Discussion:
I am backing President Trump’s efforts for a major tax reduction and reform plan because I think it will create one of the greatest economic booms in history.
Add Reply
GLOBALIST
2017-11-30 18:09:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
By Christopher Ruddy
Wednesday, 29 Nov 2017

I am backing President Trump’s efforts for a major tax reduction and reform plan because I think it will create one of the greatest economic booms in history.

Despite serious concerns about some provisions, buried in the Senate and House tax bills is a golden nugget.

The final tax plan won’t be hammered out until the House and Senate each pass their respective bills and send them to the conference committee where the president can truly weigh in.

So far everybody has been talking about the individual and business tax rates, but the true “gift” of the Trump tax plan will be in the proposed special rate for businesses that repatriate money from abroad.

Today, close to $3 trillion in profits sit in the coffers of U.S. company subsidiaries all across the globe. These companies have refused to repatriate these funds because tax rates here are confiscatory — among the highest in the developed world.

Lowering the repatriation tax rate to just 10 percent, as proposed by the Senate plan, will yield tremendous results. Assuming $2.5 trillion is brought back into the U.S. economy, it will serve as the greatest stimulus ever.

Consider that Obama’s stimulus of 2009 amounted to more than $850 billion. This will be almost three times that amount!

This one part of the tax plan will drive the economy for the next 10 years.

Everyone will benefit. And President Trump will see an open path for re-election in 2020. This will happen despite the protestations of CNN, MSNBC, and the elite class.

But there are also poison pills in the tax plans floating through Congress.

Former Bush Ambassador Earle Mack has written in The Hill about the inequities of the individual tax cuts versus the business cuts. For example, the individual tax cuts sunset after 2025. But the business cuts never do. That’s not right.

And Randy Levine, the Yankees president and a long-time supporter of President Trump, warns that a political disaster is looming if the state and local tax deduction (SALT) is not kept.

He’s right that eliminating it would amount to double taxation for many. (See “Mr. President, the Tax Plan Needs a Big Fix!")

And he’s also right that it will lead to political disaster for Trump and the Republicans.

Levine also points out that the “carried interest” tax loophole, which allows hedge fund operators to treat fees on their clients’ investments as capital gains instead of ordinary income and thus enjoy a lower tax rate, remains in the Senate bill.

As I said, the Senate and House should pass the respective bills, warts and all, and move it to the conference committee.

That’s when the president should pounce.

He should keep the big cuts, but also key deductions like SALT and charitable deductions, which could be eliminated for those who don’t itemize.

Thousands of churches and small nonprofits that depend on modest donations will soon find themselves crippled if that key deduction is struck.

President Trump has tremendously good political instincts coupled with powerful negotiating abilities.

Congress loaded a lot of “junk” on what should have been a clean tax reduction bill.

Soon the President will have his moment to get Congress to do the right thing. We need to unite behind President Trump and help him accomplish the mission.

---------------------------
Christopher Ruddy is CEO of Newsmax Media, Inc., one of the country's leading conservative news outlets. Read more Christopher Ruddy Insider articles — Click Here Now.
Jack Fate
2017-11-30 18:38:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GLOBALIST
I am backing President Trump’s efforts for a major tax reduction and reform plan because I think it will create one of the greatest economic booms in history.
Bush had the same plan. He made it happen. Then everything went to hell.
Insanity is thinking that if you do the same thing again, you will get
different results. Only stupid dip shit bigoted racists like you believe
that shit.
m***@my-deja.com
2017-12-01 02:59:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jack Fate
Post by GLOBALIST
I am backing President Trump’s efforts for a major tax reduction and reform plan because I think it will create one of the greatest economic booms in history.
Bush had the same plan. He made it happen. Then everything went to hell.
Insanity is thinking that if you do the same thing again, you will get
different results. Only stupid dip shit bigoted racists like you believe
that shit.
Over the last 10 years or so I have come to think that they are
no longer concerned about the nations outcome. They have to say
something to the American people that sounds good to get them to
keep quiet.
Their true sentiments are evident in this tax bill.
The national debt is not their concern, they know it will not
shrink it, but only make it bigger.
Most new investments will be made overseas.
Trump is easily played.
rumpelstiltskin
2017-12-01 04:06:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@my-deja.com
Post by Jack Fate
I am backing President Trump’s efforts for a major tax reduction and reform plan because I think it will create one of the greatest economic booms in history.
Bush had the same plan. He made it happen. Then everything went to hell.
Insanity is thinking that if you do the same thing again, you will get
different results. Only stupid dip shit bigoted racists like you believe
that shit.
Over the last 10 years or so I have come to think that they are
no longer concerned about the nations outcome. They have to say
something to the American people that sounds good to get them to
keep quiet.
Their true sentiments are evident in this tax bill.
The national debt is not their concern, they know it will not
shrink it, but only make it bigger.
Most new investments will be made overseas.
Trump is easily played.
Somebody here, I apologize for not remembering who,
said that what motivates Trump is "narcissism" Everything
else is just hoped-for fuel to bolster his conviction about his
own wonderfulness.
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-12-01 05:19:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Somebody here, I apologize for not remembering who,
said that what motivates Trump is "narcissism" Everything
else is just hoped-for fuel to bolster his conviction about his
own wonderfulness.
That was your favorite twit who keeps asking you (and others) pointed
questions.
rumpelstiltskin
2017-12-01 06:04:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 21:19:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Somebody here, I apologize for not remembering who,
said that what motivates Trump is "narcissism" Everything
else is just hoped-for fuel to bolster his conviction about his
own wonderfulness.
That was your favorite twit who keeps asking you (and others) pointed
questions.
You're not totally bad. Just a little arrogant, bossy, and
hard to tolerate sometimes. I share the same faults to a
large degree, but you've shown me how unattractive they
can be, and thanks for that.
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-12-01 14:56:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 21:19:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Somebody here, I apologize for not remembering who,
said that what motivates Trump is "narcissism" Everything
else is just hoped-for fuel to bolster his conviction about his
own wonderfulness.
That was your favorite twit who keeps asking you (and others) pointed
questions.
You're not totally bad. Just a little arrogant, bossy, and
hard to tolerate sometimes. I share the same faults to a
large degree, but you've shown me how unattractive they
can be, and thanks for that.
In this instance (holding people's feet to the fire), I take the charge
of arrogance as a compliment.
rumpelstiltskin
2017-12-01 20:12:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 21:19:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Somebody here, I apologize for not remembering who,
said that what motivates Trump is "narcissism" Everything
else is just hoped-for fuel to bolster his conviction about his
own wonderfulness.
That was your favorite twit who keeps asking you (and others) pointed
questions.
You're not totally bad. Just a little arrogant, bossy, and
hard to tolerate sometimes. I share the same faults to a
large degree, but you've shown me how unattractive they
can be, and thanks for that.
In this instance (holding people's feet to the fire), I take the charge
of arrogance as a compliment.
I'm not ashamed of my arrogance either, though I
should try, and do try, to tone it down. I'd never
be arrogant to a waiter, but when it comes to El
Castor, it's what he deserves.
m***@my-deja.com
2017-12-01 11:38:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by m***@my-deja.com
Post by Jack Fate
Post by GLOBALIST
I am backing President Trump’s efforts for a major tax reduction and reform plan because I think it will create one of the greatest economic booms in history.
Bush had the same plan. He made it happen. Then everything went to hell.
Insanity is thinking that if you do the same thing again, you will get
different results. Only stupid dip shit bigoted racists like you believe
that shit.
Over the last 10 years or so I have come to think that they are
no longer concerned about the nations outcome. They have to say
something to the American people that sounds good to get them to
keep quiet.
Their true sentiments are evident in this tax bill.
The national debt is not their concern, they know it will not
shrink it, but only make it bigger.
Most new investments will be made overseas.
Trump is easily played.
Somebody here, I apologize for not remembering who,
said that what motivates Trump is "narcissism" Everything
else is just hoped-for fuel to bolster his conviction about his
own wonderfulness.
It does appear that way. People actually voted for Bannon to be
president. Trump rode that wave and now he has no concern for
the people, their jobs, their healthcare.
What happened to the tariffs he spoke about to help bring
in revenue and jobs? It isn't in the tax bill.
Apparently that was just Bannon and Bernies idea.
Occasionally you will hear the naivety in Trump when he says
things like "who knew healthcare was so complicated?"
The appointments he has made, unless it was someone he knew
before the election, I believe are all being handpicked
by members of the GOP.
It is evident by the HHS Price he had to fire and the
drug czar that he fired just after he had appointed him because
it turns out he was shielding, if not helping the drug companies
that were developing and feeding the US Opiate epidemic.
rumpelstiltskin
2017-12-01 13:10:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@my-deja.com
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by m***@my-deja.com
Post by Jack Fate
I am backing President Trump’s efforts for a major tax reduction and reform plan because I think it will create one of the greatest economic booms in history.
Bush had the same plan. He made it happen. Then everything went to hell.
Insanity is thinking that if you do the same thing again, you will get
different results. Only stupid dip shit bigoted racists like you believe
that shit.
Over the last 10 years or so I have come to think that they are
no longer concerned about the nations outcome. They have to say
something to the American people that sounds good to get them to
keep quiet.
Their true sentiments are evident in this tax bill.
The national debt is not their concern, they know it will not
shrink it, but only make it bigger.
Most new investments will be made overseas.
Trump is easily played.
Somebody here, I apologize for not remembering who,
said that what motivates Trump is "narcissism" Everything
else is just hoped-for fuel to bolster his conviction about his
own wonderfulness.
It does appear that way. People actually voted for Bannon to be
president. Trump rode that wave and now he has no concern for
the people, their jobs, their healthcare.
What happened to the tariffs he spoke about to help bring
in revenue and jobs? It isn't in the tax bill.
Apparently that was just Bannon and Bernies idea.
Occasionally you will hear the naivety in Trump when he says
things like "who knew healthcare was so complicated?"
The appointments he has made, unless it was someone he knew
before the election, I believe are all being handpicked
by members of the GOP.
It is evident by the HHS Price he had to fire and the
drug czar that he fired just after he had appointed him because
it turns out he was shielding, if not helping the drug companies
that were developing and feeding the US Opiate epidemic.
Trump isn't all alone responsible for that last paragraph,
IMV. The drug cartel is so powerful in the USA that it's
held presidents in thrall at least back to Bush II, and
maybe back to Clinton though I wasn't watching then.
m***@my-deja.com
2017-12-04 02:45:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by m***@my-deja.com
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by m***@my-deja.com
Post by Jack Fate
Post by GLOBALIST
I am backing President Trump’s efforts for a major tax reduction and reform plan because I think it will create one of the greatest economic booms in history.
Bush had the same plan. He made it happen. Then everything went to hell.
Insanity is thinking that if you do the same thing again, you will get
different results. Only stupid dip shit bigoted racists like you believe
that shit.
Over the last 10 years or so I have come to think that they are
no longer concerned about the nations outcome. They have to say
something to the American people that sounds good to get them to
keep quiet.
Their true sentiments are evident in this tax bill.
The national debt is not their concern, they know it will not
shrink it, but only make it bigger.
Most new investments will be made overseas.
Trump is easily played.
Somebody here, I apologize for not remembering who,
said that what motivates Trump is "narcissism" Everything
else is just hoped-for fuel to bolster his conviction about his
own wonderfulness.
It does appear that way. People actually voted for Bannon to be
president. Trump rode that wave and now he has no concern for
the people, their jobs, their healthcare.
What happened to the tariffs he spoke about to help bring
in revenue and jobs? It isn't in the tax bill.
Apparently that was just Bannon and Bernies idea.
Occasionally you will hear the naivety in Trump when he says
things like "who knew healthcare was so complicated?"
The appointments he has made, unless it was someone he knew
before the election, I believe are all being handpicked
by members of the GOP.
It is evident by the HHS Price he had to fire and the
drug czar that he fired just after he had appointed him because
it turns out he was shielding, if not helping the drug companies
that were developing and feeding the US Opiate epidemic.
Trump isn't all alone responsible for that last paragraph,
IMV. The drug cartel is so powerful in the USA that it's
held presidents in thrall at least back to Bush II, and
maybe back to Clinton though I wasn't watching then.
Oh I am glad he reversed the appt. of Tom Marino.
I don't think he knew who to appoint. and some crook
suggested Tom Marino.
rumpelstiltskin
2017-12-04 04:35:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@my-deja.com
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by m***@my-deja.com
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by m***@my-deja.com
Post by Jack Fate
I am backing President Trump’s efforts for a major tax reduction and reform plan because I think it will create one of the greatest economic booms in history.
Bush had the same plan. He made it happen. Then everything went to hell.
Insanity is thinking that if you do the same thing again, you will get
different results. Only stupid dip shit bigoted racists like you believe
that shit.
Over the last 10 years or so I have come to think that they are
no longer concerned about the nations outcome. They have to say
something to the American people that sounds good to get them to
keep quiet.
Their true sentiments are evident in this tax bill.
The national debt is not their concern, they know it will not
shrink it, but only make it bigger.
Most new investments will be made overseas.
Trump is easily played.
Somebody here, I apologize for not remembering who,
said that what motivates Trump is "narcissism" Everything
else is just hoped-for fuel to bolster his conviction about his
own wonderfulness.
It does appear that way. People actually voted for Bannon to be
president. Trump rode that wave and now he has no concern for
the people, their jobs, their healthcare.
What happened to the tariffs he spoke about to help bring
in revenue and jobs? It isn't in the tax bill.
Apparently that was just Bannon and Bernies idea.
Occasionally you will hear the naivety in Trump when he says
things like "who knew healthcare was so complicated?"
The appointments he has made, unless it was someone he knew
before the election, I believe are all being handpicked
by members of the GOP.
It is evident by the HHS Price he had to fire and the
drug czar that he fired just after he had appointed him because
it turns out he was shielding, if not helping the drug companies
that were developing and feeding the US Opiate epidemic.
Trump isn't all alone responsible for that last paragraph,
IMV. The drug cartel is so powerful in the USA that it's
held presidents in thrall at least back to Bush II, and
maybe back to Clinton though I wasn't watching then.
Oh I am glad he reversed the appt. of Tom Marino.
I don't think he knew who to appoint. and some crook
suggested Tom Marino.
I haven't been keeping up, so I don't even know who
Tom Marino is. I guess it doesn't matter though.
Trump appointees seem to be gone nearly as soon as
they arrive.
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-12-01 15:02:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@my-deja.com
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Somebody here, I apologize for not remembering who,
said that what motivates Trump is "narcissism" Everything
else is just hoped-for fuel to bolster his conviction about his
own wonderfulness.
It does appear that way. People actually voted for Bannon to be
president.
That sounds correct to me. Trump is the vehicle, but being a man-baby
narcissist is unqualified to be President regardless of his views and
policies.

