Obama

[retro-man]

Spoken like a true open-minded, bleeding heart, inclusive liberal......

Ralph Peters!?!? He is an idiot. And it doesn't speak too well of you that you can't figure that out.

 

p.s And for the umpteenth time - for those pronouncing Obama's utter failure - you and Peters included - Obama passed his ninth week in office two days ago. Nine weeks. Nine weeks to undo 8 years of Bush's foreign policy mayhem and 29 years of supply-side gutting of the American economy. (And it will be undone. Get used to the idea).

[grbeck]

She is a mathmetician and has written a couple of books so she's really smart too.

 

She was very hot in Stuff Magazine in 2005.

 

Kevin, eat your heart out!

[Mark B. Morrow]

Kevin, eat your heart out!

 

She's certainly aged better than he has.

[napfirst]

Ralph Peters!?!? He is an idiot. And it doesn't speak too well of you that you can't figure that out.

 

p.s And for the umpteenth time - for those pronouncing Obama's utter failure - you and Peters included - Obama passed his ninth week in office two days ago. Nine weeks. Nine weeks to undo 8 years of Bush's foreign policy mayhem and 29 years of supply-side gutting of the American economy. (And it will be undone. Get used to the idea).

keep blaming Bush....eventually you'll convence yourself......he's starting to loose support in his own party..and you're right, he's only been there 9 weeks and has more than doubled the national debt that it took Bush 8 years to run up.....that leaves him only 95 more weeks (his last 2 years will be with a Republican majority) to screw things up....

[grbeck]

Ralph Peters!?!? He is an idiot. And it doesn't speak too well of you that you can't figure that out.

 

p.s And for the umpteenth time - for those pronouncing Obama's utter failure - you and Peters included - Obama passed his ninth week in office two days ago. Nine weeks. Nine weeks to undo 8 years of Bush's foreign policy mayhem and 29 years of supply-side gutting of the American economy. (And it will be undone. Get used to the idea).

 

So that we can go back to the 1970s...? I grew up in that decade...I can hardly wait.

 

Maybe a Chrysler propped up with taxpayer dollars can bring out retro versions of the Cordoba, Pacer and Gremlin to celebrate the "good" times. Jimmie "JJ" Walker can be the spokesperson in the ads.

 

We aren't going back to the 1950s or even the 1960s, that's for sure. Those days are gone. We live in a global economy. Our main competitors aren't flat on their backs, attempting to rebuild economies that were bombed to rubble.

 

Taking the auto industry as an example, we aren't going to buy 95 percent of our vehicles from GM, Ford and Chrysler so that union workers and executives don't have to worry about taking a reduction in benefits or even losing a job. It won't ever be 1965 again as far as the auto industry is concerned - and, for most of us, that's a GOOD thing.

 

Want to cut the deficit? Fine - which entitlement programs do you want to cut? Defense spending is a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of these programs - and their costs will only INCREASE in the coming years as Baby Boomers place more strains on the system.

 

What is happening in California serves as a warning for the nation as a whole - it has imposed very progressive, high income taxes on its citizens, and it has not hesitated to impose other taxes as well (sixth highest total tax burden in the nation). But it still runs record deficits and is basically broke.

 

The electorate is happy to vote itself benefits, but those who pay the taxes to fund that level of spending are increasingly leaving, and those who are replacing them don't pay the same level of taxes while, at the same time, they are increasing demands for government services.

 

Meanwhile, the government is making no attempts to control the state's borders and state government makes little effort to screen just who receives benefits. (As someone said, you can't have open borders along with a generous welfare state.)

 

Over the long run, that is not a sustainable model. It does, however, serve as a warning for the rest of the country...if we choose to listen.

[DUCKRACER]

So that we can go back to the 1970s...? I grew up in that decade...I can hardly wait.

 

Maybe a Chrysler propped up with taxpayer dollars can bring out retro versions of the Cordoba, Pacer and Gremlin to celebrate the "good" times. Jimmie "JJ" Walker can be the spokesperson in the ads.

