Where is the US economy headed?

@ican711nm,

No, right wing men do not believe others, particularly if they are female, have any rights of their own.

0 Replies

@H2O MAN,

She came on to him. Were he not the president, one might have called her a golddigger. Since he was, she was a powerzapper.

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

You know nothing about me but that is to be expected because you know nothing about anything.

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

You are pathetic.

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

Slick Willie has a sexual history with women other than his wife, a predatory
pattern if you will, but you somehow know she came on to him Rolling Eyes

Liberal women are truly terrible to other women - POMade is no exception.

0 Replies

@H2O MAN,

Quote:

You are pathetic.

Thank you for the compliment! As your world is upside down, I'm proud that you consider me pathetic. A different word from you might have worried me.

0 Replies

@reasoning logic,

Reasoning -- This is in response to your post that you find it odd that people fussed so over the affair a la Lewinsky and to your end comment that you do have a problem with tax dollars spent on "these types of activities."

First of all, young Miss Monica was the ultimate cheap date, so I am certain nothing was spent on her.

Second, many years ago, when I was in grad school in Detroit, I briefly dated a man who had been an account at one of the Big Three auto manufacturers. He was disgusted by the behavior of execs and left accounting. He was back in school, studying psychology. One thing that he objected to was the funding of prostitutes for execs.

While an objection can be raised that all of this was from the private sector, the truth is that payment for sex workers did affect the bottom line and was a factor in pricing cars.

Third, everyone seems to get their rocks off in different ways, don't they? Businessmen are no better than politicians. That is not said to excuse them, but, rather, to highlight a reality.

0 Replies

squinney posted this on the Obama '08 thread but I admired it so that I thought it bore repeating here:

People making less don't drive as much. So why would they pay the same for interstate highways?

People making less don't use as much coal, gas or electricity. Why would they pay the same amount for mine inspectors, oil and gas regulations, subsidies, and all the other related government expenses?

People making less don't fly as much, if at all. Why would they pay the same for air traffic control, airport security and airline bailouts that have been deemed necessary to avoid a monopoly and benefits those with the means to fly by keeping ticket prices low?

People making less don't have stocks and bonds. Why should they pay for federal government department employees hired to regulate the associated industries?

People making less don't consume as much. Why should they pay the same for port security, interstates for transporting goods, farmer subsidies, ...

and on and on.

Why wouldn't those that benefit more due to their ability to afford to take advantage of these benefits, pay more?

2 Replies

@plainoldme,

Yes that does seem to make alot of sense. I myself seem to have some very liberal views but I do find myself agreeing with some conservative views at times also. This must be because I study all view points with a open mind.

Cyracuz shared what I thought were 2 very good videos with everyone and I will share them again. I hope that people could watch them both all the way through.

Some of what they talk about may bore you or may be hard to understand and you may even disagree with some of what they say, but I must add that in my opinion it would be a great disservice to your self and you descendents to not watch them and try to make sense or prove them wrong to us all, "if in fact you dissagree with what they have to say.

I found them to have great facts about history, science and philosophy.

Do I think that they had it all correct? No! but they do seem to be headed in the right direction.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnVi8Rn4FqI

This second video may be a litle hard to follow [understand] the first 20 minutes for some! at least it was for me
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EewGMBOB4Gg

0 Replies

@plainoldme,

pom, your reasoning is frankly silly. It is obvious the rich are paying more than their fair share. For example, take this statement of yours:

Quote:

People making less don't drive as much. So why would they pay the same for interstate highways?

Obviously the people that drive more pay proportionately more in gasoline taxes every time they fill up at the pump. Gas taxes are supposed to go into maintenance of the highways. Plus this fact, if somebody pays no income tax at all, are you proposing that those people should be disallowed from driving on any interstate highway at all, if it is based as you seem to think on how much people drive and their income taxes? After all, your sword of reasoning is double edged.

Your reasoning is so flawed in so many respects, pom, that frankly I think anyone would be wasting their time to try to explain it to you.

3 Replies

@okie,

Who says the rich are paying their fair share? Many wealthy Americans say they are willing to pay more in taxes. Who are you to make up their minds? You have a mind of a six year old who fails to understand reality, and you believe what you say has any merit. It doesn't.