As to the substance of Bannonism (which Bannon calls economic
nationalism), I can see how it carried the day (frustration with the
current state of affairs). However, it strikes me as mostly wrong
(tariffs don't work in the long run and the anti-immigration part has
more than just overtones of racism). Plus, Bannon is asupply-side
enthusiast for these tax cuts.
Gary
2017-12-01 15:34:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by m***@my-deja.com
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Somebody here, I apologize for not remembering who,
said that what motivates Trump is "narcissism" Everything
else is just hoped-for fuel to bolster his conviction about his
own wonderfulness.
It does appear that way. People actually voted for Bannon to be
president.
That sounds correct to me. Trump is the vehicle, but being a man-baby
narcissist is unqualified to be President regardless of his views and
policies.
As to the substance of Bannonism (which Bannon calls economic
nationalism), I can see how it carried the day (frustration with the
current state of affairs). However, it strikes me as mostly wrong
(tariffs don't work in the long run and the anti-immigration part has
more than just overtones of racism). Plus, Bannon is asupply-side
enthusiast for these tax cuts.
"...overtones of racism.." ?? How can that be ? Mexicans are of the same race Trump
is. I've not heard of any Africans seeking immigration. (Thank goodness !)
rumpelstiltskin
2017-12-01 20:12:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by m***@my-deja.com
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Somebody here, I apologize for not remembering who,
said that what motivates Trump is "narcissism" Everything
else is just hoped-for fuel to bolster his conviction about his
own wonderfulness.
It does appear that way. People actually voted for Bannon to be
president.
That sounds correct to me. Trump is the vehicle, but being a man-baby
narcissist is unqualified to be President regardless of his views and
policies.
As to the substance of Bannonism (which Bannon calls economic
nationalism), I can see how it carried the day (frustration with the
current state of affairs). However, it strikes me as mostly wrong
(tariffs don't work in the long run
Disagree, I hope in a civilized way.
I don't really want to argue about it.
I'm not going to change your mind, and
you're not going to change mine.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
nd the anti-immigration part has
more than just overtones of racism
Agree, yet I do support severely limiting
immigration despite being an immigrant
myself. We have quite enough, even too
many, people already IMV. If China has too
many people, that's China's problem, not
ours. We'll take the tech superstars, for
example, if they want to come here.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
. Plus, Bannon is asupply-side
enthusiast for these tax cuts.
I hate supply-siding like purple poison.
Demand-supply gives us what we want.
Supply-siding gives us internet popups for
ridiculous garbage, and that IMO is the
LEAST offensive thing about it!
m***@my-deja.com
2017-12-04 03:05:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by m***@my-deja.com
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Somebody here, I apologize for not remembering who,
said that what motivates Trump is "narcissism" Everything
else is just hoped-for fuel to bolster his conviction about his
own wonderfulness.
It does appear that way. People actually voted for Bannon to be
president.
That sounds correct to me. Trump is the vehicle, but being a man-baby
narcissist is unqualified to be President regardless of his views and
policies.
As to the substance of Bannonism (which Bannon calls economic
nationalism), I can see how it carried the day (frustration with the
current state of affairs). However, it strikes me as mostly wrong
(tariffs don't work in the long run and the anti-immigration part has
more than just overtones of racism). Plus, Bannon is asupply-side
enthusiast for these tax cuts.
It depends on the tariff. Tariffs on raw commodities are not a good
idea because they create supply shortages in those markets.
But tariffs can be very effective with manufactured products in
balancing trade and promoting quality.
On the issue of illegal immigration there are a few of us still
around that are wondering about the subtle drop of the word "illegal".
The US has had immigration laws in the past, they are nothing new.
But it seems now that opposition to illegal immigration is being
called racism. The subtle drop of "illegal" and the accusation of
"racism" seems to suggest that Bush's New World Order and the push
for globalism has been effective.
Tariffs c
d***@gmail.com
2017-12-06 16:37:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Tell it like it is.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by m***@my-deja.com
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Somebody here, I apologize for not remembering who,
said that what motivates Trump is "narcissism" Everything
else is just hoped-for fuel to bolster his conviction about his
own wonderfulness. Courage.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by m***@my-deja.com
It does appear that way. People actually voted for Bannon to be
president. probably the "chosen ones"
http://adl.org
http://aipac.org
http://aljazeera.com
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
That sounds correct to me. Trump is the vehicle, but being a man-baby
narcissist is unqualified to be President regardless of his views and
policies.
As to the substance of Bannonism (which Bannon calls economic
nationalism), I can see how it carried the day (frustration with the
current state of affairs). However, it strikes me as mostly wrong
(tariffs don't work in the long run and the anti-immigration part has
more than just overtones of racism). Plus, Bannon is asupply-side
enthusiast for these tax cuts.
"Are you mainstream like me, Judge Roberts"
Senator Chuck Schumer (D) NY
"Bannonism"?
"man-baby"
try "arrogant prick" and guess whose filling whose shoes:
http://adl.org
http://aipac.org
http://aljazeera.com
islander
2017-12-01 16:39:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by m***@my-deja.com
Post by Jack Fate
Post by GLOBALIST
I am backing President Trump’s efforts for a major tax reduction and reform plan because I think it will create one of the greatest economic booms in history.
Bush had the same plan. He made it happen. Then everything went to hell.
Insanity is thinking that if you do the same thing again, you will get
different results. Only stupid dip shit bigoted racists like you believe
that shit.
Over the last 10 years or so I have come to think that they are
no longer concerned about the nations outcome. They have to say
something to the American people that sounds good to get them to
keep quiet.
Their true sentiments are evident in this tax bill.
The national debt is not their concern, they know it will not
shrink it, but only make it bigger.
Most new investments will be made overseas.
Trump is easily played.
Somebody here, I apologize for not remembering who,
said that what motivates Trump is "narcissism" Everything
else is just hoped-for fuel to bolster his conviction about his
own wonderfulness.
I don't think that Trump cares what is in the tax bill as long as he can
claim a legislative accomplishment. The Republican dominated Congress
is determined to take advantage of that. If this tax bill passes, it
will be the biggest gift to the wealthy ever put into law, even
comparing it to the largess of Andrew Mellon during the Golden Age.
That produced the Great Depression.
El Castor
2017-12-01 19:44:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by m***@my-deja.com
Post by Jack Fate
I am backing President Trump’s efforts for a major tax reduction and reform plan because I think it will create one of the greatest economic booms in history.
Bush had the same plan. He made it happen. Then everything went to hell.
Insanity is thinking that if you do the same thing again, you will get
different results. Only stupid dip shit bigoted racists like you believe
that shit.
Over the last 10 years or so I have come to think that they are
no longer concerned about the nations outcome. They have to say
something to the American people that sounds good to get them to
keep quiet.
Their true sentiments are evident in this tax bill.
The national debt is not their concern, they know it will not
shrink it, but only make it bigger.
Most new investments will be made overseas.
Trump is easily played.
Somebody here, I apologize for not remembering who,
said that what motivates Trump is "narcissism" Everything
else is just hoped-for fuel to bolster his conviction about his
own wonderfulness.
I don't think that Trump cares what is in the tax bill as long as he can
claim a legislative accomplishment. The Republican dominated Congress
is determined to take advantage of that. If this tax bill passes, it
will be the biggest gift to the wealthy ever put into law, even
comparing it to the largess of Andrew Mellon during the Golden Age.
That produced the Great Depression.
Why is that? Is a corporate tax cut a gift to the wealthy?
islander
2017-12-02 01:37:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by m***@my-deja.com
Post by Jack Fate
Post by GLOBALIST
I am backing President Trump’s efforts for a major tax reduction and reform plan because I think it will create one of the greatest economic booms in history.
Bush had the same plan. He made it happen. Then everything went to hell.
Insanity is thinking that if you do the same thing again, you will get
different results. Only stupid dip shit bigoted racists like you believe
that shit.
Over the last 10 years or so I have come to think that they are
no longer concerned about the nations outcome. They have to say
something to the American people that sounds good to get them to
keep quiet.
Their true sentiments are evident in this tax bill.
The national debt is not their concern, they know it will not
shrink it, but only make it bigger.
Most new investments will be made overseas.
Trump is easily played.
Somebody here, I apologize for not remembering who,
said that what motivates Trump is "narcissism" Everything
else is just hoped-for fuel to bolster his conviction about his
own wonderfulness.
I don't think that Trump cares what is in the tax bill as long as he can
claim a legislative accomplishment. The Republican dominated Congress
is determined to take advantage of that. If this tax bill passes, it
will be the biggest gift to the wealthy ever put into law, even
comparing it to the largess of Andrew Mellon during the Golden Age.
That produced the Great Depression.
Why is that? Is a corporate tax cut a gift to the wealthy?
Most corporate equity is owned by the wealthy. It is most likely that a
corporate tax cut will result in dividends to stockholders rather than
being passed through in the form of wages to workers. Trickle down
simply doesn't work.

And don't get me started on pass-throughs and carried interest
loopholes. The middle class is getting raped once again.
El Castor
2017-12-02 08:59:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by m***@my-deja.com
Post by Jack Fate
I am backing President Trump’s efforts for a major tax reduction and reform plan because I think it will create one of the greatest economic booms in history.
Bush had the same plan. He made it happen. Then everything went to hell.
Insanity is thinking that if you do the same thing again, you will get
different results. Only stupid dip shit bigoted racists like you believe
that shit.
Over the last 10 years or so I have come to think that they are
no longer concerned about the nations outcome. They have to say
something to the American people that sounds good to get them to
keep quiet.
Their true sentiments are evident in this tax bill.
The national debt is not their concern, they know it will not
shrink it, but only make it bigger.
Most new investments will be made overseas.
Trump is easily played.
Somebody here, I apologize for not remembering who,
said that what motivates Trump is "narcissism" Everything
else is just hoped-for fuel to bolster his conviction about his
own wonderfulness.
I don't think that Trump cares what is in the tax bill as long as he can
claim a legislative accomplishment. The Republican dominated Congress
is determined to take advantage of that. If this tax bill passes, it
will be the biggest gift to the wealthy ever put into law, even
comparing it to the largess of Andrew Mellon during the Golden Age.
That produced the Great Depression.
Why is that? Is a corporate tax cut a gift to the wealthy?
Most corporate equity is owned by the wealthy. It is most likely that a
corporate tax cut will result in dividends to stockholders rather than
being passed through in the form of wages to workers. Trickle down
simply doesn't work.
And don't get me started on pass-throughs and carried interest
loopholes. The middle class is getting raped once again.
Just a guess, but with minimal research it looks like around 50% of US
equities are held in IRAs, 401Ks & 403Bs, as well as state/local
pension funds, like CALPERS. That is not the territory of
billionaires. But frankly, my interest is not in dividends, it's jobs
and trillions of our capital forced overseas.

Our competitors, many of whom you might consider socialist, have
corporate tax rates vastly lower than the US. Why do you think that
is?

For example ...
United States 39.5%
Sweden 22%
Switzerland 17.92%
Denmark 22%
Germany 29.65%
UK 19%
China 25%

Here are Stanford based commentaries worth a read. One thing they do
not bother to discuss in relation to corporate tax reform is dividends
that might go to the rich. That is not what this debate is about.

"Lisa De Simone: How U.S. Companies Export Profits to Save on Taxes"
https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/lisa-de-simone-how-us-companies-export-profits-save-taxes

"Can the GOP Fix the Corporate Income Tax?"
https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/can-gop-fix-corporate-income-tax
islander
2017-12-02 16:03:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by m***@my-deja.com
Post by Jack Fate
Post by GLOBALIST
I am backing President Trump’s efforts for a major tax reduction and reform plan because I think it will create one of the greatest economic booms in history.
Bush had the same plan. He made it happen. Then everything went to hell.
Insanity is thinking that if you do the same thing again, you will get
different results. Only stupid dip shit bigoted racists like you believe
that shit.
Over the last 10 years or so I have come to think that they are
no longer concerned about the nations outcome. They have to say
something to the American people that sounds good to get them to
keep quiet.
Their true sentiments are evident in this tax bill.
The national debt is not their concern, they know it will not
shrink it, but only make it bigger.
Most new investments will be made overseas.
Trump is easily played.
Somebody here, I apologize for not remembering who,
said that what motivates Trump is "narcissism" Everything
else is just hoped-for fuel to bolster his conviction about his
own wonderfulness.
I don't think that Trump cares what is in the tax bill as long as he can
claim a legislative accomplishment. The Republican dominated Congress
is determined to take advantage of that. If this tax bill passes, it
will be the biggest gift to the wealthy ever put into law, even
comparing it to the largess of Andrew Mellon during the Golden Age.
That produced the Great Depression.
Why is that? Is a corporate tax cut a gift to the wealthy?
Most corporate equity is owned by the wealthy. It is most likely that a
corporate tax cut will result in dividends to stockholders rather than
being passed through in the form of wages to workers. Trickle down
simply doesn't work.
And don't get me started on pass-throughs and carried interest
loopholes. The middle class is getting raped once again.
Just a guess, but with minimal research it looks like around 50% of US
equities are held in IRAs, 401Ks & 403Bs, as well as state/local
pension funds, like CALPERS. That is not the territory of
billionaires. But frankly, my interest is not in dividends, it's jobs
and trillions of our capital forced overseas.
Our competitors, many of whom you might consider socialist, have
corporate tax rates vastly lower than the US. Why do you think that
is?
For example ...
United States 39.5%
Sweden 22%
Switzerland 17.92%
Denmark 22%
Germany 29.65%
UK 19%
China 25%
Here are Stanford based commentaries worth a read. One thing they do
not bother to discuss in relation to corporate tax reform is dividends
that might go to the rich. That is not what this debate is about.
"Lisa De Simone: How U.S. Companies Export Profits to Save on Taxes"
https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/lisa-de-simone-how-us-companies-export-profits-save-taxes
"Can the GOP Fix the Corporate Income Tax?"
https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/can-gop-fix-corporate-income-tax
It is an enormous stretch of the imagination to believe that lowering
the corporate tax will produce jobs. Why would it? Corporations are
awash in money and there is more available at low interest rates. It is
far more likely that companies will use any excess cash to buy back
their own stock, inflating the value and increasing the wealth of the
stock holders. As I'm sure you know, there are two ways to make money
as a stockholder. Dividends used to be the most important, but
increased equity value is the way most people now depend upon to
increase their wealth. If you look at the portfolios of pension funds,
only a small portion is allocated to stocks that pay dividends. Rather
they emphasize balanced portfolios. You probably do as well, if not
making your own selections but by investing in the various forms of
funds that do it for you. As to the investments made in tax deferred
accounts, most people in the middle class have very little invested.
The last study by the GAO estimates a median net worth of $337K, most of
it in their home. That is roughly the equivalent of a $1,000 per month
annuity. Try living on that!

As to bringing money back on-shore, why would it? There are many
incentives to leave money abroad where there are innumerable reasons to
keep it there, low wages still being the most important. It is only
when transportation costs become important that that would change.
Otherwise, I would favor reducing the corporate income tax, but only if
the loopholes are closed. There is only a minimal effort to close
loopholes in the bills being considered. Germany does a much better job
of this than we do with a top marginal rate of nearly 30%. Why do you
suppose that is?

It is really frustrating that the Democrats dig us out of financial
difficulty that the Republicans put us in only to see the Republicans
get back into power and do everything that they can to destroy the
economy once again. Yes, they are fulfilling their promise to the
people who finance their campaigns, but most of the people who actually
work for a living suffer.
El Castor
2017-12-02 21:17:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by m***@my-deja.com
Post by Jack Fate
I am backing President Trump’s efforts for a major tax reduction and reform plan because I think it will create one of the greatest economic booms in history.
Bush had the same plan. He made it happen. Then everything went to hell.
Insanity is thinking that if you do the same thing again, you will get
different results. Only stupid dip shit bigoted racists like you believe
that shit.
Over the last 10 years or so I have come to think that they are
no longer concerned about the nations outcome. They have to say
something to the American people that sounds good to get them to
keep quiet.
Their true sentiments are evident in this tax bill.
The national debt is not their concern, they know it will not
shrink it, but only make it bigger.
Most new investments will be made overseas.
Trump is easily played.
Somebody here, I apologize for not remembering who,
said that what motivates Trump is "narcissism" Everything
else is just hoped-for fuel to bolster his conviction about his
own wonderfulness.
I don't think that Trump cares what is in the tax bill as long as he can
claim a legislative accomplishment. The Republican dominated Congress
is determined to take advantage of that. If this tax bill passes, it
will be the biggest gift to the wealthy ever put into law, even
comparing it to the largess of Andrew Mellon during the Golden Age.
That produced the Great Depression.
Why is that? Is a corporate tax cut a gift to the wealthy?
Most corporate equity is owned by the wealthy. It is most likely that a
corporate tax cut will result in dividends to stockholders rather than
being passed through in the form of wages to workers. Trickle down
simply doesn't work.
And don't get me started on pass-throughs and carried interest
loopholes. The middle class is getting raped once again.
Just a guess, but with minimal research it looks like around 50% of US
equities are held in IRAs, 401Ks & 403Bs, as well as state/local
pension funds, like CALPERS. That is not the territory of
billionaires. But frankly, my interest is not in dividends, it's jobs
and trillions of our capital forced overseas.
Our competitors, many of whom you might consider socialist, have
corporate tax rates vastly lower than the US. Why do you think that
is?
For example ...
United States 39.5%
Sweden 22%
Switzerland 17.92%
Denmark 22%
Germany 29.65%
UK 19%
China 25%
Here are Stanford based commentaries worth a read. One thing they do
not bother to discuss in relation to corporate tax reform is dividends
that might go to the rich. That is not what this debate is about.
"Lisa De Simone: How U.S. Companies Export Profits to Save on Taxes"
https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/lisa-de-simone-how-us-companies-export-profits-save-taxes
"Can the GOP Fix the Corporate Income Tax?"
https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/can-gop-fix-corporate-income-tax
It is an enormous stretch of the imagination to believe that lowering
the corporate tax will produce jobs. Why would it? Corporations are
awash in money and there is more available at low interest rates. It is
far more likely that companies will use any excess cash to buy back
their own stock, inflating the value and increasing the wealth of the
stock holders. As I'm sure you know, there are two ways to make money
as a stockholder. Dividends used to be the most important, but
increased equity value is the way most people now depend upon to
increase their wealth. If you look at the portfolios of pension funds,
only a small portion is allocated to stocks that pay dividends. Rather
they emphasize balanced portfolios. You probably do as well, if not
making your own selections but by investing in the various forms of
funds that do it for you. As to the investments made in tax deferred
accounts, most people in the middle class have very little invested.
The last study by the GAO estimates a median net worth of $337K, most of
it in their home. That is roughly the equivalent of a $1,000 per month
annuity. Try living on that!
As to bringing money back on-shore, why would it? There are many
incentives to leave money abroad where there are innumerable reasons to
keep it there, low wages still being the most important. It is only
when transportation costs become important that that would change.
Otherwise, I would favor reducing the corporate income tax, but only if
the loopholes are closed. There is only a minimal effort to close
loopholes in the bills being considered. Germany does a much better job
of this than we do with a top marginal rate of nearly 30%. Why do you
suppose that is?
It is really frustrating that the Democrats dig us out of financial
difficulty that the Republicans put us in only to see the Republicans
get back into power and do everything that they can to destroy the
economy once again. Yes, they are fulfilling their promise to the
people who finance their campaigns, but most of the people who actually
work for a living suffer.
So why does socialist Sweden have a 22% rate?
islander
2017-12-03 01:50:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by m***@my-deja.com
Post by Jack Fate
Post by GLOBALIST
I am backing President Trump’s efforts for a major tax reduction and reform plan because I think it will create one of the greatest economic booms in history.
Bush had the same plan. He made it happen. Then everything went to hell.
Insanity is thinking that if you do the same thing again, you will get
different results. Only stupid dip shit bigoted racists like you believe
that shit.
Over the last 10 years or so I have come to think that they are
no longer concerned about the nations outcome. They have to say
something to the American people that sounds good to get them to
keep quiet.
Their true sentiments are evident in this tax bill.
The national debt is not their concern, they know it will not
shrink it, but only make it bigger.
Most new investments will be made overseas.
Trump is easily played.
Somebody here, I apologize for not remembering who,
said that what motivates Trump is "narcissism" Everything
else is just hoped-for fuel to bolster his conviction about his
own wonderfulness.
I don't think that Trump cares what is in the tax bill as long as he can
claim a legislative accomplishment. The Republican dominated Congress
is determined to take advantage of that. If this tax bill passes, it
will be the biggest gift to the wealthy ever put into law, even
comparing it to the largess of Andrew Mellon during the Golden Age.
That produced the Great Depression.
Why is that? Is a corporate tax cut a gift to the wealthy?
Most corporate equity is owned by the wealthy. It is most likely that a
corporate tax cut will result in dividends to stockholders rather than
being passed through in the form of wages to workers. Trickle down
simply doesn't work.
And don't get me started on pass-throughs and carried interest
loopholes. The middle class is getting raped once again.
Just a guess, but with minimal research it looks like around 50% of US
equities are held in IRAs, 401Ks & 403Bs, as well as state/local
pension funds, like CALPERS. That is not the territory of
billionaires. But frankly, my interest is not in dividends, it's jobs
and trillions of our capital forced overseas.
Our competitors, many of whom you might consider socialist, have
corporate tax rates vastly lower than the US. Why do you think that
is?
For example ...
United States 39.5%
Sweden 22%
Switzerland 17.92%
Denmark 22%
Germany 29.65%
UK 19%
China 25%
Here are Stanford based commentaries worth a read. One thing they do
not bother to discuss in relation to corporate tax reform is dividends
that might go to the rich. That is not what this debate is about.
"Lisa De Simone: How U.S. Companies Export Profits to Save on Taxes"
https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/lisa-de-simone-how-us-companies-export-profits-save-taxes
"Can the GOP Fix the Corporate Income Tax?"
https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/can-gop-fix-corporate-income-tax
It is an enormous stretch of the imagination to believe that lowering
the corporate tax will produce jobs. Why would it? Corporations are
awash in money and there is more available at low interest rates. It is
far more likely that companies will use any excess cash to buy back
their own stock, inflating the value and increasing the wealth of the
stock holders. As I'm sure you know, there are two ways to make money
as a stockholder. Dividends used to be the most important, but
increased equity value is the way most people now depend upon to
increase their wealth. If you look at the portfolios of pension funds,
only a small portion is allocated to stocks that pay dividends. Rather
they emphasize balanced portfolios. You probably do as well, if not
making your own selections but by investing in the various forms of
funds that do it for you. As to the investments made in tax deferred
accounts, most people in the middle class have very little invested.
The last study by the GAO estimates a median net worth of $337K, most of
it in their home. That is roughly the equivalent of a $1,000 per month
annuity. Try living on that!
As to bringing money back on-shore, why would it? There are many
incentives to leave money abroad where there are innumerable reasons to
keep it there, low wages still being the most important. It is only
when transportation costs become important that that would change.
Otherwise, I would favor reducing the corporate income tax, but only if
the loopholes are closed. There is only a minimal effort to close
loopholes in the bills being considered. Germany does a much better job
of this than we do with a top marginal rate of nearly 30%. Why do you
suppose that is?
It is really frustrating that the Democrats dig us out of financial
difficulty that the Republicans put us in only to see the Republicans
get back into power and do everything that they can to destroy the
economy once again. Yes, they are fulfilling their promise to the
people who finance their campaigns, but most of the people who actually
work for a living suffer.
So why does socialist Sweden have a 22% rate?
Because they do not have a tax system that is so full of loopholes that
it favors large corporations. If you think that the bill that the
Republicans are ramming through Congress will make our tax system
equivalent to Sweden's, I have a bridge to sell you. This is all about
appeasing the political donors.
rumpelstiltskin
2017-12-03 03:57:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by m***@my-deja.com
Post by Jack Fate
I am backing President Trump’s efforts for a major tax reduction and reform plan because I think it will create one of the greatest economic booms in history.
Bush had the same plan. He made it happen. Then everything went to hell.
Insanity is thinking that if you do the same thing again, you will get
different results. Only stupid dip shit bigoted racists like you believe
that shit.
Over the last 10 years or so I have come to think that they are
no longer concerned about the nations outcome. They have to say
something to the American people that sounds good to get them to
keep quiet.
Their true sentiments are evident in this tax bill.
The national debt is not their concern, they know it will not
shrink it, but only make it bigger.
Most new investments will be made overseas.
Trump is easily played.
Somebody here, I apologize for not remembering who,
said that what motivates Trump is "narcissism" Everything
else is just hoped-for fuel to bolster his conviction about his
own wonderfulness.
I don't think that Trump cares what is in the tax bill as long as he can
claim a legislative accomplishment. The Republican dominated Congress
is determined to take advantage of that. If this tax bill passes, it
will be the biggest gift to the wealthy ever put into law, even
comparing it to the largess of Andrew Mellon during the Golden Age.
That produced the Great Depression.
Why is that? Is a corporate tax cut a gift to the wealthy?
Most corporate equity is owned by the wealthy. It is most likely that a
corporate tax cut will result in dividends to stockholders rather than
being passed through in the form of wages to workers. Trickle down
simply doesn't work.
And don't get me started on pass-throughs and carried interest
loopholes. The middle class is getting raped once again.
Just a guess, but with minimal research it looks like around 50% of US
equities are held in IRAs, 401Ks & 403Bs, as well as state/local
pension funds, like CALPERS. That is not the territory of
billionaires. But frankly, my interest is not in dividends, it's jobs
and trillions of our capital forced overseas.
Our competitors, many of whom you might consider socialist, have
corporate tax rates vastly lower than the US. Why do you think that
is?
For example ...
United States 39.5%
Sweden 22%
Switzerland 17.92%
Denmark 22%
Germany 29.65%
UK 19%
China 25%
Here are Stanford based commentaries worth a read. One thing they do
not bother to discuss in relation to corporate tax reform is dividends
that might go to the rich. That is not what this debate is about.
"Lisa De Simone: How U.S. Companies Export Profits to Save on Taxes"
https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/lisa-de-simone-how-us-companies-export-profits-save-taxes
"Can the GOP Fix the Corporate Income Tax?"
https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/can-gop-fix-corporate-income-tax
It is an enormous stretch of the imagination to believe that lowering
the corporate tax will produce jobs. Why would it? Corporations are
awash in money and there is more available at low interest rates. It is
far more likely that companies will use any excess cash to buy back
their own stock, inflating the value and increasing the wealth of the
stock holders. As I'm sure you know, there are two ways to make money
as a stockholder. Dividends used to be the most important, but
increased equity value is the way most people now depend upon to
increase their wealth. If you look at the portfolios of pension funds,
only a small portion is allocated to stocks that pay dividends. Rather
they emphasize balanced portfolios. You probably do as well, if not
making your own selections but by investing in the various forms of
funds that do it for you. As to the investments made in tax deferred
accounts, most people in the middle class have very little invested.
The last study by the GAO estimates a median net worth of $337K, most of
it in their home. That is roughly the equivalent of a $1,000 per month
annuity. Try living on that!
As to bringing money back on-shore, why would it? There are many
incentives to leave money abroad where there are innumerable reasons to
keep it there, low wages still being the most important. It is only
when transportation costs become important that that would change.
Otherwise, I would favor reducing the corporate income tax, but only if
the loopholes are closed. There is only a minimal effort to close
loopholes in the bills being considered. Germany does a much better job
of this than we do with a top marginal rate of nearly 30%. Why do you
suppose that is?
It is really frustrating that the Democrats dig us out of financial
difficulty that the Republicans put us in only to see the Republicans
get back into power and do everything that they can to destroy the
economy once again. Yes, they are fulfilling their promise to the
people who finance their campaigns, but most of the people who actually
work for a living suffer.
So why does socialist Sweden have a 22% rate?
Because they do not have a tax system that is so full of loopholes that
it favors large corporations. If you think that the bill that the
Republicans are ramming through Congress will make our tax system
equivalent to Sweden's, I have a bridge to sell you. This is all about
appeasing the political donors.
And don't forget "why" and "how" our tax system
is full of loopholes!
me
2017-12-03 04:28:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In the US the House writes tax and spend laws. The House has been controlled by Democrats for most of the past 100 years including the Reagan years but not the Clinton or second Obama years. If you have a tax and or spend problem try to remember this.
Loading Image...
El Castor
2017-12-03 10:07:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by m***@my-deja.com
Post by Jack Fate
I am backing President Trump’s efforts for a major tax reduction and reform plan because I think it will create one of the greatest economic booms in history.
Bush had the same plan. He made it happen. Then everything went to hell.
Insanity is thinking that if you do the same thing again, you will get
different results. Only stupid dip shit bigoted racists like you believe
that shit.
Over the last 10 years or so I have come to think that they are
no longer concerned about the nations outcome. They have to say
something to the American people that sounds good to get them to
keep quiet.
Their true sentiments are evident in this tax bill.
The national debt is not their concern, they know it will not
shrink it, but only make it bigger.
Most new investments will be made overseas.
Trump is easily played.
Somebody here, I apologize for not remembering who,
said that what motivates Trump is "narcissism" Everything
else is just hoped-for fuel to bolster his conviction about his
own wonderfulness.
I don't think that Trump cares what is in the tax bill as long as he can
claim a legislative accomplishment. The Republican dominated Congress
is determined to take advantage of that. If this tax bill passes, it
will be the biggest gift to the wealthy ever put into law, even
comparing it to the largess of Andrew Mellon during the Golden Age.
That produced the Great Depression.
Why is that? Is a corporate tax cut a gift to the wealthy?
Most corporate equity is owned by the wealthy. It is most likely that a
corporate tax cut will result in dividends to stockholders rather than
being passed through in the form of wages to workers. Trickle down
simply doesn't work.
And don't get me started on pass-throughs and carried interest
loopholes. The middle class is getting raped once again.
Just a guess, but with minimal research it looks like around 50% of US
equities are held in IRAs, 401Ks & 403Bs, as well as state/local
pension funds, like CALPERS. That is not the territory of
billionaires. But frankly, my interest is not in dividends, it's jobs
and trillions of our capital forced overseas.
Our competitors, many of whom you might consider socialist, have
corporate tax rates vastly lower than the US. Why do you think that
is?
For example ...
United States 39.5%
Sweden 22%
Switzerland 17.92%
Denmark 22%
Germany 29.65%
UK 19%
China 25%
Here are Stanford based commentaries worth a read. One thing they do
not bother to discuss in relation to corporate tax reform is dividends
that might go to the rich. That is not what this debate is about.
"Lisa De Simone: How U.S. Companies Export Profits to Save on Taxes"
https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/lisa-de-simone-how-us-companies-export-profits-save-taxes
"Can the GOP Fix the Corporate Income Tax?"
https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/can-gop-fix-corporate-income-tax
It is an enormous stretch of the imagination to believe that lowering
the corporate tax will produce jobs. Why would it? Corporations are
awash in money and there is more available at low interest rates. It is
far more likely that companies will use any excess cash to buy back
their own stock, inflating the value and increasing the wealth of the
stock holders. As I'm sure you know, there are two ways to make money
as a stockholder. Dividends used to be the most important, but
increased equity value is the way most people now depend upon to
increase their wealth. If you look at the portfolios of pension funds,
only a small portion is allocated to stocks that pay dividends. Rather
they emphasize balanced portfolios. You probably do as well, if not
making your own selections but by investing in the various forms of
funds that do it for you. As to the investments made in tax deferred
accounts, most people in the middle class have very little invested.
The last study by the GAO estimates a median net worth of $337K, most of
it in their home. That is roughly the equivalent of a $1,000 per month
annuity. Try living on that!
As to bringing money back on-shore, why would it? There are many
incentives to leave money abroad where there are innumerable reasons to
keep it there, low wages still being the most important. It is only
when transportation costs become important that that would change.
Otherwise, I would favor reducing the corporate income tax, but only if
the loopholes are closed. There is only a minimal effort to close
loopholes in the bills being considered. Germany does a much better job
of this than we do with a top marginal rate of nearly 30%. Why do you
suppose that is?
It is really frustrating that the Democrats dig us out of financial
difficulty that the Republicans put us in only to see the Republicans
get back into power and do everything that they can to destroy the
economy once again. Yes, they are fulfilling their promise to the
people who finance their campaigns, but most of the people who actually
work for a living suffer.
So why does socialist Sweden have a 22% rate?
Because they do not have a tax system that is so full of loopholes that
it favors large corporations. If you think that the bill that the
Republicans are ramming through Congress will make our tax system
equivalent to Sweden's, I have a bridge to sell you. This is all about
appeasing the political donors.
Well, that's good news! Maybe with a few more loopholes we can beat
Ireland's 12.5%. Corporations from all over the world will be moving
here! Burger King, and the 40 others that packed up and left over the
last 10 years may even come back.
Gary
2017-12-03 12:38:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
It is really frustrating that the Democrats dig us out of financial
difficulty that the Republicans put us in only to see the Republicans
get back into power and do everything that they can to destroy the
economy once again. Yes, they are fulfilling their promise to the
people who finance their campaigns, but most of the people who actually
work for a living suffer.
So why does socialist Sweden have a 22% rate?
Because they do not have a tax system that is so full of loopholes that
it favors large corporations. If you think that the bill that the
Republicans are ramming through Congress will make our tax system
equivalent to Sweden's, I have a bridge to sell you. This is all about
appeasing the political donors.
Well, that's good news! Maybe with a few more loopholes we can beat
Ireland's 12.5%. Corporations from all over the world will be moving
here! Burger King, and the 40 others that packed up and left over the
last 10 years may even come back.
There is a simple way to prevent corporations from leaving America. Place a 50% import
fee on any product they ship to America. They may not like our labor costs -- but they
do love to sell their junk to us.
me
2017-12-03 14:29:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Put a 50% tariff on them and fewer people like you will buy their product. Customers would pay for the tariff. Customers prefer to pay less.
El Castor
2017-12-03 21:17:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gary
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
It is really frustrating that the Democrats dig us out of financial
difficulty that the Republicans put us in only to see the Republicans
get back into power and do everything that they can to destroy the
economy once again. Yes, they are fulfilling their promise to the
people who finance their campaigns, but most of the people who actually
work for a living suffer.
So why does socialist Sweden have a 22% rate?
Because they do not have a tax system that is so full of loopholes that
it favors large corporations. If you think that the bill that the
Republicans are ramming through Congress will make our tax system
equivalent to Sweden's, I have a bridge to sell you. This is all about
appeasing the political donors.
Well, that's good news! Maybe with a few more loopholes we can beat
Ireland's 12.5%. Corporations from all over the world will be moving
here! Burger King, and the 40 others that packed up and left over the
last 10 years may even come back.
There is a simple way to prevent corporations from leaving America. Place a 50% import
fee on any product they ship to America. They may not like our labor costs -- but they
do love to sell their junk to us.
Thankfully you are in Georgia, and not DC.
Gary
2017-12-04 17:32:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by Gary
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
So why does socialist Sweden have a 22% rate?
Because they do not have a tax system that is so full of loopholes that
it favors large corporations. If you think that the bill that the
Republicans are ramming through Congress will make our tax system
equivalent to Sweden's, I have a bridge to sell you. This is all about
appeasing the political donors.
Well, that's good news! Maybe with a few more loopholes we can beat
Ireland's 12.5%. Corporations from all over the world will be moving
here! Burger King, and the 40 others that packed up and left over the
last 10 years may even come back.
There is a simple way to prevent corporations from leaving America. Place a 50% import
fee on any product they ship to America. They may not like our labor costs -- but they
do love to sell their junk to us.
Thankfully you are in Georgia, and not DC.
Maybe Corporate America should send all of their factories to Central Africa. That way
-- instead of paying minimum wage of $8 or $10 an hour -- they could get a worker for a
couple of coconuts a day. Of course -- nothing they assembled would work -- but look
at the profits !
El Castor
2017-12-04 21:45:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gary
Post by El Castor
Post by Gary
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
So why does socialist Sweden have a 22% rate?
Because they do not have a tax system that is so full of loopholes that
it favors large corporations. If you think that the bill that the
Republicans are ramming through Congress will make our tax system
equivalent to Sweden's, I have a bridge to sell you. This is all about
appeasing the political donors.
Well, that's good news! Maybe with a few more loopholes we can beat
Ireland's 12.5%. Corporations from all over the world will be moving
here! Burger King, and the 40 others that packed up and left over the
last 10 years may even come back.
There is a simple way to prevent corporations from leaving America. Place a 50% import
fee on any product they ship to America. They may not like our labor costs -- but they
do love to sell their junk to us.
Thankfully you are in Georgia, and not DC.
Maybe Corporate America should send all of their factories to Central Africa. That way
-- instead of paying minimum wage of $8 or $10 an hour -- they could get a worker for a
couple of coconuts a day. Of course -- nothing they assembled would work -- but look
at the profits !
The Chinese are replacing factory workers with robots. What does that
tell you about the future? (-8
Tzatz Ziki
2017-12-03 23:06:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gary
There is a simple way to prevent corporations from leaving America. Place a 50% import
fee on any product they ship to America.
To a simple-minded bigoted idiot, this is a "solution."

