra staff and Secret Service that had to be enlisted to go with her.

She would also have had her own motorcade from the airport to her vacation residence.

The President had already drawn scorn for using two helicopters and Air Force One to get to Martha’s Vineyard.

He yesterday left the White House aboard Marine One on his way to Andrews Air Force base to hitch a lift aboard Air Force One – along with First Dog Bo.

After landing at Cape Cod Coast Guard Air Station, he then took a final helicopter to his holiday destination to complete the remarkable 500-mile journey."


so much for cutting expenses and protecting the environment
Bob D'A

Trad climber
Taos, NM
Aug 25, 2011 - 11:52am PT
Fat wrote: Unlike the wormy Obama.


You are a retard....who killed Bin Laden?
apogee

climber
Aug 25, 2011 - 12:07pm PT
DT, still waiting for you to outline your economic strategy for the country at this time...

It would be nice if your ideas weren't simply along the lines of 'x' or 'y' policy instituted by Obama was wrong. Original, creative ideas would be interesting to hear about.
Ksolem

Trad climber
Monrovia, California
Aug 25, 2011 - 01:07pm PT
....who killed Bin Laden?

A US Navy Seal who will remain forever anonymous.
apogee

climber
Aug 25, 2011 - 01:15pm PT
Warren Buffett to invest $5 billion in Bank of America

NEW YORK/CHARLOTTE (Reuters) - Warren Buffett will invest $5 billion in Bank of America, stepping in to shore up the largest bank in the United States in the same way he helped prop up Goldman Sachs and General Electric during the financial crisis.

http://us.mg1.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?ncrumb=BZgZ0lQd7Mt&clmigstart=20110721&nmig=yes


Buffett's an interesting guy, isn't he? Bottom line, he's a capitalist whose primary goal is to make mucho $$$. From time to time, he'll make these announcements about supporting or investing in one thing or another- pundits will often point to these actions as vindication for something they've been touting...and then he'll go and announce that he's supporting/investing in something that runs contrary to those same pundits.

Example: A few years ago, he came out strongly supporting wind power- green pundits fawned over him, saying 'See! Even Warren Buffett believes!'. Then, natural gas prices drop, and he abandons windpower for a far less green alternative.

Last week, he comes out with his 'tax the rich' position, which would appeal to the populist left- once again, they say, 'See! Even Buffett believes!'...the very next week, he says he's investing in the most despised, evil banking institution of them all.

Bottom line- he's a business man & capitalist. You can appreciate or hate him, but it's awful entertaining watching the lemmings follow his lead.
apogee

climber
Aug 25, 2011 - 03:12pm PT
Any answer, DT?














































<more crickets>
Ken M

Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
Aug 25, 2011 - 03:37pm PT
Donald Thompson and his Repub buddies have a plan:

America’s presumably anti-tax party wants to raise your taxes. Come January, the Republicans plan to raise the taxes of anyone who earns $50,000 a year by $1,000, and anyone who makes $100,000 by $2,000.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-gop-will-raise-taxes--on-the-middle-class-and-working-poor/2011/08/23/gIQAEDJuZJ_story.html

The GOP will raise taxes — on the middle class and working poor
By Harold Meyerson, Published: August 23
America’s presumably anti-tax party wants to raise your taxes. Come January, the Republicans plan to raise the taxes of anyone who earns $50,000 a year by $1,000, and anyone who makes $100,000 by $2,000.

Their tax hike doesn’t apply to income from investments. It doesn’t apply to any wage income in excess of $106,800 a year. It’s the payroll tax that they want to raise — to 6.2 percent from 4.2 percent of your paycheck, a level established for one year in December’s budget deal at Democrats’ insistence. Unlike the capital gains tax, or the low tax rates for the rich included in the Bush tax cuts, or the carried interest tax for hedge fund operators (which is just 15 percent), the payroll tax chiefly hits the middle class and the working poor.

And when taxes come chiefly from the middle class and the poor, all those anti-tax right-wingers have no problem raising them. In an editorial this weekend, the Wall Street Journal termed the payroll tax reduction “an inferior tax cut,” arguing that tax cuts should be “broad-based, immediate and permanent.” Broad-based? The payroll tax cut, which the Journal dismisses so contemptuously, benefits every employed American, while the tax cuts the paper champions — on capital gains and millionaires’ income — accrue to a far smaller group. Immediate? Unlike taxes paid annually or quarterly, the payroll tax is drawn from each paycheck from the moment the law takes effect. Permanent? The payroll tax is the tax that funds Social Security, so reducing it really can’t be a permanent policy. But the impermanence of the Bush tax cuts, which had been set to expire this year but were extended, presented no obstacle to the Journal’s fervent support for them.

This tax-Joe-Six-Pack mania doesn’t end with the Journal. While President Obama has made clear that he supports extending the lower 4.2 percent payroll tax rate for another year, to keep the economy from contracting further, congressional Republicans have made their opposition equally clear. “I don’t think that’s a good idea,” said Dave Camp (R-Mich.), chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee. Camp complained that it would push the deficit higher. House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), the man who’d have us scrap Medicare, concurred. “It would simply exacerbate our debt problems,” he said on Fox News Sunday this month.