I remember reading an article a couple of years ago that Gates and Buffet were willing to pay more in income taxes. They're probably the two richest Americans in this country.

Their wealth continues to grow. What's wrong with taxing them at a higher rate?

0 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

After all, your sword of reasoning is double edged.

It is your's that is double edged okie and you refuse to admit it as you cut your own ears off.

The rich benefit more. There is no doubt. Arguing that the interstate highways are paid solely by drivers' gasoline tax shows how bereft of intellect you are okie. Interstate highways are used to transport goods. The people that benefit the MOST from the transport of goods are the rich. Without that transport system, all goods and services would have to be produced locally, creating jobs and keeping all income in a community. But when an outside source for goods can provide goods at a slightly cheaper rate and get rich in the process, who benefits the most? The local people lose jobs and don't save that much. The outsider is the one receiving the most benefit.

1 million people each save $1 and one person makes $1 million dollars. So which one is benefiting the most okie?

2 Replies

@parados,

All those that eat benefit from the highways within the USA.

All those that purchase commodities, products and services transported on the highways within the USA benefit from the highways in the USA.

All those that drive or ride on these highways benefit from their transportation on these highways in the USA.

Keeping all the production of commodities, products and services within the community that purchases them will either drive up their purchase prices, or will make those communities unable to obtain all the commodities, products and services they require, and they will close. The people in those closed communities will have to move to those communities that are able to produce all the commodities, products and services they require. But what a community is able to produce is not directly proportional to its population. Over populate it and the crime rate will escalate.

2 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

Your reasoning is so flawed in so many respects, pom, that frankly I think anyone would be wasting their time to try to explain it to you.

I clearly labeled this as squinney's post which you have been trashing on the other thread, so don't tell me my reasoning is silly. I have always liked, respected and admired squinney. I recently praised her and said her new title is Goddess Squinney for this post.

You can not explain logic to me because you know nothing about logic. And, please, do NOT waste my time as I don't want to hear from you.

It is not good for humans to read the sort of things you post here.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

Quote:

All those that eat benefit from the highways within the USA.

Are you suggesting that the poor go out and harvest road kill to put protein on their tables?

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

plainoldme wrote:

Quote:
All those that eat benefit from the highways within the USA.

Are you suggesting that the poor go out and harvest road kill to put protein on their tables?

How do you think food gets to the grocery stores?

ican, are you as amazed as I am about the degree of ignorance on this forum?

3 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Quote:

ican, are you as amazed as I am about the degree of ignorance on this forum?

Yes; and the both of your contribute 99% of it.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

I thought ican's remark was such an easy target.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

All those that eat benefit from the highways within the USA.

Not true ican. I think you can figure out why. You are a smart guy, right?

Quote:

All those that purchase commodities, products and services transported on the highways within the USA benefit from the highways in the USA.

This isn't an argument that they don't benefit at all. It is a question of degree of benefit. Are you arguing that a car is the same as a toothbrush?

Quote:

All those that drive or ride on these highways benefit from their transportation on these highways in the USA.

Again.. Silly argument from you since no one said they don't benefit. It is just a question of degree.

Quote:

Keeping all the production of commodities, products and services within the community that purchases them will either drive up their purchase prices, or will make those communities unable to obtain all the commodities, products and services they require, and they will close. The people in those closed communities will have to move to those communities that are able to produce all the commodities, products and services they require. But what a community is able to produce is not directly proportional to its population. Over populate it and the crime rate will escalate.

An empty mind is a horrible thing ican. Yours seems to be empty.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

The rich benefit more. There is no doubt. Arguing that the interstate highways are paid solely by drivers' gasoline tax shows how bereft of intellect you are okie. Interstate highways are used to transport goods. The people that benefit the MOST from the transport of goods are the rich. Without that transport system, all goods and services would have to be produced locally, creating jobs and keeping all income in a community. But when an outside source for goods can provide goods at a slightly cheaper rate and get rich in the process, who benefits the most? The local people lose jobs and don't save that much. The outsider is the one receiving the most benefit.

I think this argument would get you an F in undergraduate economics - particularly the references to the effects of trade (which goes in more than one direction).

1 Reply

Where is the US economy headed?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know