To anyone with more than room temperature IQ, not so much.
islander
2017-12-03 15:09:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by m***@my-deja.com
Post by Jack Fate
Post by GLOBALIST
I am backing President Trump’s efforts for a major tax reduction and reform plan because I think it will create one of the greatest economic booms in history.
Bush had the same plan. He made it happen. Then everything went to hell.
Insanity is thinking that if you do the same thing again, you will get
different results. Only stupid dip shit bigoted racists like you believe
that shit.
Over the last 10 years or so I have come to think that they are
no longer concerned about the nations outcome. They have to say
something to the American people that sounds good to get them to
keep quiet.
Their true sentiments are evident in this tax bill.
The national debt is not their concern, they know it will not
shrink it, but only make it bigger.
Most new investments will be made overseas.
Trump is easily played.
Somebody here, I apologize for not remembering who,
said that what motivates Trump is "narcissism" Everything
else is just hoped-for fuel to bolster his conviction about his
own wonderfulness.
I don't think that Trump cares what is in the tax bill as long as he can
claim a legislative accomplishment. The Republican dominated Congress
is determined to take advantage of that. If this tax bill passes, it
will be the biggest gift to the wealthy ever put into law, even
comparing it to the largess of Andrew Mellon during the Golden Age.
That produced the Great Depression.
Why is that? Is a corporate tax cut a gift to the wealthy?
Most corporate equity is owned by the wealthy. It is most likely that a
corporate tax cut will result in dividends to stockholders rather than
being passed through in the form of wages to workers. Trickle down
simply doesn't work.
And don't get me started on pass-throughs and carried interest
loopholes. The middle class is getting raped once again.
Just a guess, but with minimal research it looks like around 50% of US
equities are held in IRAs, 401Ks & 403Bs, as well as state/local
pension funds, like CALPERS. That is not the territory of
billionaires. But frankly, my interest is not in dividends, it's jobs
and trillions of our capital forced overseas.
Our competitors, many of whom you might consider socialist, have
corporate tax rates vastly lower than the US. Why do you think that
is?
For example ...
United States 39.5%
Sweden 22%
Switzerland 17.92%
Denmark 22%
Germany 29.65%
UK 19%
China 25%
Here are Stanford based commentaries worth a read. One thing they do
not bother to discuss in relation to corporate tax reform is dividends
that might go to the rich. That is not what this debate is about.
"Lisa De Simone: How U.S. Companies Export Profits to Save on Taxes"
https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/lisa-de-simone-how-us-companies-export-profits-save-taxes
"Can the GOP Fix the Corporate Income Tax?"
https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/can-gop-fix-corporate-income-tax
It is an enormous stretch of the imagination to believe that lowering
the corporate tax will produce jobs. Why would it? Corporations are
awash in money and there is more available at low interest rates. It is
far more likely that companies will use any excess cash to buy back
their own stock, inflating the value and increasing the wealth of the
stock holders. As I'm sure you know, there are two ways to make money
as a stockholder. Dividends used to be the most important, but
increased equity value is the way most people now depend upon to
increase their wealth. If you look at the portfolios of pension funds,
only a small portion is allocated to stocks that pay dividends. Rather
they emphasize balanced portfolios. You probably do as well, if not
making your own selections but by investing in the various forms of
funds that do it for you. As to the investments made in tax deferred
accounts, most people in the middle class have very little invested.
The last study by the GAO estimates a median net worth of $337K, most of
it in their home. That is roughly the equivalent of a $1,000 per month
annuity. Try living on that!
As to bringing money back on-shore, why would it? There are many
incentives to leave money abroad where there are innumerable reasons to
keep it there, low wages still being the most important. It is only
when transportation costs become important that that would change.
Otherwise, I would favor reducing the corporate income tax, but only if
the loopholes are closed. There is only a minimal effort to close
loopholes in the bills being considered. Germany does a much better job
of this than we do with a top marginal rate of nearly 30%. Why do you
suppose that is?
It is really frustrating that the Democrats dig us out of financial
difficulty that the Republicans put us in only to see the Republicans
get back into power and do everything that they can to destroy the
economy once again. Yes, they are fulfilling their promise to the
people who finance their campaigns, but most of the people who actually
work for a living suffer.
So why does socialist Sweden have a 22% rate?
Because they do not have a tax system that is so full of loopholes that
it favors large corporations. If you think that the bill that the
Republicans are ramming through Congress will make our tax system
equivalent to Sweden's, I have a bridge to sell you. This is all about
appeasing the political donors.
Well, that's good news! Maybe with a few more loopholes we can beat
Ireland's 12.5%. Corporations from all over the world will be moving
here! Burger King, and the 40 others that packed up and left over the
last 10 years may even come back.
You have such a naive view of the world! Why would they come back?
This is the great race to the bottom and the only two reasons for a
company to relocate in the US is to reduce shipping costs and customer
support costs. Potential jobs on the first would be minimized by
automation and the second is pretty obviously not a priority. We still
have a lucrative market, but the game that corporations are playing will
not produce jobs in the US. It is only likely to move the deck chairs.
El Castor
2017-12-03 21:18:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by m***@my-deja.com
Post by Jack Fate
I am backing President Trump’s efforts for a major tax reduction and reform plan because I think it will create one of the greatest economic booms in history.
Bush had the same plan. He made it happen. Then everything went to hell.
Insanity is thinking that if you do the same thing again, you will get
different results. Only stupid dip shit bigoted racists like you believe
that shit.
Over the last 10 years or so I have come to think that they are
no longer concerned about the nations outcome. They have to say
something to the American people that sounds good to get them to
keep quiet.
Their true sentiments are evident in this tax bill.
The national debt is not their concern, they know it will not
shrink it, but only make it bigger.
Most new investments will be made overseas.
Trump is easily played.
Somebody here, I apologize for not remembering who,
said that what motivates Trump is "narcissism" Everything
else is just hoped-for fuel to bolster his conviction about his
own wonderfulness.
I don't think that Trump cares what is in the tax bill as long as he can
claim a legislative accomplishment. The Republican dominated Congress
is determined to take advantage of that. If this tax bill passes, it
will be the biggest gift to the wealthy ever put into law, even
comparing it to the largess of Andrew Mellon during the Golden Age.
That produced the Great Depression.
Why is that? Is a corporate tax cut a gift to the wealthy?
Most corporate equity is owned by the wealthy. It is most likely that a
corporate tax cut will result in dividends to stockholders rather than
being passed through in the form of wages to workers. Trickle down
simply doesn't work.
And don't get me started on pass-throughs and carried interest
loopholes. The middle class is getting raped once again.
Just a guess, but with minimal research it looks like around 50% of US
equities are held in IRAs, 401Ks & 403Bs, as well as state/local
pension funds, like CALPERS. That is not the territory of
billionaires. But frankly, my interest is not in dividends, it's jobs
and trillions of our capital forced overseas.
Our competitors, many of whom you might consider socialist, have
corporate tax rates vastly lower than the US. Why do you think that
is?
For example ...
United States 39.5%
Sweden 22%
Switzerland 17.92%
Denmark 22%
Germany 29.65%
UK 19%
China 25%
Here are Stanford based commentaries worth a read. One thing they do
not bother to discuss in relation to corporate tax reform is dividends
that might go to the rich. That is not what this debate is about.
"Lisa De Simone: How U.S. Companies Export Profits to Save on Taxes"
https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/lisa-de-simone-how-us-companies-export-profits-save-taxes
"Can the GOP Fix the Corporate Income Tax?"
https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/can-gop-fix-corporate-income-tax
It is an enormous stretch of the imagination to believe that lowering
the corporate tax will produce jobs. Why would it? Corporations are
awash in money and there is more available at low interest rates. It is
far more likely that companies will use any excess cash to buy back
their own stock, inflating the value and increasing the wealth of the
stock holders. As I'm sure you know, there are two ways to make money
as a stockholder. Dividends used to be the most important, but
increased equity value is the way most people now depend upon to
increase their wealth. If you look at the portfolios of pension funds,
only a small portion is allocated to stocks that pay dividends. Rather
they emphasize balanced portfolios. You probably do as well, if not
making your own selections but by investing in the various forms of
funds that do it for you. As to the investments made in tax deferred
accounts, most people in the middle class have very little invested.
The last study by the GAO estimates a median net worth of $337K, most of
it in their home. That is roughly the equivalent of a $1,000 per month
annuity. Try living on that!
As to bringing money back on-shore, why would it? There are many
incentives to leave money abroad where there are innumerable reasons to
keep it there, low wages still being the most important. It is only
when transportation costs become important that that would change.
Otherwise, I would favor reducing the corporate income tax, but only if
the loopholes are closed. There is only a minimal effort to close
loopholes in the bills being considered. Germany does a much better job
of this than we do with a top marginal rate of nearly 30%. Why do you
suppose that is?
It is really frustrating that the Democrats dig us out of financial
difficulty that the Republicans put us in only to see the Republicans
get back into power and do everything that they can to destroy the
economy once again. Yes, they are fulfilling their promise to the
people who finance their campaigns, but most of the people who actually
work for a living suffer.
So why does socialist Sweden have a 22% rate?
Because they do not have a tax system that is so full of loopholes that
it favors large corporations. If you think that the bill that the
Republicans are ramming through Congress will make our tax system
equivalent to Sweden's, I have a bridge to sell you. This is all about
appeasing the political donors.
Well, that's good news! Maybe with a few more loopholes we can beat
Ireland's 12.5%. Corporations from all over the world will be moving
here! Burger King, and the 40 others that packed up and left over the
last 10 years may even come back.
You have such a naive view of the world! Why would they come back?
This is the great race to the bottom and the only two reasons for a
company to relocate in the US is to reduce shipping costs and customer
support costs. Potential jobs on the first would be minimized by
automation and the second is pretty obviously not a priority. We still
have a lucrative market, but the game that corporations are playing will
not produce jobs in the US. It is only likely to move the deck chairs.
We shall see.
islander
2017-12-04 01:42:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by m***@my-deja.com
Post by Jack Fate
Post by GLOBALIST
I am backing President Trump’s efforts for a major tax reduction and reform plan because I think it will create one of the greatest economic booms in history.
Bush had the same plan. He made it happen. Then everything went to hell.
Insanity is thinking that if you do the same thing again, you will get
different results. Only stupid dip shit bigoted racists like you believe
that shit.
Over the last 10 years or so I have come to think that they are
no longer concerned about the nations outcome. They have to say
something to the American people that sounds good to get them to
keep quiet.
Their true sentiments are evident in this tax bill.
The national debt is not their concern, they know it will not
shrink it, but only make it bigger.
Most new investments will be made overseas.
Trump is easily played.
Somebody here, I apologize for not remembering who,
said that what motivates Trump is "narcissism" Everything
else is just hoped-for fuel to bolster his conviction about his
own wonderfulness.
I don't think that Trump cares what is in the tax bill as long as he can
claim a legislative accomplishment. The Republican dominated Congress
is determined to take advantage of that. If this tax bill passes, it
will be the biggest gift to the wealthy ever put into law, even
comparing it to the largess of Andrew Mellon during the Golden Age.
That produced the Great Depression.
Why is that? Is a corporate tax cut a gift to the wealthy?
Most corporate equity is owned by the wealthy. It is most likely that a
corporate tax cut will result in dividends to stockholders rather than
being passed through in the form of wages to workers. Trickle down
simply doesn't work.
And don't get me started on pass-throughs and carried interest
loopholes. The middle class is getting raped once again.
Just a guess, but with minimal research it looks like around 50% of US
equities are held in IRAs, 401Ks & 403Bs, as well as state/local
pension funds, like CALPERS. That is not the territory of
billionaires. But frankly, my interest is not in dividends, it's jobs
and trillions of our capital forced overseas.
Our competitors, many of whom you might consider socialist, have
corporate tax rates vastly lower than the US. Why do you think that
is?
For example ...
United States 39.5%
Sweden 22%
Switzerland 17.92%
Denmark 22%
Germany 29.65%
UK 19%
China 25%
Here are Stanford based commentaries worth a read. One thing they do
not bother to discuss in relation to corporate tax reform is dividends
that might go to the rich. That is not what this debate is about.
"Lisa De Simone: How U.S. Companies Export Profits to Save on Taxes"
https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/lisa-de-simone-how-us-companies-export-profits-save-taxes
"Can the GOP Fix the Corporate Income Tax?"
https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/can-gop-fix-corporate-income-tax
It is an enormous stretch of the imagination to believe that lowering
the corporate tax will produce jobs. Why would it? Corporations are
awash in money and there is more available at low interest rates. It is
far more likely that companies will use any excess cash to buy back
their own stock, inflating the value and increasing the wealth of the
stock holders. As I'm sure you know, there are two ways to make money
as a stockholder. Dividends used to be the most important, but
increased equity value is the way most people now depend upon to
increase their wealth. If you look at the portfolios of pension funds,
only a small portion is allocated to stocks that pay dividends. Rather
they emphasize balanced portfolios. You probably do as well, if not
making your own selections but by investing in the various forms of
funds that do it for you. As to the investments made in tax deferred
accounts, most people in the middle class have very little invested.
The last study by the GAO estimates a median net worth of $337K, most of
it in their home. That is roughly the equivalent of a $1,000 per month
annuity. Try living on that!
As to bringing money back on-shore, why would it? There are many
incentives to leave money abroad where there are innumerable reasons to
keep it there, low wages still being the most important. It is only
when transportation costs become important that that would change.
Otherwise, I would favor reducing the corporate income tax, but only if
the loopholes are closed. There is only a minimal effort to close
loopholes in the bills being considered. Germany does a much better job
of this than we do with a top marginal rate of nearly 30%. Why do you
suppose that is?
It is really frustrating that the Democrats dig us out of financial
difficulty that the Republicans put us in only to see the Republicans
get back into power and do everything that they can to destroy the
economy once again. Yes, they are fulfilling their promise to the
people who finance their campaigns, but most of the people who actually
work for a living suffer.
So why does socialist Sweden have a 22% rate?
Because they do not have a tax system that is so full of loopholes that
it favors large corporations. If you think that the bill that the
Republicans are ramming through Congress will make our tax system
equivalent to Sweden's, I have a bridge to sell you. This is all about
appeasing the political donors.
Well, that's good news! Maybe with a few more loopholes we can beat
Ireland's 12.5%. Corporations from all over the world will be moving
here! Burger King, and the 40 others that packed up and left over the
last 10 years may even come back.
You have such a naive view of the world! Why would they come back?
This is the great race to the bottom and the only two reasons for a
company to relocate in the US is to reduce shipping costs and customer
support costs. Potential jobs on the first would be minimized by
automation and the second is pretty obviously not a priority. We still
have a lucrative market, but the game that corporations are playing will
not produce jobs in the US. It is only likely to move the deck chairs.
We shall see.
Betting on the come?
m***@my-deja.com
2017-12-04 02:22:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by m***@my-deja.com
Post by Jack Fate
Post by GLOBALIST
I am backing President Trump’s efforts for a major tax reduction and reform plan because I think it will create one of the greatest economic booms in history.
Bush had the same plan. He made it happen. Then everything went to hell.
Insanity is thinking that if you do the same thing again, you will get
different results. Only stupid dip shit bigoted racists like you believe
that shit.
Over the last 10 years or so I have come to think that they are
no longer concerned about the nations outcome. They have to say
something to the American people that sounds good to get them to
keep quiet.
Their true sentiments are evident in this tax bill.
The national debt is not their concern, they know it will not
shrink it, but only make it bigger.
Most new investments will be made overseas.
Trump is easily played.
Somebody here, I apologize for not remembering who,
said that what motivates Trump is "narcissism" Everything
else is just hoped-for fuel to bolster his conviction about his
own wonderfulness.
I don't think that Trump cares what is in the tax bill as long as he can
claim a legislative accomplishment. The Republican dominated Congress
is determined to take advantage of that. If this tax bill passes, it
will be the biggest gift to the wealthy ever put into law, even
comparing it to the largess of Andrew Mellon during the Golden Age.
That produced the Great Depression.
Why is that? Is a corporate tax cut a gift to the wealthy?
Most corporate equity is owned by the wealthy. It is most likely that a
corporate tax cut will result in dividends to stockholders rather than
being passed through in the form of wages to workers. Trickle down
simply doesn't work.
And don't get me started on pass-throughs and carried interest
loopholes. The middle class is getting raped once again.
Just a guess, but with minimal research it looks like around 50% of US
equities are held in IRAs, 401Ks & 403Bs, as well as state/local
pension funds, like CALPERS. That is not the territory of
billionaires. But frankly, my interest is not in dividends, it's jobs
and trillions of our capital forced overseas.
Our competitors, many of whom you might consider socialist, have
corporate tax rates vastly lower than the US. Why do you think that
is?
For example ...
United States 39.5%
Sweden 22%
Switzerland 17.92%
Denmark 22%
Germany 29.65%
UK 19%
China 25%
Here are Stanford based commentaries worth a read. One thing they do
not bother to discuss in relation to corporate tax reform is dividends
that might go to the rich. That is not what this debate is about.
"Lisa De Simone: How U.S. Companies Export Profits to Save on Taxes"
https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/lisa-de-simone-how-us-companies-export-profits-save-taxes
"Can the GOP Fix the Corporate Income Tax?"
https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/can-gop-fix-corporate-income-tax
It is an enormous stretch of the imagination to believe that lowering
the corporate tax will produce jobs. Why would it? Corporations are
awash in money and there is more available at low interest rates. It is
far more likely that companies will use any excess cash to buy back
their own stock, inflating the value and increasing the wealth of the
stock holders. As I'm sure you know, there are two ways to make money
as a stockholder. Dividends used to be the most important, but
increased equity value is the way most people now depend upon to
increase their wealth. If you look at the portfolios of pension funds,
only a small portion is allocated to stocks that pay dividends. Rather
they emphasize balanced portfolios. You probably do as well, if not
making your own selections but by investing in the various forms of
funds that do it for you. As to the investments made in tax deferred
accounts, most people in the middle class have very little invested.
The last study by the GAO estimates a median net worth of $337K, most of
it in their home. That is roughly the equivalent of a $1,000 per month
annuity. Try living on that!
As to bringing money back on-shore, why would it? There are many
incentives to leave money abroad where there are innumerable reasons to
keep it there, low wages still being the most important. It is only
when transportation costs become important that that would change.
Otherwise, I would favor reducing the corporate income tax, but only if
the loopholes are closed. There is only a minimal effort to close
loopholes in the bills being considered. Germany does a much better job
of this than we do with a top marginal rate of nearly 30%. Why do you
suppose that is?
It is really frustrating that the Democrats dig us out of financial
difficulty that the Republicans put us in only to see the Republicans
get back into power and do everything that they can to destroy the
economy once again. Yes, they are fulfilling their promise to the
people who finance their campaigns, but most of the people who actually
work for a living suffer.
So why does socialist Sweden have a 22% rate?
Because they do not have a tax system that is so full of loopholes that
it favors large corporations. If you think that the bill that the
Republicans are ramming through Congress will make our tax system
equivalent to Sweden's, I have a bridge to sell you. This is all about
appeasing the political donors.
Well, that's good news! Maybe with a few more loopholes we can beat
Ireland's 12.5%. Corporations from all over the world will be moving
here! Burger King, and the 40 others that packed up and left over the
last 10 years may even come back.
You have such a naive view of the world! Why would they come back?
This is the great race to the bottom and the only two reasons for a
company to relocate in the US is to reduce shipping costs and customer
support costs. Potential jobs on the first would be minimized by
automation and the second is pretty obviously not a priority. We still
have a lucrative market, but the game that corporations are playing will
not produce jobs in the US. It is only likely to move the deck chairs.
We shall see.
Betting on the come?
Over the years I have tried to do better to check my naivete.
