Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 105
  1. #76
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    19,669
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by stephkyle7 View Post
    Gothca..
    well it is a grey area IMO.
    We definetiy tend to apply judgement to when we follow rules.
    I mean, it seems to me that a lowering of the standard is what is being discussed, not whether or not the CAN right?
    See IMO, they probably do it all the time and are just tired of the burden of catching their perps through a legal method once theyve identified them illegally.

    The cats already out of the bag so to speak,and has been for decades.
    I think each case should be addressed on a case by case scenario, but Ill be GDamned if Id let some terrorist piece of SH walk for any reason.I dont care if they tortured his wife to give him up...freedom isnt free, isnt that one of those sayings the right loves so much...some times that price is your morallity, sometimes its your honesty, sometimes its your ethics...There are 300 million people in this country which have a big red x on their backs all over the world and even at home..protecting them has to be the first priority.
    The problem lies in the fact that it's the government defines who is a "terrorist" or what needs to be done to "protect us", it's all subjective. Regardless, we have the Bill of Rights for a reason, and don't forget that Benjamin Franklin said that "those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither".

    ...and all for a "threat" that amounts to nothing when you consider the probabilities. You're 4 times more likely to be killed by lightning than a terrorist. Also you're mor elikely to be killed by your own furniture than by a terrorist.

    That doesn't mean we shouldn't take necessary precautions to ensure there is never another 9/11, but what government is doing goes way beyond merely trying to protect us.

  2. #77
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    6,586
    vCash
    1500
    Well I certainly dont see terrorist behind every corner(lol), but The desire is there,Of that I have no doubt,so the only question then is to what extent are we comfortable going to in an effort to get ahead of them.
    I have a suspecion that if we get hit again, a lot of people would suddenly change their minds if it is discovered that they used public computers in Libraraies to communicate via e-mail in the plot.

  3. #78
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    19,669
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by stephkyle7 View Post
    Well I certainly dont see terrorist behind every corner(lol), but The desire is there,Of that I have no doubt,so the only question then is to what extent are we comfortable going to in an effort to get ahead of them.
    I have a suspecion that if we get hit again, a lot of people would suddenly change their minds if it is discovered that they used public computers in Libraraies to communicate via e-mail in the plot.
    I am extremely comfortable, b/c I have assessed the probabilities of us being attacked again.

  4. #79
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    6,586
    vCash
    1500
    I dont think you can.
    you are using raw data which doesnt not reflect intent and/or desire.
    To use occurences of criminal behaviour as a measurement for terrorist activity is a poor reference point.
    Terrorist strikes are almost a daily occurence around the world, the lack of direct hoemland attacks is directly attributable to our presence in places of greater opportunity to strike.
    Once we withdrawl in greater degree from the Muslim world they will refocus efforts to get a shot off somewhere in the states, its just a matter of time.

  5. #80
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    19,669
    vCash
    1500
    So I'm supposed to ignore raw data, statistics, and probabailities in favor of "intent" or "desire"?

    How does one quanitfy that anyway?

  6. #81
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    6,586
    vCash
    1500
    You cant...I Think thats what I started out saying(lol).
    My point is ,criminal acts of every sort are easiliy categorized by probabilities.

    Terrorism, is similar to theft in that one of the primary determinants is opportunity.

    how much of that opportunity has been taken away?IDK, Im just pretty confident that due to the nature of the perpetrators, there are groups waiting for a more laxed stance.

  7. #82
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    2,471
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by stephkyle7 View Post
    so what IS smaller government GM.
    Youll have to define that.
    Most of the large beaucrasies we suffer through with are a result of Corporations doing exactly what you fear government doing.

    SO once again, in an age where buisnesses can monitor when your home phone is in use, so they know when to attempt to call you....

    In an age when W passed legislation that allowed Visa to put you into a default APR if you were late in paying your JC pennys card.....

    In an age when Wells fargo can submit checks for payment in any order they wanted to ,to ensure you wound up bouncing checks if you made a mistake,
    (putting your mortage payment in 1st, and then charging you 15 dollars each for the three little checks you accidentally wrote so they made 45 instead of 15.)...

    so Im asking You, what is the difference?
    Corporate welfare aside, why should buisnesses be so embraced regardless of their ethical misdeeds and overreaches, but Government is scary?

    I Know why....
    do you?
    I define smaller government by the amount of money that passes through its hands. Rather than the current tax code where money is collected and then redistributed through an opaque system that provides a way for those who have the money and connections to abuse the system or politicians to leverage votes I would rather see a system that is an accurate reflection of how we want to collect taxes. I also think that the military should be much smaller. We don't need to have hundreds of thousands of troops deployed around the world. We should stay out of other sovereign country's dealings. We should intervene when necessary through international cooperative efforts be it military or diplomacy.

  8. #83
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    2,471
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by stephkyle7 View Post
    Gothca..
    well it is a grey area IMO.
    We definetiy tend to apply judgement to when we follow rules.
    I mean, it seems to me that a lowering of the standard is what is being discussed, not whether or not the CAN right?
    See IMO, they probably do it all the time and are just tired of the burden of catching their perps through a legal method once theyve identified them illegally.

    The cats already out of the bag so to speak,and has been for decades.
    I think each case should be addressed on a case by case scenario, but Ill be GDamned if Id let some terrorist piece of SH walk for any reason.I dont care if they tortured his wife to give him up...freedom isnt free, isnt that one of those sayings the right loves so much...some times that price is your morallity, sometimes its your honesty, sometimes its your ethics...There are 300 million people in this country which have a big red x on their backs all over the world and even at home..protecting them has to be the first priority.
    I disagree, we can never be entirely safe and at some point our increased efforts will bring diminishing returns. At what point we stop giving up our rights and freedoms to gain some small return of safety is debatable and it sounds like we disagree where that line is drawn.

