i know... what a stupid sign.

hey, we currently pay almost 60% of the taxes. It's absurd to think that we shouldn't pay more

4/17/2009 4:29:27 PM

Last time i checked (not that i agree with it) but no one is paying more taxes unless you smoke, have a rich uncle junior bequeating you 20 million dollors, or make above 250k income per year.

Otherwise where are all these mysterious taxes?? Must be the same place Saddam's WMDs are.

4/17/2009 6:04:11 PM

these "mysterious taxes" are on their way. Obama, himself, has admitted as much. His staff have already said that the "tax cut" was actually meant to "offset" tax increases elsewhere. Ergo, it wasn't even a fucking tax cut in the first place! Given that his "tax cuts" eventually expire, what does that mean? A TAX INCREASE, DURRRRRRRRRR.

Or, do you really think he is going to impose carbon-taxes, a new healthcare plan costing hundreds of billions a year, new service initiatives, new college loan programs, and more, all without raising taxes? Give me a break... If you were that fucking stupid to begin with, then you shouldn't be allowed to vote!

4/17/2009 6:18:33 PM

Quote :

"do you really think he is going to impose carbon-taxes, a new healthcare plan costing hundreds of billions a year, new service initiatives, new college loan programs, and more, all without raising taxes?"

Bush accomplished his record spending while supposedly cutting everyone's taxes. Why can't Obama? He could always be cutting spending somewhere like buying 30 F-22's this year instead of 40 F-22s

That's an easy 3 billion

4/17/2009 6:52:30 PM

Quote :

"hey, we currently pay almost 60% of the taxes. It's absurd to think that we shouldn't pay more "

Who is this "we"? Do you make ~$1M/year?


http://www.federalreserve.gov/Pubs/feds/2009/200913/index.html

4/17/2009 7:04:47 PM

With military bases in 70 different countries and troops deployed in over 150, I imagine we could cut some taxes by minimizing those numbers.

We could double the size of our education budget, for example, by building one less fighter jet.

I guess it's just matter of priorities for people.

[Edited on April 17, 2009 at 7:44 PM. Reason : ]

4/17/2009 7:43:05 PM

what's supporting that "no turn on red" sign?

that pole on the right?

communism?

[Edited on April 17, 2009 at 8:17 PM. Reason : just looks wierd]

4/17/2009 8:16:33 PM

yeah, it looks weird. it's a double pole sign though

4/17/2009 10:48:44 PM

Quote :

"With military bases in 70 different countries and troops deployed in over 150, I imagine we could cut some taxes by minimizing those numbers. We could double the size of our education budget, for example, by building one less fighter jet. I guess it's just matter of priorities for people"

[/thread]

4/17/2009 10:51:20 PM

or, we could just not blow that money on either of them... it's not like our federal education system does anything anyway, other than waste tax money

4/17/2009 10:52:56 PM

Quote :

"We could double the size of our education budget, for example, by building one less fighter jet."

A fighter jet costs $70 billion?

4/17/2009 11:00:20 PM

^
Good call.

I was thinking education was far less funded than that.

Still, fighter jets are fucking expensive.

4/18/2009 12:41:12 AM

American education will continue to be a shit hole until private schools are disbanded, good teachers have the proper incentives to stay, and American kids stop being overentitled, underachieving whiners.

4/18/2009 12:49:51 AM

wtf? why the hell would getting rid of the only functioning schools help education?

4/18/2009 12:52:06 AM

^^No, American education will continue to be a shit hole until parents have the ability to choose which school their children attend, and schools are allowed to deny admissions. As it stands, you either pay for private school or you go to the public school in your district.

Yes, there are a few exceptions, such as Science & Math, <sarcasm>but I don't know of any smart people that came out of there</sarcasm>

4/18/2009 3:15:41 AM

Quote :

"where are all these mysterious taxes?? Must be the same place Saddam's WMDs are. "

How are we gonna close projected trillion-dollar deficits for each year over the next decade?

Or are you one of those that believes deficits don't matter, like Dick Cheney?

4/18/2009 3:38:23 AM

Quote :

"Last time i checked (not that i agree with it) but no one is paying more taxes unless you smoke, have a rich uncle junior bequeating you 20 million dollors, or make above 250k income per year. "

Well already my SS taxes have increased and Im neither of the things you mention. If this ridiculous cap n trade tax comes along, everyone will pay more for just about everything since it will tax the supply chain directly and companies will simply pass the tax onto consumers... but hey, it is easier to not think these things through right.

4/18/2009 9:29:17 AM

Quote :

"We could double the size of our education budget, for example, by building one less fighter jet. "

1. Constitution review: fighter jets are the responsibility of the federal government. Education is not.

2. Your math isn't even close to being right.

3. The F-22 is very expensive, no doubt, but part of the reason for the stratospheric cost per unit is because we've reduced the size of the order so much from the original plan. As a side note, the F-22 is a man among boys, whereas all of our other fighters date from the 1970s and have been eclipsed by the competition from other countries (to include threat countries).