This concern for the debt, touching though it may be, didn’t keep Republicans from enacting two waves of tax cuts under George W. Bush. It hasn’t kept them from opposing our current president’s proposal to restore the Clinton-era tax rates on the wealthy. But when we’re talking about taxes on the majority of Americans, those who work for a living and don’t make six-figure incomes, the Republican brain lobe devoted to debt reduction through tax increases goes abuzz with synaptic frenzy.

The most telling Republican reaction to the president’s proposal to extend the lower rate has been one man’s equivocation. The man is Grover Norquist, author of the anti-tax-increase pledge that the vast majority of House Republicans have signed. On Tuesday, pressed by a number of journalists (most prominently, The Post’s Greg Sargent) to state his position on raising the payroll tax, Norquist sought to quietly steal away. “One would have to see the final legislation,” his spokesman, John Kartch, told Sargent, to determine “what is the net effect on total taxes.”

But unless Congress votes to extend it, the lower rate will expire on Jan. 1 regardless of its effect on total taxes. Norquist flat-out opposed letting the Bush tax cuts expire — though he did tell The Post’s editorial board that it didn’t technically violate the pledge, a position that he has since tried to obfuscate. Now that the payroll tax is slated to expire, though, Norquist is lost in contemplation (or something). Congressional Republicans inclined to increase the payroll tax — and I’m not aware of any who have come forth to oppose that idea — can do so, apparently, without fear of being labeled tax-increasers just because they’ve increased taxes.

Republicans like to complain that Democrats practice “class warfare” and “the politics of division,” as House GOP leader Eric Cantor argued on this page Monday. What the Republicans’ position on the payroll tax makes high-definitionally clear is their own class warfare on working- and middle-class Americans. Their double standard couldn’t be more obvious: Tax cuts for the wealthy are sacrosanct; tax cuts for everyone else don’t really matter. Norquist, Cantor, Ryan, Camp, the Journal editorialists and the whole Republican crew give hypocrisy a bad name.

Gary

climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
Aug 25, 2011 - 05:22pm PT
When the GOP raises taxes on Donald, he'll blame it on Obama. The Republican overlords love you, Donald.

BTW, still waiting for you to answer my question:
Do you think Jimmy Carter caused the inflation of the '70s?
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Aug 25, 2011 - 05:36pm PT
Donald, do you support your Republican's above plan to raise YOUR taxes on Jan 1st?

While at the same time NOT raising taxes on anyone making OVER $106,000 a year?

I am sure you have given this your usual deep thought, care to comment on YOUR

taxes going up, while the wealthy see NO increase in theirs?

Gary

climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
Aug 25, 2011 - 05:40pm PT
You can see in this graph that the anti-inflation policies of Nixon/Ford were beginning to work. The policies of Carter reversed that trend leading to a much worsened economy and a terrible recession. The voters threw Carter out and Ronaldus Maxus restored the economy. You can see the low level of inflation by 1983.

That is not an answer. That's evasion. But never mind, you get the point. Your political thinking is based on misinformation and historical ignorance. Thus, you vote Republican. So it goes.
apogee

climber
Aug 25, 2011 - 05:40pm PT
DT, do you actually have any original thoughts on what to do about this mess, or are you just a muckraking negative nelly regurgitating the yellow custard you swallowed from some other droid's arse?

Wait.....let me guess.
Gary

climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
Aug 25, 2011 - 05:41pm PT
As Meaty says, "you're a wanker". Bwahahahahahaha

Tovarich, are you shitting me?
Gary

climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
Aug 25, 2011 - 05:42pm PT
Mr Norton:
If I spent all day reading and then responding to Democrat Party hit pieces I would not have time to even log on to the Taco.

Translation: if I had time to read and digest information, do you think I'd vote Republican?
Gary

climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
Aug 25, 2011 - 05:44pm PT
Explain to why this is not an answer.

You stated Carter caused the inflation of the '70s. You post a graph showing the variations in inflation rates during the '70s.

So, do you think Nixon's wage and price freeze in 1971 and Ford's Whip Inflation Now program were in reaction to the inflation that was started by Jimmy Carter in 1977?

Check out the graph on this page, you'll note that inflation didn't take off until Nixon was elected:
http://inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_Rate/HistoricalInflation.aspx?dsInflation_currentPage=3
apogee

climber
Aug 25, 2011 - 05:51pm PT
I don't for a minute believe you swallowed any yellow custard from that droid's arse.
apogee

climber
Aug 25, 2011 - 06:17pm PT
So, DT, you are saying that the inflation decreases that occurred during the terms of Repub POTUS's were directly a result of their policies, right?

If that's the case, then by the same logic, the economic boom and surplus that occurred during the Clinton years was solely due to his policies, right?

Ask fattrad and JE about that. They're sure to have a clarifying answer for you.
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Aug 25, 2011 - 06:51pm PT
^

WHAT A DUMB FUK
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Aug 25, 2011 - 07:11pm PT
Unhinged and Norton's favorite economist.

Gary

climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
Aug 25, 2011 - 09:24pm PT
The massive spending known as the Vietnam War had no influence?

Or would that make your train of thought too complicated? Easier to just regurgitate what you hear on Rush?

Oh, wait, you said Jimmy Carter caused inflation. From his time machine?
Gary

climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
Aug 25, 2011 - 09:35pm PT
HAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!! OK, Donald, you win!
Messages 7401 - 7420 of total 9765 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
 
Our Guidebooks
spacerCheck 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks

guidebook icon
Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Recent Route Beta