    And please stop acting like everyone who identifies as a republican is a Sean Hannity clone. The only time I have said "freedom isn't free" is when singing along to Freedom Costs $1.05

    Maybe we wouldn't have a big red x on our backs if we didn't treat every other country like our *****.

  9. #84
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    6,586
    vCash
    1500
    Ok....once again...we are getting somewhere good!
    Most of the tax code is opaques so as to create confusion so tracking accountability is an arduous task.
    I would prefer a version of a flat tax, but at the same time continue the progressivity of the rates.
    Not as dramatic as they are now, but maybe 15% at the bottom
    growing to a max of say .....20% at the top.

    Then a draw down of Military expenditure...coupled with an immediate global healthcare delivery system(not my socialized medicine stuff,but it is estimated a very large portion of costs and time is lost to dozens of billing programs not meshing)
    Then systematic fraud, waste and abuse independent commisions to streamline all our other agencies and programs...
    See, Im a progressive minded fiscal conservative, they do not need to be polar opposites, welfare and foodstamps are not a big problem unless you want a problem to demonize.
    we could save hundreds of billions in the fashion I just described.



    on your second post...touche.
    Ny beef isnt with Rs or Conservativism..its with the current leaders of the party and the general hysteria they love to incite to accomodate their political interests..Id like to see a return to a more moderate republican Party that truely gives people a choice of two parties, not one that has questionable ideas, and one that sounds down right nuts a lot of times.
    Last edited by stephkyle7; 11-29-2012 at 08:45 PM.

  10. #85
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    2,471
    vCash
    1500
    I would be down with a flat tax. My ideal flat tax would have only one deduction (first $20 or 30k) and then a flat 20-25% rate. Because those making lower wages would have a higher % of their income exempt it would inherently be progressive especially at lower income levels. The rate would be determined by spending, allowing the government to only carry a projected deficit/surplus at a set % of the total budget.

  11. #86
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    6,335
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by GasMan View Post
    I would be down with a flat tax. My ideal flat tax would have only one deduction (first $20 or 30k) and then a flat 20-25% rate. Because those making lower wages would have a higher % of their income exempt it would inherently be progressive especially at lower income levels. The rate would be determined by spending, allowing the government to only carry a projected deficit/surplus at a set % of the total budget.
    How do you define income? If deductions are limited, and I am a businessman, do I no longer have the full ability to deduct expenses? If I am able to deduct expenses, does this include non realized expenses like depreciation? If I cannot deduct depreciation, are capital expenses treated as ordinary expenses? If the capital expense is more than my years income.....

    My point is that what seems like a simple a absolutely clear idea, is way more complex.

    Are loans considered income? So, if I have an asset that is growing, and instead of selling it, I take a loan, is that income? Is the growth in value in my life insurance policy considered income?

    Flat tax proposals are not simple. The fact is that Gov Romney was paying under 15% on his income, because it was not defined as ordinary income. This is not to castigate him, it is to point out, a simple word like income, and flat tax, is not simple.
    Here is the question of the day, does anyone think that wealthy people should pay a lower percentage of their income to taxes than middle class people? Don't argue tax brackets, just a simple question. Do you think someone earning 46 million dollars should pay a lower percentage of their income than say someone earning sixty thousand?

  12. #87
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    2,471
    vCash
    1500
    I am for universal health insurance but against universal health care. We need universal health insurance because we as a society have decided (rightly) that we won't let someone die for lack of access to healthcare. Healthcare workers as government employees is a terrible idea. This will keep people out of healthcare, stifle innovation and increase the size of the government.

  13. #88
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    6,335
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by GasMan View Post
    I am for universal health insurance but against universal health care. We need universal health insurance because we as a society have decided (rightly) that we won't let someone die for lack of access to healthcare. Healthcare workers as government employees is a terrible idea. This will keep people out of healthcare, stifle innovation and increase the size of the government.
    Good idea. That could be called Medicare for everyone.

    I am not being sarcastic. I really do think that would be a good idea.
    Here is the question of the day, does anyone think that wealthy people should pay a lower percentage of their income to taxes than middle class people? Don't argue tax brackets, just a simple question. Do you think someone earning 46 million dollars should pay a lower percentage of their income than say someone earning sixty thousand?

  14. #89
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    2,471
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by cabernetluver View Post
    How do you define income? If deductions are limited, and I am a businessman, do I no longer have the full ability to deduct expenses? If I am able to deduct expenses, does this include non realized expenses like depreciation? If I cannot deduct depreciation, are capital expenses treated as ordinary expenses? If the capital expense is more than my years income.....

    My point is that what seems like a simple a absolutely clear idea, is way more complex.

    Are loans considered income? So, if I have an asset that is growing, and instead of selling it, I take a loan, is that income? Is the growth in value in my life insurance policy considered income?

    Flat tax proposals are not simple. The fact is that Gov Romney was paying under 15% on his income, because it was not defined as ordinary income. This is not to castigate him, it is to point out, a simple word like income, and flat tax, is not simple.
    I agree (you didn't even mention the fact that single income families would be penalized by only getting one deduction) decisions would have to be made about what is considered income and how to handle corporate vs. personal income. But while it would take some work and may even be imperfect, it would be a vast improvement over the mess we have now. Or even better... the fair tax (yes I know there would have to be concessions for those people who retired and issues during the transition) would be even better.
    Last edited by GasMan; 11-29-2012 at 10:01 PM.

  15. #90
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    2,471
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by cabernetluver View Post
    Good idea. That could be called Medicare for everyone.

    I am not being sarcastic. I really do think that would be a good idea.
    Me too, didn't Lieberman propose something along the idea of extending Medicare to everyone.

Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •