What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

Priceless said:
He made the "knees" comment to someone else and board deleted it. He didn't respond to you because he was already enjoying a two-week vacation. Don't insult other members and you probably won't get suspended. It isn't that difficult.
Click to expand...


Of all the stuff he's said, that's what got him in trouble?

Doesn't seem any worse than the rest of it.
 
Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

Priceless said:
He made the "knees" comment to someone else and board deleted it. He didn't respond to you because he was already enjoying a two-week vacation. Don't insult other members and you probably won't get suspended. It isn't that difficult.
Click to expand...
Coming from a guy who has multiple banned handles you would know
 
Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

FreshFish said:
the public will gladly take a significant cut in social spending once we replace it with better opportunity.
Click to expand...

What an utterly meaningless platitude. "Congratulations! You've just lost your job and your home. But don't worry, we aren't providing you unemployment benefits or food stamps so that you have a better opportunity (to starve)..."
 
Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

unofan said:
"Congratulations! You've just lost your job and your home. But don't worry, we aren't providing you unemployment benefits or food stamps so that you have a better opportunity (to starve)..."
Click to expand...

um, I think you have the order all messed up here. In other posts, you demonstrate an occasional ability to think. Do you suspend thinking only when you reply to me because you like to argue so much that the potential for constructive dialog is tossed aside?


The entire focus of the progressive agenda is upside down and backward. There is no room for people to learn and grow and become self-sufficient; if they actually DID to that, then all the progressives would lose their government jobs because there'd be no need for those programs any more.

Get it?

FIRST we raise people up.

THEN, once they have been uplifted, we don't need anywhere near as big a government as we have now.

The idea of raising people up never appears in all the talk of "provide this, provide that."

I would never raise my children this way; I want them to become adults.

Why then would I think it's okay to have other people's children consigned to a lifetime of frustration and dependency? :rolleyes:
 
Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

Slap Shot said:
No. The libtards want to tax you at 100%.
Click to expand...

Hmm....at one time, in Sweden, there was a marginal income tax rate in excess of 100%. I remember reading a story about Ingmar Bergman getting in trouble over it years ago.

Also, at one time in the US, back in the 1980s, there used to be an "excess accumulations tax" on retirement plans (no, I kid you not). If you wanted to leave your retirement account to your grandchildren, between income tax, estate tax, generation-skipping transfer tax, and excess accumulations tax, you actually could have had a situation in which the top tax rate was 102%.
 
Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

FreshFish said:
Hmm....at one time, in Sweden, there was a marginal income tax rate in excess of 100%. I remember reading a story about Ingmar Bergman getting in trouble over it years ago.

Also, at one time in the US, back in the 1980s, there used to be an "excess accumulations tax" on retirement plans (no, I kid you not). If you wanted to leave your retirement account to your grandchildren, between income tax, estate tax, generation-skipping transfer tax, and excess accumulations tax, you actually could have had a situation in which the top tax rate was 102%.
Click to expand...

Reagan was a Socialist?
 
Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

FreshFish said:
um, I think you have the order all messed up here. In other posts, you demonstrate an occasional ability to think. Do you suspend thinking only when you reply to me because you like to argue so much that the potential for constructive dialog is tossed aside?
Click to expand...

It's not just you. The brain goes in the drawer when he types to me as well. This is why I have him on ignore. It's sort of like the bad movie actress that is strong in the beginning of the film, but then becomes a damsal in distress.
 
Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

FreshFish said:
Also, at one time in the US, back in the 1980s, there used to be an "excess accumulations tax" on retirement plans (no, I kid you not). If you wanted to leave your retirement account to your grandchildren, between income tax, estate tax, generation-skipping transfer tax, and excess accumulations tax, you actually could have had a situation in which the top tax rate was 102%.
Click to expand...

thomas jefferson and i agree! :D
 
FreshFish said:
um, I think you have the order all messed up here. In other posts, you demonstrate an occasional ability to think. Do you suspend thinking only when you reply to me because you like to argue so much that the potential for constructive dialog is tossed aside?


