TheRealMafoo said: I am so disgusted with it all, I am no longer posting. You know what I think about the cesspool that people call Obama. We just need to ride out the next few years, and hope he doesn't fuck this place up to bad while he is in office. Whoever thought he could run a country, needs to be slapped.

This was 2000-2008 for me.

Although it is a more stable, secure and adaptable business model, Nintendo’s strategy of accurately reporting revenue, producing large profits and saving these profits for future investment is (very) rare in the business world. A large portion of the reason is that the way taxes are structured discourages the reporting of profits, and encourages companies to take on debt to make investments. By drastically cutting (or eliminating) corporate taxes and eliminating the interest tax deduction corporations throughout the economy would become more competitive, and economic growth would be more sustainable.

On the level of an individual, high income taxes act as a disincentive to producing income through working, high capital gains taxes act as a disincentive to producing income through investing, and high sales taxes act to discourage consumption. If you want to become a country that has an export driven economy rather than an import driven economy you should focus on lowering income and capital gains taxes and increase sales taxes.

 

 

With that said, as much as I see problems with the make-up of how the United States (and most western countries) are collecting taxes the real problem is their level of spending. In practical terms total government expenditure should probably not be greater than 25% of GDP, and the break-up of expenditure should be heavily weighted towards locally delivered services (12.5% municipal/county, 7.5% state/province, 5% federal); in the US currently government spending is around 45% of GDP and it is heavily weighted towards the federal government (12.5% municipal/county, 10% state/province 25% federal, -2.5% government transfers). Stats from: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=1903_2010&units=p

When the federal government is (realistically) spending about 5 times what it should and is running a budgetary defict of (roughly) 40% of its total budget it is fair to say that spending (not taxes) are the problem

CommonMan said: TheRealMafoo said: I am so disgusted with it all, I am no longer posting. You know what I think about the cesspool that people call Bush. We just need to ride out the next few years, and hope he doesn't fuck this place up to bad while he is in office. Whoever thought he could run a country, needs to be slapped. This was 2000-2008 for me.

Exactly, just need to change one word and there it is.

smbu2000 said: CommonMan said: TheRealMafoo said: I am so disgusted with it all, I am no longer posting. You know what I think about the cesspool that people call Bush. We just need to ride out the next few years, and hope he doesn't fuck this place up to bad while he is in office. Whoever thought he could run a country, needs to be slapped. This was 2000-2008 for me. Exactly, just need to change one word and there it is.

I can’t speak for mafoo, but the thing that has annoyed me the most about the switch from Bush to Obama is how obvious it is that some people are mindless partisans. Back in the Bush years I was often agreeing with Democrats (and arguing with Republicans) that the deficit was unsustainable and the growth in government was a bad thing; and now I find many of those Democrats defending a massive increase in the deficit and a massive growth in government intervention into people’s lives.

Obama is in many ways just as bad (or worse) that Bush ever was, the main difference is he has a much better PR team; and the unconditional support of many members of the media.

Interesting.

Many other presidents have said they'd overhaul the tax system. How is it that now Obama can and will change it?

I am fine with a VAT if it REPLACES the current system. I do not want a VAT on top of what we already have. I don't want European-style unemployment and repression of businesses due to excessive taxation.

Why doesn't he adopt the fairtax plan? It would have support from the right, and is very similar to the VAT.

People act like Obama is the first US politician that mentioned the implication of a VAT tax the idea of a VAT tax has been discussed by US politicians and political commentators for years already.

HappySqurriel said: smbu2000 said: CommonMan said: TheRealMafoo said: I am so disgusted with it all, I am no longer posting. You know what I think about the cesspool that people call Bush. We just need to ride out the next few years, and hope he doesn't fuck this place up to bad while he is in office. Whoever thought he could run a country, needs to be slapped. This was 2000-2008 for me. Exactly, just need to change one word and there it is. I can’t speak for mafoo, but the thing that has annoyed me the most about the switch from Bush to Obama is how obvious it is that some people are mindless partisans. Back in the Bush years I was often agreeing with Democrats (and arguing with Republicans) that the deficit was unsustainable and the growth in government was a bad thing; and now I find many of those Democrats defending a massive increase in the deficit and a massive growth in government intervention into people’s lives. Obama is in many ways just as bad (or worse) that Bush ever was, the main difference is he has a much better PR team; and the unconditional support of many members of the media.

Likewise I can't speak for smbu, but for me much of what I disliked about Bush-era politics had less to do with spending (although he was terrible about this considering he was supposed to be a conservative) and more to do with social and war policies. It seems to me that the neo-cons focused on getting the government out of peoples lives, EXCEPT homosexual bedrooms and hosipital beds for dying people. Out of our lives should be out of everyone's lives. And Bush was lucky that he had a really good group of people around him too. Oh, and I am by no means a Democrat, those goofs can't find their asses with both hands. I'm just pretty socially liberal for a lot of things, but conservative about others (i.e. personal responsibility, people!)