 

We aren't going back to the 1950s or even the 1960s, that's for sure. Those days are gone. We live in a global economy. Our main competitors aren't flat on their backs, attempting to rebuild economies that were bombed to rubble.

 

Taking the auto industry as an example, we aren't going to buy 95 percent of our vehicles from GM, Ford and Chrysler so that union workers and executives don't have to worry about taking a reduction in benefits or even losing a job. It won't ever be 1965 again as far as the auto industry is concerned - and, for most of us, that's a GOOD thing.

 

Want to cut the deficit? Fine - which entitlement programs do you want to cut? Defense spending is a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of these programs - and their costs will only INCREASE in the coming years as Baby Boomers place more strains on the system.

 

What is happening in California serves as a warning for the nation as a whole - it has imposed very progressive, high income taxes on its citizens, and it has not hesitated to impose other taxes as well (sixth highest total tax burden in the nation). But it still runs record deficits and is basically broke.

 

The electorate is happy to vote itself benefits, but those who pay the taxes to fund that level of spending are increasingly leaving, and those who are replacing them don't pay the same level of taxes while, at the same time, they are increasing demands for government services.

 

Meanwhile, the government is making no attempts to control the state's borders and state government makes little effort to screen just who receives benefits. (As someone said, you can't have open borders along with a generous welfare state.)

 

Over the long run, that is not a sustainable model. It does, however, serve as a warning for the rest of the country...if we choose to listen.

 

And now it will outlaw cars that are painted black...

[Edstock]

keep blaming Bush....

Don't forget Cheney, too, because ol' Dub wasn't bright enough to do that much damage by himself: Golden Books don't have a book on Constitutional abuses.

[napfirst]

Don't forget Cheney, too, because ol' Dub wasn't bright enough to do that much damage by himself: Golden Books don't have a book on Constitutional abuses.

And don't forget global warming also......be careful you'll lose your membership

[Edstock]

And don't forget global warming also......be careful you'll lose your membership

Love Global Warming! Imagine, no more snow shovels, snow blowers, snow tires. Works for me.

[retro-man]

So that we can go back to the 1970s...? I grew up in that decade...I can hardly wait.

 

Maybe a Chrysler propped up with taxpayer dollars can bring out retro versions of the Cordoba, Pacer and Gremlin to celebrate the "good" times. Jimmie "JJ" Walker can be the spokesperson in the ads.

 

We aren't going back to the 1950s or even the 1960s, that's for sure. Those days are gone. We live in a global economy. Our main competitors aren't flat on their backs, attempting to rebuild economies that were bombed to rubble.

 

Taking the auto industry as an example, we aren't going to buy 95 percent of our vehicles from GM, Ford and Chrysler so that union workers and executives don't have to worry about taking a reduction in benefits or even losing a job. It won't ever be 1965 again as far as the auto industry is concerned - and, for most of us, that's a GOOD thing.

 

Want to cut the deficit? Fine - which entitlement programs do you want to cut? Defense spending is a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of these programs - and their costs will only INCREASE in the coming years as Baby Boomers place more strains on the system.

 

What is happening in California serves as a warning for the nation as a whole - it has imposed very progressive, high income taxes on its citizens, and it has not hesitated to impose other taxes as well (sixth highest total tax burden in the nation). But it still runs record deficits and is basically broke.

 

The electorate is happy to vote itself benefits, but those who pay the taxes to fund that level of spending are increasingly leaving, and those who are replacing them don't pay the same level of taxes while, at the same time, they are increasing demands for government services.

 

Meanwhile, the government is making no attempts to control the state's borders and state government makes little effort to screen just who receives benefits. (As someone said, you can't have open borders along with a generous welfare state.)

 

Over the long run, that is not a sustainable model. It does, however, serve as a warning for the rest of the country...if we choose to listen.