Quote :

"I'd personally find the libertarian party much more appealing if it didn't always seem to be so in bed with the republican social conservatives. "

Whaaat? Just because some social conservatives show up at a fiscal conservative event doesn't mean that the Libertarian Party is in bed with them. They're more like that guy who never gets invited, but always manages to show up at the party anyway.

[Edited on April 18, 2009 at 10:33 AM. Reason : sagfds]

4/18/2009 10:17:40 AM

Quote :

"3. The F-22 is very expensive, no doubt, but part of the reason for the stratospheric cost per unit is because we've reduced the size of the order so much from the original plan."

As always the solution is to buy more planes

4/18/2009 12:28:34 PM

Quote :

"American education will continue to be a shit hole until private schools are disbanded, good teachers have the proper incentives to stay, and American kids stop being overentitled, underachieving whiners."

That is stupid. There is a thread specifically about vouchers and private schools so i will not go into my argument on support
of school vouchers. Nonetheless often private schools pay less than public schools, yet teachers will take this pay cut to
not have to deal with the public system bullshit and for more attentive better students (aka not a classroom of little tyronnes who are only
at school for their free lunch and otherwise don't give a shit)

Quote :

"How are we gonna close projected trillion-dollar deficits for each year over the next decade? Or are you one of those that believes deficits don't matter, like Dick Cheney?"

My point exactly. Where was all the outrage from Texas and the other republicans when their fearless leader in charge
was breaking records (for its time) with deficit spending.

Quote :

"but hey, it is easier to not think these things through right."

I feel your sympathy but chances are some of the these other guys and espicially many at those tea day party protests will never be making
income levels and are likely to receive more back from current policy. I don't agree with it but its just funny to hear those people whine; its
like a little rich girl crying cause her daddy bought her a crappy 05 BMW 3-series instead of giving her money since she wants a new
lexus IS-250.

Quote :

"1. Constitution review: fighter jets are the responsibility of the federal government. Education is not. "

This is true though i think the federal gov't should use some of its revenue stream to help prop up poorer states that may have
significantly less money to fund education. For example using some california money taken in through fed income taxes to assist
say Louisana ( a traditionally poorer state) get its system up to par.

Also, to help provide affordable loans and grants need-based to assist less fortunate citizens go to college. As I think that financial need based grants and other programs to help the affordability of college are the only true "welfare" income distribution program that actually provides return on investment. [i] Give the man a fish (food stamps) and he'll eat a day. Teach a man to fish (go to college so he can make his own successful career) and he'll feed himself for life.

4/18/2009 12:50:34 PM

Quote :

"1. Constitution review: fighter jets are the responsibility of the federal government. Education is not."

One could argue that a more educated population is a far better deterrent to war, but that's another thread.

4/18/2009 12:58:48 PM

Quote :

"This is true though i think the federal gov't should use some of its revenue stream to help prop up poorer states that may have significantly less money to fund education. For example using some california money taken in through fed income taxes to assist say Louisana ( a traditionally poorer state) get its system up to par. "

This is what happens, iirc.

4/18/2009 4:04:21 PM

Quote :

"1. Constitution review: fighter jets are the responsibility of the federal government. Education is not. 2. Your math isn't even close to being right."

Regarding your second comment, I had already conceded my mistake three posts below my initial post. However, it was a rather glaring mistake on my part, so I understand you calling me out. It wasn't necessarily mathematical; I neglected to note that the data, from which I was gathering budget costs of the education department, were abbreviated to the thousands of dollars - explaining why I thought $70 billion was $70 million.


As for your first remark, I will respectfully disagree for the time-being. Neither fighter jets nor education are explicitly stated as the responsibilities of the federal government. The Constitution refers to both the defense and the general welfare of our nation. Fighter jets would fall under the former, and education would fall under the latter.

Perhaps the founding fathers never envisioned public education as part of the federal government's responsibility to the country's general welfare; however, I don't imagine they envisioned fighter jets as part of the government's defense responsibility either.

[Edited on April 18, 2009 at 5:19 PM. Reason : ]

4/18/2009 5:19:11 PM

Also we should differentiate between how big of a military we need to which is prudent to maintaining our defense and interests (within reason) versus what we now spend to play world police; big enough allowing Bush to play cowboy general against countries just b.c we don't like them

4/18/2009 5:33:17 PM

Quote :

"They're more like that guy who never gets invited, but always manages to show up at the party anyway."

After the 2008 election there was a lot of soul searching in the Republican media about where the party should go. Naturally a lot of commentary was geared around throwing the evangelicals off the boat, and making the party a more socially liberal, big tent affair.

A criticism of this approach I heard a few times was this: the evangelicals are the foot soldiers of the Republican party. They're the guys who get out and go door-to-door. I haven't validated this myself with data, but it makes intuitive sense that the people who see the party movement as God's mission are the ones who do the dirty work.

So I might envision there's a bit of a dilemma with the tea parties. If they become more partisan affairs, i.e. if they are hijacked by the GOP proper to a greater extent, then the people who show up will likely be predominantly social conservatives, and they will require a voice. If it remains relatively non partisan, does it not tend towards the same fate as, say, the Libertarian party and practically all other popular 'libertarian' movements of the last thirty years? That is to say, towards obscurity?

4/18/2009 8:10:11 PM

Quote :

"As always the solution is to buy more planes"

that isn't what i said, now, is it?

Quote :

"This is true though i think the federal gov't should use some of its revenue stream to help prop up poorer states that may have significantly less money to fund education."

That is certainly arguable. What isn't arguable is that if you want things to be that way, you should use the legal channels that our forefathers made provision for, rather than simply ignoring or circumventing the Constitution.

4/18/2009 9:29:45 PM

Quote :

"that isn't what i said, now, is it?"

But we get the SUPER SAVINGS rate if we only order 30 more

4/18/2009 9:34:49 PM

That isn't what I said, either, and the order, since the original order, has been cut by a whole lot more than 30. It was a very expensive airplane from the get-go, no doubt, but the stratospheric cost per unit is, at this point, not really indicative of the whole story. Cutting the order obviously lowers the total bill, but it makes the jet look ridiculously overpriced from a per-unit standpoint. Of course, all of those R&D expenses are already gone. Whether we should have built it is arguable (I suppose...probably not so much if you're (A) familiar with tactical aviation, and (B) want the U.S. to maintain military dominance), but at this point, it's here to stay.

In summary, what I'm trying to say, that you're apparently trying so hard to not get, is that saying "We need to tighten our belts and save money by sacrificing some F-22s" is a reasonable argument. I don't know if it's the right answer or not, but it's a reasonable argument. Saying "This jet is ridiculous and not worth the fortyeleven zillion dollar price tag" is an argument that holds no water, for the aforementioned reason.

[Edited on April 18, 2009 at 9:50 PM. Reason : It is THE most badass fighter in the world, period, hands-down.]

[Edited on April 18, 2009 at 9:51 PM. Reason : and our F-15s/16s/18s have all been surpassed by several newer jets, w/ some from threat countries]

4/18/2009 9:49:37 PM

Quote :

"As for your first remark, I will respectfully disagree for the time-being. Neither fighter jets nor education are explicitly stated as the responsibilities of the federal government. The Constitution refers to both the defense and the general welfare of our nation. Fighter jets would fall under the former, and education would fall under the latter."

That is incorrect. The Constitution does specifically charge the federal gov't with providing defense for the states. The "general welfare" clause is not, however, what you claim it to be. It doesn't say "the federal gov't should ensure the general welfare." Rather, it says that the Constitution was written to PROMOTE the general welfare. ie, FOLLOWING the Constitution will PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE of the nation. It's amazing that people are so ignorant about this.

Quote :

"Perhaps the founding fathers never envisioned public education as part of the federal government's responsibility to the country's general welfare; however, I don't imagine they envisioned fighter jets as part of the government's defense responsibility either."

That is entirely disingenuous, and you know it. Of course they never envisioned fighter jets. They didn't think man would ever FLY, dumbass. However, they certainly had the notion of "education" at the time, and you'll note that they gave NO provision for the federal government to be in any way involved in it.

4/18/2009 10:29:26 PM

As a side note, how would privatized education work? I made a thread about this once* and one person remarked, "Great, 30 years to get educated, now I can be a productive member of society!"


*It sucked.

4/18/2009 11:19:46 PM

^^
Valid points, minus the e-machismo. However, the constitution repeatedly mentions Defense and general Welfare in the same clauses. I agree that it provides more specifics regarding defense than it does regarding welfare, but it says in Section 8 of Article I that:

Quote :

"the Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;"

That being the case, what do you imagine the founding fathers considered to be general welfare? Suppressing insurrections? Repelling invasions? Owning slaves? Having a postal service? These are all listed in the Constitution.

However, there are plenty of welfare responsibilities of the government that are not enunciated in the Constitution. Should the government not inspect food processing plants for animal waste? It's not in the Constitution, and it's not related to defense. So fuck it, right?

Is an educated populace not a positive thing? I don't know exactly when public education began in our country, but I consider it to be the epitome of general welfare. You're welcome to disagree, and I'm most likely projecting my own assumptions regarding the opinions of our founding fathers; I will just emphasize: what do you think the founders meant by "General Welfare" and why do they mention it repeatedly if it's not important?

[Edited on April 19, 2009 at 12:15 AM. Reason : ]

4/19/2009 12:10:56 AM

Don't confuse "public" with "federally administered". They are not necessarily the same thing.


For the record, I'm not necessarily 100% opposed to some measure of federal involvement in public education. I do think that what we have now is unconstitutional and poorly executed. The federal involvement should be significantly lessened, and an amendment should be passed to make it legally permissible.

I so wish they'd pass the Enumerated Powers Act.

[Edited on April 19, 2009 at 12:23 AM. Reason : asdf]

4/19/2009 12:18:37 AM

The constitution was written by the leaders of the counter-revolutionary movement. As such, the wording is vague and open to interpretation not by accident, these were highly literate people, but on purpose. They wanted a document that Americans of the day, which were Jeffersonian, would read and accept but would later provide cover for their expansionist agenda. Of course, after they had their constitution they still could not win elections and Thomas Jefferson undid all their hard work. It wasn't until the 20th century that their work paid off.

What this means is, our constitution is designed to NOT protect our freedoms. The ones it does were a complete accident. So, drop the constitution worship, James Madison would not appreciate it.

4/19/2009 12:27:15 AM

The Enumerated Powers Act sounds awesome.

I still have this naive idea that education will be uploaded to YouTube and this will all become a moot point.

4/19/2009 12:29:59 AM

^^^
What a completely rational post.


I didn't mean to derail the thread with education. In an effort to get this thread back on track, I'll edit and paste from my initial post (which was somewhat less off-topic):



With military bases in 70 different countries and troops deployed in over 150, I imagine we could cut some taxes by minimizing those numbers.

[Edited on April 19, 2009 at 2:15 AM. Reason : also: NO TURN ON RED]

4/19/2009 2:14:48 AM

ZERO TAXES

4/19/2009 10:52:01 AM

yeah, coming from someone who looks old enough to be living off Social Security.....

4/19/2009 11:00:11 AM

I think she means that she pays zero taxes.

4/19/2009 11:41:51 AM

did any young people go to these things? looks like all old people in the photos

4/20/2009 2:44:38 AM

young people dont pay taxes

[Edited on April 20, 2009 at 2:47 AM. Reason : .]

4/20/2009 2:46:46 AM

Quote :

"(aka not a classroom of little tyronnes who are only at school for their free lunch and otherwise don't give a shit)"

OK. Now go ahead and explain to us how this statement isn't really racist.

Also, is it just me, or is there something a little off about this "no turn on red" sign? Like the fact that it's enormous?



[Edited on April 20, 2009 at 5:59 AM. Reason : ]

4/20/2009 5:57:19 AM

Anyone see Janeane Garafalo talking on MSNBC about the protesters?

Unfucking believable

Though its MSNBC, so I guess it is believable.

4/21/2009 10:21:18 PM

ZERO TAXES!!!

4/22/2009 12:24:10 AM

Zero taxes but don't cut defense!

4/22/2009 5:40:52 AM

Now if only John McCain could have found more "tea party" folks and less:
. . .

4/22/2009 7:02:59 AM

Quote :

"Zero taxes but don't cut defense! the US nation building occupation force "

,funds used to spread abstience only sex education, monies used to bail out our favorite big banks, and give favorable gov't contracts to companies that our republican politicians have an interest in (aka halliburton)

[Edited on April 22, 2009 at 8:41 AM. Reason : a]

4/22/2009 8:38:52 AM

Quote :

"Anyone see Janeane Garafalo talking on MSNBC about the protesters? Unfucking believable"

don't worry - Fox News is on the case.
According to the Fox News morning show this morning, the top 3 news stories in the country (that's what they said) this morning are:
1) the Perez Hilton/Miss California controversy
2) is Janeane Garafalo hypocritical?
3) there is a left-wing radical on the FBI top-10 list

4/22/2009 8:50:03 AM

Quote :

"By whom were these "ties to companies" undisclosed and for whom did these deeply conflicted retired generals pose as "analysts"? ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN and Fox -- the very companies that have simply suppressed the story from their viewers. They kept completely silent about Barstow's story even though it sparked Congressional inquiries, vehement objections from the then-leading Democratic presidential candidates, and allegations that the Pentagon program violated legal prohibitions on domestic propaganda programs. The Pentagon's secret collaboration with these "independent analysts" shaped multiple news stories from each of these outlets on a variety of critical topics. Most amazingly, many of them continue to employ as so-called "independent analysts" the very retired generals at the heart of Barstow's story, yet still refuse to inform their viewers about any part of this story."

- http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/21/pulitzer/index.html

hmm...

4/22/2009 4:20:25 PM

I ATTEND A PUBLIC UNIVERSITY. I WANT ZERO TAXES.

4/23/2009 11:23:02 AM

LAW ENFORCEMENT AND FIRE DEPARTMENTS ARE FOR SISSIES

4/23/2009 11:27:08 AM