CommonMan said: HappySqurriel said: smbu2000 said: CommonMan said: TheRealMafoo said: I am so disgusted with it all, I am no longer posting. You know what I think about the cesspool that people call Bush. We just need to ride out the next few years, and hope he doesn't fuck this place up to bad while he is in office. Whoever thought he could run a country, needs to be slapped. This was 2000-2008 for me. Exactly, just need to change one word and there it is. I can’t speak for mafoo, but the thing that has annoyed me the most about the switch from Bush to Obama is how obvious it is that some people are mindless partisans. Back in the Bush years I was often agreeing with Democrats (and arguing with Republicans) that the deficit was unsustainable and the growth in government was a bad thing; and now I find many of those Democrats defending a massive increase in the deficit and a massive growth in government intervention into people’s lives. Obama is in many ways just as bad (or worse) that Bush ever was, the main difference is he has a much better PR team; and the unconditional support of many members of the media. Likewise I can't speak for smbu, but for me much of what I disliked about Bush-era politics had less to do with spending (although he was terrible about this considering he was supposed to be a conservative) and more to do with social and war policies. It seems to me that the neo-cons focused on getting the government out of peoples lives, EXCEPT homosexual bedrooms and hosipital beds for dying people. Out of our lives should be out of everyone's lives. And Bush was lucky that he had a really good group of people around him too. Oh, and I am by no means a Democrat, those goofs can't find their asses with both hands. I'm just pretty socially liberal for a lot of things, but conservative about others (i.e. personal responsibility, people!)

Compared to Obama, though, what has Bush done that was anti-homosexual? I can't think of anything that Obama has done other than look into repealing the 'don't ask don't tell policy'

mrstickball said: Compared to Obama, though, what has Bush done that was anti-homosexual? I can't think of anything that Obama has done other than look into repealing the 'don't ask don't tell policy'

Didn't he bring up changing the constitution to include "marraige defined as man and woman" wording? He was at least supportive of it. I don't care what you think about this, that sort of thing doesn't need a freakin' amendment. The neo-cons were in power in many states during the Bush tenure and carried a lot of weight nationally as well. One of the platforms that was pushed over and over again was limiting homosexual couples rights. In Arkansas, for example, single people can no longer adopt children. This was never a problem until more recently when homosexual couples started adopting more and more children. So, you have to be married to adopt, and you have to be straight to marry so well, you have a nice roundabout way to stop homosexuals from adopting. Due to the general tenor of the national discussion during the Bush era, these type of changes were much easier.

CommonMan said: mrstickball said: Compared to Obama, though, what has Bush done that was anti-homosexual? I can't think of anything that Obama has done other than look into repealing the 'don't ask don't tell policy' Didn't he bring up changing the constitution to include "marraige defined as man and woman" wording? He was at least supportive of it. I don't care what you think about this, that sort of thing doesn't need a freakin' amendment. The neo-cons were in power in many states during the Bush tenure and carried a lot of weight nationally as well. One of the platforms that was pushed over and over again was limiting homosexual couples rights. In Arkansas, for example, single people can no longer adopt children. This was never a problem until more recently when homosexual couples started adopting more and more children. So, you have to be married to adopt, and you have to be straight to marry so well, you have a nice roundabout way to stop homosexuals from adopting. Due to the general tenor of the national discussion during the Bush era, these type of changes were much easier.

Didn't Clinton as well?

As for your issue in Arkansas, that is a state issue, not a federal issue. Comparatively, I could cite the legalization of homosexual marriage in MA, CT and NH during Bush's tenure as progress. In fact, the first legal homosexual marriages in the US were under Bush's presidency. So I believe your argument is totally moot.

In fact, here is the homosexual marriage timeline. Bush's years as president were the greatest increase in homoseuxal marriage/union rights in the US:

• 2000 - Vermont legalizes civil unions
• 2004 - San Fransisco marriages begin
• 2004 - Rhode Island recognizes same sex marriages
• 2004 - Massachusettes legalizes same sex marriage
• 2008 - Domestic partnerships in Maryland
• 2008 - New York recognizes same sex marriages
• 2008 - Conneticut legalizes same sex marriages
• 2008 - Civil unions are legalized in New Hampshire (for homosexuals)
• 2009 - District of Columbia legalizes same sex marriages
• 2009 - Iowa legalizes same sex marriages
• 2009 - Vermont legalizes same sex marriages
• 2010 - New Hampshire legalizes same sex marriages

Now, admittedly 09-10 have been good in terms of state rights, but you can't deny that 2000-2008 saw quite a bit of progress in terms of state's decisions on homosexual marriages and unions.