There is one misconception about the 50s and 60s that you have made repeatedly over the years: and that is that our prosperity was due to the fact that our competitors were "flat on their backs" and bombed out. Unlike yourself, I am old enough to remember the 60s. Although we didn't import too much - made everything we needed here, with good wage jobs - we did see some foreign products. Let me just name a few: From France: Peugeot, Citroen, and Renault cars (and a few other odd ones like Facel Vega). From Germany: Volkswagen, BMW, Mercedes, Opel, (and a few other odd ones like Borgward, Lloyd, NSU and Messerschmidt), appliances from Braun and Krupps, radios by Blaupunkt and Grundig (my neighbors had a Grundig hifi set). From Sweden, Saab and Volvo, Sonab stereos, from Denmark, Bang and Olufsen, from Norway Tandberg, from the Netherlands, Phillips, from England Austin, MG, Jaguar, Rolls, Bentley, Triumph, and many others, and aircraft manufacturers Armstrong Whitworth, Airspeed, Avro, Bristol, De Havilland, Handley Page, Hawker, Vickers.....Bush Radios, from Japan: Nissan, Toyota, Mitsubishi, Isuzu, and a few others gone or forgotten, Nikon and Canon optics, Sony, Panasonic (National), Victor, and other manufacturers. Those manufacturers were well established on domestic markets in their home countries during an era when trade still amounted to less than 5% of our GDP. I could go on - there are many many others. Most countries made much of what they needed at home. The same goes for agriculture. We had 3 domestic airplane manufacturers and countless names like Westinghouse, Packard Bell, Motorola, Zenith, etc. etc. in home electronics. Our mothers stayed home and made sandwiches, we went to church on Sunday, and had time for visits with friends by God. And there's a reason the Ruskies never attacked us. Now we'll be lucky to keep the North Koreans and the Iranians at bay for another 10 years - not to speak of China. Oh, and the dollar will not be the world reserve currency for much longer. We did this to ourselves, senselessly and stupidly - and there is little more senseless than to shrug your shoulders and say "It's a global economy now." How does that work, with a complete lack of labor and environmental standards in cheap labor countries? Globalism is slash and burn economics. Exactly as the Brazilian farmer cuts down the rain forest and exhausts the soil in one or two cycles, moving on to the next virgin patch, the global capitalist moves from one low wage, under-regulated market to another for his cheap labor, leaving a trail of social and economic (not to mention environmental - look at China's air and water) wreckage in his wake. How does that not become a race to the bottom? What we are experiencing right now is the exact, inevitable result of stupid stupid economic and trade policy. I grow impatient with the stupidity.

Edited March 27, 2009 by retro-man

[Edstock]

Exactly as the Brazilian farmer cuts down the rain forest and exhausts the soil in one or two cycles, moving on to the next virgin patch, the global capitalist moves from one low wage, under-regulated market to another for his cheap labor, leaving a trail of social and economic (not to mention environmental - look at China's air and water) wreckage in his wake. How does that not become a race to the bottom? What we are experiencing right now is the exact, inevitable result of stupid stupid economic and trade policy. I grow impatient with the stupidity.

Right on.

 

Remember when cameras were made in the US? Kodak made some of the finest lenses you could buy, as did Bausch & Lomb. Those beautiful Ektars are gone, and B&L makes contact lenses.

[grbeck]