The entire focus of the progressive agenda is upside down and backward. There is no room for people to learn and grow and become self-sufficient; if they actually DID to that, then all the progressives would lose their government jobs because there'd be no need for those programs any more.

Get it?

FIRST we raise people up.

THEN, once they have been uplifted, we don't need anywhere near as big a government as we have now.

The idea of raising people up never appears in all the talk of "provide this, provide that."

I would never raise my children this way; I want them to become adults.

Why then would I think it's okay to have other people's children consigned to a lifetime of frustration and dependency? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Fishy your post is all right wing self pleasuring and nothing more. All this tried and true conservative rhetoric you regurgitate has been crushed at the ballot box. Nobody's listening.

So to you, pirate, Flaggy, etc you people need to adjust to reality and not conservative fanstasyland. The idea that people would take a cut to Medicare or Social security in the name of "lifting themselves up" ie: tax cuts for the rich is ludicrous. Were you asleep during the last 20 Presidential elections? What you describe went out with Hoover during the 1932 election.

Simply put, the public has shown time and time again that they will not accept a big reduction in their social services. You may choose to dislike that and that's fine, but that's a fact. You can get away with reducing future benefits by raising the retirement age for people who aren't even thinking about retirement yet. You can most likely squeeze a couple of hundred billion a year (no small amount but only a quarter of the problem) out of spending including the military. That's it. That's why the country's focus should be on two things: 1) attacking entitlement fraud, and 2) putting taxes back at Clinton era levels. This combined with the aforementioned cuts is what is called The Politics of the Possible. What you're describing won't make it out of a right wing think tank.
 
Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

Rover said:
...[name-calling]....[bluster].....[bombast].......
Click to expand...

Whenever you want to utilize reason and logic, perhaps we can then have a conversation?

Your strutting and preening and self-congratulatory admiration [pithy comment regarding same].
 
FreshFish said:
Whenever you want to utilize reason and logic, perhaps we can then have a conversation?

Your strutting and preening and self-congratulatory admiration [pithy comment regarding same].
Click to expand...

Fishy, as usual you miss the point. I'm sympathetic to what you're describing. What I'm saying is its not my fault this has no chance of being enacted, its the fault of the American voter.

Pirate has asked, where does it end. It ends with higher taxes to pay for the spending the voters demand not with their rhetoric but with their choices come election day.

Indeed, the dream you long for died with the Gingrich Revolution. In it as you'll recall the GOP ran on a specific platform of cutting spending by well over a trillion dollars to pay for deficit reduction and upper income tax breaks. They were elected in 1994 on this issue and actually passed laws doing what they said they would. The problem is once voters figured out the practical application of these laws, they revolted. Gingrich and co were being intellectually honest, and for that they got b ! tchslapped by the American public. That plus Bush II's disasterous foray into privatizing social security will ensure that in your lifetime, your kids lifetime, your kids kids kids lifetime, and your kids kids kids kids lifetime you will never see massive cuts in social spending. Its a far better use of everyone's time to figure out how to achieve the level of taxation we'll require to balance the budget. Cutting a trillion or even half a trillion dollars a year out of entitlement spending, unless its waste & fraud related and doesn't affect the level of benefits, is a pipe dream. Not because I say so, but because the voters do.
 
Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

FreshFish said:
The entire focus of the progressive agenda is upside down and backward. There is no room for people to learn and grow and become self-sufficient; if they actually DID to that, then all the progressives would lose their government jobs because there'd be no need for those programs any more.

Get it?

FIRST we raise people up.

THEN, once they have been uplifted, we don't need anywhere near as big a government as we have now.

The idea of raising people up never appears in all the talk of "provide this, provide that."

I would never raise my children this way; I want them to become adults.

Why then would I think it's okay to have other people's children consigned to a lifetime of frustration and dependency? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Not sure if you have a specific point that I'm missing...but have to generally disagree with the outcomes of the liberal agenda which you reach.

The most liberal examples are states like Mass, Minn, and Wash. They have high taxes and they have larger govts (in terms of size, although not dictating behavior). But they also have the most vibrant societies in terms of business, quality of life and culture. Even within states you have the SF bay area...one of the most liberal...but also one of the most dynamic places in the world in terms of business.

Now you could attempt to make several points. One, what about cities like Dallas as a city with strong business? I'd say tiny little liberal Austin is far more dynamic than Dallas for its size. And Austin is very liberal.

Its the decisions states make that matters. Some states blow it...others invest it to drive outcomes that are greater than the sum of their parts. MN has more Fortune 500 companies per person than other state...and much of it is due to a large govt that makes all the right moves. Texas uses its power to dictate what society should look like...and is frankly punches under its weight on its economy inspite of the economy being fueled by an ongoing oil boom and an influx of cheap labor.

To a point, its not strictly the size of govt that matters here...its what govt does with its money and/or power. And I think southern states have figured out that their govts keep screwing it up.
 
5mn_Major said:
Not sure if you have a specific point that I'm missing...but have to generally disagree with the outcomes of the liberal agenda which you reach.

The most liberal examples are states like Mass, Minn, and Wash. They have high taxes and they have larger govts (in terms of size, although not dictating behavior). But they also have the most vibrant societies in terms of business, quality of life and culture. Even within states you have the SF bay area...one of the most liberal...but also one of the most dynamic places in the world in terms of business.

Now you could attempt to make several points. One, what about cities like Dallas as a city with strong business? I'd say tiny little liberal Austin is far more dynamic than Dallas for its size. And Austin is very liberal.

Its the decisions states make that matters. Some states blow it...others invest it to drive outcomes that are greater than the sum of their parts. MN has more Fortune 500 companies per person than other state...and much of it is due to a large govt that makes all the right moves. Texas uses its power to dictate what society should look like...and is frankly punches under its weight on its economy inspite of the economy being fueled by an ongoing oil boom and an influx of cheap labor.

To a point, its not strictly the size of govt that matters here...its what govt does with its money and/or power. And I think southern states have figured out that their govts keep screwing it up.
Click to expand...

An excellent point. A good example of the flip side of this is Texas. In Texas it seems to me you don't get a lot but you don't pay a lot. If that works for the people there, so be it. This is unlike Florida, where you don't get a lot but pay taxes and fees that would make Sweden blush (and spare me the no state income tax schpiel. By the time they're done with a double digit sales tax on everything and sky high property taxes you're shelling out the same dollars).
 
Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

5mn_Major said:
Not sure if you have a specific point that I'm missing...but have to generally disagree with the outcomes of the liberal agenda which you reach.

The most liberal examples are states like Mass, Minn, and Wash. They have high taxes and they have larger govts (in terms of size, although not dictating behavior). But they also have the most vibrant societies in terms of business, quality of life and culture. Even within states you have the SF bay area...one of the most liberal...but also one of the most dynamic places in the world in terms of business.

Now you could attempt to make several points. One, what about cities like Dallas as a city with strong business? I'd say tiny little liberal Austin is far more dynamic than Dallas for its size. And Austin is very liberal.

Its the decisions states make that matters. Some states blow it...others invest it to drive outcomes that are greater than the sum of their parts. MN has more Fortune 500 companies per person than other state...and much of it is due to a large govt that makes all the right moves. Texas uses its power to dictate what society should look like...and is frankly punches under its weight on its economy inspite of the economy being fueled by an ongoing oil boom and an influx of cheap labor.

To a point, its not strictly the size of govt that matters here...its what govt does with its money and/or power. And I think southern states have figured out that their govts keep screwing it up.
Click to expand...

Look at how NY has screwed up. People and businesses are leaving left and right. I believe we lost two house seats, and thereby electoral college votes. If I wasn't in the middle of the state, I'd commute from another one.

NYC and SF have a reputation and are international ports, so of course those will be "vibrant". Why don't we take a look at some of the up-and-coming cities, though. Nashville has really picked it up in the last few years, and now look at even the state of North Dakota becoming a boom because of the petrol reserves. You could probably also throw in the state of North Carolina as growing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top