There is one misconception about the 50s and 60s that you have made repeatedly over the years: and that is that our prosperity was due to the fact that our competitors were "flat on their backs" and bombed out. Unlike yourself, I am old enough to remember the 60s. Although we didn't import too much - made everything we needed here, with good wage jobs - we did see some foreign products. Let me just name a few: From France: Peugeot, Citroen, and Renault cars (and a few other odd ones like Facel Vega). From Germany: Volkswagen, BMW, Mercedes, Opel, (and a few other odd ones like Borgward, Lloyd, NSU and Messerschmidt), appliances from Braun and Krupps, radios by Blaupunkt and Grundig (my neighbors had a Grundig hifi set). From Sweden, Saab and Volvo, Sonab stereos, from Denmark, Bang and Olufsen, from Norway Tandberg, from the Netherlands, Phillips, from England Austin, MG, Jaguar, Rolls, Bentley, Triumph, and many others, and aircraft manufacturers Armstrong Whitworth, Airspeed, Avro, Bristol, De Havilland, Handley Page, Hawker, Vickers.....Bush Radios, from Japan: Nissan, Toyota, Mitsubishi, Isuzu, and a few others gone or forgotten, Nikon and Canon optics, Sony, Panasonic (National), Victor, and other manufacturers. Those manufacturers were well established on domestic markets in their home countries during an era when trade still amounted to less than 5% of our GDP. I could go on - there are many many others. Most countries made much of what they needed at home. The same goes for agriculture. We had 3 domestic airplane manufacturers and countless names like Westinghouse, Packard Bell, Motorola, Zenith, etc. etc. in home electronics. Our mothers stayed home and made sandwiches, we went to church on Sunday, and had time for visits with friends by God. And there's a reason the Ruskies never attacked us. Now we'll be lucky to keep the North Koreans and the Iranians at bay for another 10 years - not to speak of China. Oh, and the dollar will not be the world reserve currency for much longer. We did this to ourselves, senselessly and stupidly - and there is little more senseless than to shrug your shoulders and say "It's a global economy now." How does that work, with a complete lack of labor and environmental standards in cheap labor countries? Globalism is slash and burn economics. Exactly as the Brazilian farmer cuts down the rain forest and exhausts the soil in one or two cycles, moving on to the next virgin patch, the global capitalist moves from one low wage, under-regulated market to another for his cheap labor, leaving a trail of social and economic (not to mention environmental - look at China's air and water) wreckage in his wake. How does that not become a race to the bottom? What we are experiencing right now is the exact, inevitable result of stupid stupid economic and trade policy. I grow impatient with the stupidity.

 

With no real foreign competition, our industries had less pressure to keep costs (including wages) in line, and didn't invest as much in new technology. They were also more resistant to new techniques and ideas.

 

We had imports, but, by and large, they weren't competitive with our products.

 

It was nice while it lasted, but eventually the rest of the world caught up to us.

 

Imported cars, for example, were underpowered, unreliable, didn't offer effective automatic transmissions or air conditioning, and were harder to repair. The VW Beetle was reasonably reliable and well-built, but it was almost dangerously slow, cramped and had handling that was almost as "quirky" as that of the Corvair.

 

Imported steel was inferior to our steel.

 

Imported tires were more expensive than our tires.

 

But eventually the foreigners caught up and surpassed our products in critical areas.

 

Their cars got better, while our cars got worse.

 

The foreigners were faster to adopt radial tire technology.

 

Our steel furnaces weren't modernized as the companies preferred to pay out lavish salaries to workers and executives alike, while the Japanese and the Koreans invested in modern furnaces that produced higher quality steel at lower prices.

 

But here's the deal - manufacturing never went away in this country. It just changed. We still have a large steel industry. The United States is the world's third largest steel producer, behind China and Japan. Our old, unionized industry with its dinosaur plants went away, but it was replaced by smaller, more nimble mini-mills that produce higher quality products.

 

Same with automobiles. We are among the top three vehicle producers in the world (Japan was number one; China may have passed both Japan and the U.S. - the latest figures I have are for 2007). The domestic companies that produce cars ranging from good to mediocre to awful, and all competing in the same market segment under different brand names, are dying (read - GM and Chrysler). But even GM vehicles are better than they were before, and Ford is making itself over into a world-class competitor, where the North American branch finally produces vehicles with the same level of consitent excellence as its European branch. (Chrysler is a special case - Daimler raped it and left it broken and bleeding.)

 

Are our living standards lower than they were in 1960 or 1970?

 

Well, we pay a much smaller percentage of our income for food and clothing, and they are much better in quality and variety. The variety of food available at the local supermarket is much greater today than it was when I was growing up in the 1970s. In the late 1970s, we thought it was a big deal when the grocery store in our small, southcentral Pennsylvania town finally offered...kaiser rolls.

 

Yes, we do import more of our food. But please explain how we are supposed to enjoy fresh fruits and vegetables here in the Northeast from December to May. Canning maybe? Well, my wife did that as a girl in the 1980s on her grandparents' farm in western Pennsylvania. August was canning month.

 

You can come here and suggest that she spend August canning fruits and vegetables so that we have them to enjoy during the winter months and thereby reduce the demand for imported fruits and vegetables. (Time isn't an issue - she is a public school teacher, so she is not working during that month.)

 

I won't be responsible for removing her shoe from your posterior...

 

As I said, the good old days weren't so good.

 

Consumer electronics? A flat-screen television can be had for $600 (32-inch Samsung or Sony)...I remember when a color television cost that much in the 1970s, and it offered a poorer quality picture and used more energy. A stereo system for your bedroom was something you got for Christmas if you were lucky and didn't ask for anything else.

 

Today I drive through poor neighborhoods - what used to be called "the slums" - and see kids with ipods.

 

Computers at home? My father worked for the Department of Defense at a local defense installation, managing its computer system. The idea that you could have a computer at home would have seemed as ridiculous to us as suggesting that we park a tank in the driveway. What on earth could you use them for anyway....? Now, even poor people have computers.

 

Vehicles? Everyone I knew had a "good car" (meaning, the one you took on long trips, to church, or to family gatherings, where people would judge how well you were doing) and an "around town" car (meaning, a junker or a small car that was used for local errands or hauling dirty stuff). Our "good car" was a 1976 Oldsmobile Delta 88 Royale that was very impressive because it not only had air conditioining and cruise control, but also...a power antenna. It went down automatically when you turned off the ignition, and it practically sold my mother on the car.

 

Our "around town" car was a 1973 AMC Gremlin that virtually fell apart within one year of ownership (it was bought as a used one-year-old car).

 

Air bags? Nope.

 

Anti-lock brakes? Nope.

 

Cruise control? The Olds had it, but that was a "luxury" feature at that time.

 

AM/FM stereo? The Olds had it, but, again, that was a 'luxury" feature at that time.

 

Disc brakes? The Gremlin didn't have them, and that sure made panic stops fun, as my dad discovered when he had to slam on the brakes.

 

Cars polluted more, showed major rust within 5-6 years (or less in some cases) without regular washings and very good care, were less safe, handled like well-worn mattresses and were usually worn out by about 110,000 miles (the Gremlin mercifully died at 96,000 miles on a bitterly cold Christmas day).

 

Today, my wife and I have a 2003 Accord EX sedan four-cylinder with 110,000 miles that is still going strong, and a 2005 Focus SE sedan with 81,000 miles and no major problems. Both cars have multiple air bags, air conditioning, cruise control, AM/FM stereo with CD player, no rust, no smoking engines and more safety equipment than was available on a 1970s Mercedes S-Class. What made this possible? Foreign competition, that's what...Ford, for example, didn't improve the Focus to the point where it is this good out of the kindness of its corporate heart.

 

Yes, cars are more expensive, but they can easily last 10 years and 200,000 miles with proper care. So you don't have to buy a new one as often as you did in the 1960s and 1970s. But many people like that new-car smell. That is a personal choice, but they must bear the financial consequences.

 

What's more expensive? Well, houses are...but that is because we've just come off a speculative bubble involving real estate, and certain areas are putting up restrictions on new construction in the name of curbing "sprawl." That's not because of foreign trade. And people want more house than ever before. My wife and I have been looking for a new house, and it's difficult to find a new, single-family home with less than four bedrooms and three bathrooms.

 

Women on the workforce? Well, depression and anxiety among women were more common in the good old days, when they stayed home with the kids. That is why Betty Friedan - hardly a conservative Republican - wrote a book about it, and called for an end to the time when women were expected to stay at home and wait on their husbands and children. Lots of other feminists said the same thing, and they were hardly Republicans. As I recall, it was conservatives who decried this trend, and were denounced as knuckle-dragging morons for it. Most young women I know WANT to work. They like getting out of the house and having their own income. I've suggested becoming a "stay at home" husband, and that didn't go over too well...

 

Want to boost wages at the bottom of the scale? Well, then look at curbing illegal immigration. But the last time I checked, civil rights groups decry those efforts as "racist," and such well-known Republican strongholds as Los Angeles and San Francisco are happy to serve as sanctuary cities for illegals. And lots of people in "blue" suburbs surrounding major cities are happy to have illegals scrub the toilet, rake the yard, perform remodeling projects and paint the walls. Looks like those wealthy liberals like to save money as much as anyone else...

Edited March 27, 2009 by grbeck

[retro-man]

With no real foreign competition, our industries had less pressure to keep costs (including wages) in line, and didn't invest as much in new technology. They were also more resistant to new techniques and ideas.

 

We had imports, but, by and large, they weren't competitive with our products.

 

...

Look, grbeck, we've been over this a thousand times before: I can't help it you come from the kind of stock that would actually purchase a Gremlin. I'm sorry. Really, I am. :P I'm not buying the premise that all foreign cars were dogs. I remember my first ride in a Mercedes Benz (1966, purchased by my friend's family after his brother almost died in an accident in their '68 Pontiac Wagon): I remember them pointing out all the safety features, and demonstrating cornering and braking capabilities like I had never imagined. The 1967 Toyota Century (built for the Japan domestic market and never even exported here) was capable of speeds near 130 mph, and had every luxury feature imaginable. And of course it was the Jags and Ferraris of the '50s that spurred the development of the Corvette and T-Bird. At the other end of the scale, my father did have a "dangerously slow" (and dangerously hip) 27 window VW bus. That, and our dangerously fast, God's own torque, '63 Galaxie convertible. Regardless, we made everything we needed, and so did many if not most other countries.

 

You've trotted out the usual list of i-pods and flat screens of modern life, as if that makes up for the fact that we are working half-again as many hours per household per year than we did 40 years ago. (Hint: It does not. It seriously impedes family and community life - which advocates of economic rationalism seem to have little regard for anyway - family and community life do not contribute to shareholder value, which we all know is the ultimate value.)

 

To address just a few of your other points:

 

Freedom of career regardless of gender: good

Necessity for two incomes just to keep a roof overhead: bad

 

Brocolli in December: good

Melamine poisoning in 37 countries a week after first detected: bad

 

Emissions controls and increased longevity: good

over-complexity driving up the price of a car and rendering obsolete the shade-tree mechanic (and his counterpart in numerous other fields): bad

 

Everything is getting bigger and bigger and more and more complex. As an Architect, I know to design fire walls and expansion joints into the structures we build, lest stresses or trouble in one part lead to the destruction of the entire edifice. As the current situation shows, Economists and policy makers lack this basic common sense. They are single-mindedly focused on tearing down barriers - even the beneficial ones. As a result, when we have an economic meltdown, there is nowhere to run. Not China, not Japan, not Europe. There are no firewalls in the economy (nor was there even a sprinkler system - regulatory oversight - to kick in when two sectors - real estate and derivatives - became dangerously overheated). We don't partition trade the way we partition large buildings for safety. As a result, when there is an outbreak of e-coli, it is in 47 states by the time it even hits the news. If there were a blight, or a plague, the results will be the same. The trend to mono-cultural gigantism in every sector is very destructive. There was a time, during my college days, when I thoroughly rejected the ideas of Wendell Berry, but I have grown a bit older and, I hope, wiser.

 

I agree with you on illegal immigration, and on the fact that it is impossible to find a modestly-sized house. However, I would pin that one on economic rationalism: the "investment" mentality: houses are treated not as homes (something with almost a mystical significance to me), but as commodities*: on the same level as pork bellies or soybean futures. That - even more than simple hedonism - has a lot to do with the bloating of the American home.

 

* this mentality makes perfect sense in the kind of society where industries are shut down after generations in the name of economic efficiency, and the workers forced to find work wherever they can - even on the other side of the country.

Edited March 28, 2009 by retro-man

[Bored of Pisteon]

[napfirst]

Who's next?.......

[fmccap]

Who's next?.......

Whoever King Obama deems is next. The best part of this bailout crap is they blame companies and CEO's yet the trillions they have spent have done nothing but prolong the inevitable and most likely make it worse down the road.

[Ron W.]

After reading the article the first 2 thought that came to mind were.

 

1 The government should not be trying to run the automotive industry.

2 The government should quit printing and giving away money.

 

I do feel sorry for those who have lost and or are losing their jobs and or homes.

[suv_guy_19]

Klaus Schmidt-Hebbel, chief economist for the OECD, slashed forecasts for growth in the 30 rich countries that make up the group's membership, predicting the economies will shrink by 4.3 per cent this year, and by 0.1 per cent next year.

 

The new forecasts released Tuesday compare with a November forecast that the OECD economy would shrink by 0.4 per cent this year and grow by 1.5 percent in 2010.

 

The decline could have been much worse without government stimulus plans, according to the Paris-based organization.

 

Global leaders have steered the world away from a 1930s-style Great Depression by a "very, very, high level of awareness" of previous policy errors, said Schmidt-Hebbel.

 

"We would be looking into a Great Depression-like scenario if we had done the same policy mistakes which were done in the 1930s," he said.

 

Government policies will avert economic collapse: OECD report

Edited March 31, 2009 by suv_guy_19

[napfirst]

Another obama appointee forgets to pay their taxes.......surprise, surprise, surprise

[Ford Jellymoulds]

Obama is in town today to meet Gordon & his merry men, gotta say the Brits have warmed to Obama who just arrived in the Caddy this morning and not much else followed him in the way of protection on the drive to Downing street, it must be because that Brown just put the taxes up on fuel again making it the most expensive place in the world to fill up with gasoline.

 

This G-20 summit is costing British Taxpayer $10 of millions to police the 10,000's of workshy greenies descending on London to wreck & flatten the place to the ground, why don't they hold the G-20 summits on an Aircraft Carrier out at sea? The summit will only last 8 hours, most of it will be spend eating, and thats only if the chefs wife does not drop her baby today. Jame Oliver the celebrity chef cooking for the worlds leaders said they will all have to wait for Gordon to go out and get an Indian takeaway for the summit as he will not be missing the baby if it arrives, what will this summit achieve in 8 hours?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The French will do their best as usual

 

 

 

 

Edited April 1, 2009 by Ford Jellymoulds

[fmccap]

PROMISES, PROMISES: Obama tax pledge up in smoke

WASHINGTON (AP) - One of President Barack Obama's campaign pledges on taxes went up in puffs of smoke Wednesday.

The largest increase in tobacco taxes took effect despite Obama's promise not to raise taxes of any kind on families earning under $250,000 or individuals under $200,000.

 

This is one tax that disproportionately affects the poor, who are more likely to smoke than the rich.

 

To be sure, Obama's tax promises in last year's campaign were most often made in the context of income taxes. Not always.

 

 

"I can make a firm pledge," he said in Dover, N.H., on Sept. 12. "Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."

 

He repeatedly vowed "you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime."

[NickF1011]

PROMISES, PROMISES: Obama tax pledge up in smoke

 

The really stupid part about this? The funds from this tax are going toward child healthcare. While that is admirable in its goal, it is ridiculous to tax one group to service another. More people will quit smoking as a result of this raised tax and revenues will likely actually drop as a result. Then what happens to those poor uninsured children?

[suv_guy_19]

People like you should support stupid taxes. If you smoke, you pay. No one forces you to smoke.

[NickF1011]

People like you should support stupid taxes. If you smoke, you pay. No one forces you to smoke.

 

That's not the point, at all.

 

No one forces you to make a good living. You make too much money, you pay more. Same principle, right? What if they start taxing soda at a higher rate? No one forces you to drink soda. It's just another tax grab from a diminishing revenue source. It makes zero sense.

Edited April 1, 2009 by NickF1011

[suv_guy_19]

Oh, but it does make sense. People want to smoke, they have to pay more. Smokers cause higher insurance rates, higher government health costs, they cost companies a great deal of money, and they endanger the health of others.