Like Beav (Jeff?), I have the wishful thinking that more companies
will stay in the US. My better sense says it is doubtful.
Nothing from Trumps campaign about taxing companies that close their
US doors and open up in other nations is part of this of this bill.
He was very vocal about this issue during the campaign, yet this bill
adds to the nations debt.
There has been no shortage of investment capital in the US. It is
more likely that buy backs of stock and paying down debt will be
done, but most new investment will continue to be done outside of US.
China has already played Trump, now the GOP has done the same.
El Castor
2017-12-04 07:28:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by m***@my-deja.com
Post by Jack Fate
I am backing President Trump’s efforts for a major tax reduction and reform plan because I think it will create one of the greatest economic booms in history.
Bush had the same plan. He made it happen. Then everything went to hell.
Insanity is thinking that if you do the same thing again, you will get
different results. Only stupid dip shit bigoted racists like you believe
that shit.
Over the last 10 years or so I have come to think that they are
no longer concerned about the nations outcome. They have to say
something to the American people that sounds good to get them to
keep quiet.
Their true sentiments are evident in this tax bill.
The national debt is not their concern, they know it will not
shrink it, but only make it bigger.
Most new investments will be made overseas.
Trump is easily played.
Somebody here, I apologize for not remembering who,
said that what motivates Trump is "narcissism" Everything
else is just hoped-for fuel to bolster his conviction about his
own wonderfulness.
I don't think that Trump cares what is in the tax bill as long as he can
claim a legislative accomplishment. The Republican dominated Congress
is determined to take advantage of that. If this tax bill passes, it
will be the biggest gift to the wealthy ever put into law, even
comparing it to the largess of Andrew Mellon during the Golden Age.
That produced the Great Depression.
Why is that? Is a corporate tax cut a gift to the wealthy?
Most corporate equity is owned by the wealthy. It is most likely that a
corporate tax cut will result in dividends to stockholders rather than
being passed through in the form of wages to workers. Trickle down
simply doesn't work.
And don't get me started on pass-throughs and carried interest
loopholes. The middle class is getting raped once again.
Just a guess, but with minimal research it looks like around 50% of US
equities are held in IRAs, 401Ks & 403Bs, as well as state/local
pension funds, like CALPERS. That is not the territory of
billionaires. But frankly, my interest is not in dividends, it's jobs
and trillions of our capital forced overseas.
Our competitors, many of whom you might consider socialist, have
corporate tax rates vastly lower than the US. Why do you think that
is?
For example ...
United States 39.5%
Sweden 22%
Switzerland 17.92%
Denmark 22%
Germany 29.65%
UK 19%
China 25%
Here are Stanford based commentaries worth a read. One thing they do
not bother to discuss in relation to corporate tax reform is dividends
that might go to the rich. That is not what this debate is about.
"Lisa De Simone: How U.S. Companies Export Profits to Save on Taxes"
https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/lisa-de-simone-how-us-companies-export-profits-save-taxes
"Can the GOP Fix the Corporate Income Tax?"
https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/can-gop-fix-corporate-income-tax
It is an enormous stretch of the imagination to believe that lowering
the corporate tax will produce jobs. Why would it? Corporations are
awash in money and there is more available at low interest rates. It is
far more likely that companies will use any excess cash to buy back
their own stock, inflating the value and increasing the wealth of the
stock holders. As I'm sure you know, there are two ways to make money
as a stockholder. Dividends used to be the most important, but
increased equity value is the way most people now depend upon to
increase their wealth. If you look at the portfolios of pension funds,
only a small portion is allocated to stocks that pay dividends. Rather
they emphasize balanced portfolios. You probably do as well, if not
making your own selections but by investing in the various forms of
funds that do it for you. As to the investments made in tax deferred
accounts, most people in the middle class have very little invested.
The last study by the GAO estimates a median net worth of $337K, most of
it in their home. That is roughly the equivalent of a $1,000 per month
annuity. Try living on that!
As to bringing money back on-shore, why would it? There are many
incentives to leave money abroad where there are innumerable reasons to
keep it there, low wages still being the most important. It is only
when transportation costs become important that that would change.
Otherwise, I would favor reducing the corporate income tax, but only if
the loopholes are closed. There is only a minimal effort to close
loopholes in the bills being considered. Germany does a much better job
of this than we do with a top marginal rate of nearly 30%. Why do you
suppose that is?
It is really frustrating that the Democrats dig us out of financial
difficulty that the Republicans put us in only to see the Republicans
get back into power and do everything that they can to destroy the
economy once again. Yes, they are fulfilling their promise to the
people who finance their campaigns, but most of the people who actually
work for a living suffer.
So why does socialist Sweden have a 22% rate?
Because they do not have a tax system that is so full of loopholes that
it favors large corporations. If you think that the bill that the
Republicans are ramming through Congress will make our tax system
equivalent to Sweden's, I have a bridge to sell you. This is all about
appeasing the political donors.
Well, that's good news! Maybe with a few more loopholes we can beat
Ireland's 12.5%. Corporations from all over the world will be moving
here! Burger King, and the 40 others that packed up and left over the
last 10 years may even come back.
You have such a naive view of the world! Why would they come back?
This is the great race to the bottom and the only two reasons for a
company to relocate in the US is to reduce shipping costs and customer
support costs. Potential jobs on the first would be minimized by
automation and the second is pretty obviously not a priority. We still
have a lucrative market, but the game that corporations are playing will
not produce jobs in the US. It is only likely to move the deck chairs.
We shall see.
Betting on the come?
Since you put it that way -- Yes. If I (and a lot of economists) are
proven wrong, there will have to be more legislation. However the
current situation is intolerable.
islander
2017-12-04 14:50:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by m***@my-deja.com
Post by Jack Fate
Post by GLOBALIST
I am backing President Trump’s efforts for a major tax reduction and reform plan because I think it will create one of the greatest economic booms in history.
Bush had the same plan. He made it happen. Then everything went to hell.
Insanity is thinking that if you do the same thing again, you will get
different results. Only stupid dip shit bigoted racists like you believe
that shit.
Over the last 10 years or so I have come to think that they are
no longer concerned about the nations outcome. They have to say
something to the American people that sounds good to get them to
keep quiet.
Their true sentiments are evident in this tax bill.
The national debt is not their concern, they know it will not
shrink it, but only make it bigger.
Most new investments will be made overseas.
Trump is easily played.
Somebody here, I apologize for not remembering who,
said that what motivates Trump is "narcissism" Everything
else is just hoped-for fuel to bolster his conviction about his
own wonderfulness.
I don't think that Trump cares what is in the tax bill as long as he can
claim a legislative accomplishment. The Republican dominated Congress
is determined to take advantage of that. If this tax bill passes, it
will be the biggest gift to the wealthy ever put into law, even
comparing it to the largess of Andrew Mellon during the Golden Age.
That produced the Great Depression.
Why is that? Is a corporate tax cut a gift to the wealthy?
Most corporate equity is owned by the wealthy. It is most likely that a
corporate tax cut will result in dividends to stockholders rather than
being passed through in the form of wages to workers. Trickle down
simply doesn't work.
And don't get me started on pass-throughs and carried interest
loopholes. The middle class is getting raped once again.
Just a guess, but with minimal research it looks like around 50% of US
equities are held in IRAs, 401Ks & 403Bs, as well as state/local
pension funds, like CALPERS. That is not the territory of
billionaires. But frankly, my interest is not in dividends, it's jobs
and trillions of our capital forced overseas.
Our competitors, many of whom you might consider socialist, have
corporate tax rates vastly lower than the US. Why do you think that
is?
For example ...
United States 39.5%
Sweden 22%
Switzerland 17.92%
Denmark 22%
Germany 29.65%
UK 19%
China 25%
Here are Stanford based commentaries worth a read. One thing they do
not bother to discuss in relation to corporate tax reform is dividends
that might go to the rich. That is not what this debate is about.
"Lisa De Simone: How U.S. Companies Export Profits to Save on Taxes"
https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/lisa-de-simone-how-us-companies-export-profits-save-taxes
"Can the GOP Fix the Corporate Income Tax?"
https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/can-gop-fix-corporate-income-tax
It is an enormous stretch of the imagination to believe that lowering
the corporate tax will produce jobs. Why would it? Corporations are
awash in money and there is more available at low interest rates. It is
far more likely that companies will use any excess cash to buy back
their own stock, inflating the value and increasing the wealth of the
stock holders. As I'm sure you know, there are two ways to make money
as a stockholder. Dividends used to be the most important, but
increased equity value is the way most people now depend upon to
increase their wealth. If you look at the portfolios of pension funds,
only a small portion is allocated to stocks that pay dividends. Rather
they emphasize balanced portfolios. You probably do as well, if not
making your own selections but by investing in the various forms of
funds that do it for you. As to the investments made in tax deferred
accounts, most people in the middle class have very little invested.
The last study by the GAO estimates a median net worth of $337K, most of
it in their home. That is roughly the equivalent of a $1,000 per month
annuity. Try living on that!
As to bringing money back on-shore, why would it? There are many
incentives to leave money abroad where there are innumerable reasons to
keep it there, low wages still being the most important. It is only
when transportation costs become important that that would change.
Otherwise, I would favor reducing the corporate income tax, but only if
the loopholes are closed. There is only a minimal effort to close
loopholes in the bills being considered. Germany does a much better job
of this than we do with a top marginal rate of nearly 30%. Why do you
suppose that is?
It is really frustrating that the Democrats dig us out of financial
difficulty that the Republicans put us in only to see the Republicans
get back into power and do everything that they can to destroy the
economy once again. Yes, they are fulfilling their promise to the
people who finance their campaigns, but most of the people who actually
work for a living suffer.
So why does socialist Sweden have a 22% rate?
Because they do not have a tax system that is so full of loopholes that
it favors large corporations. If you think that the bill that the
Republicans are ramming through Congress will make our tax system
equivalent to Sweden's, I have a bridge to sell you. This is all about
appeasing the political donors.
Well, that's good news! Maybe with a few more loopholes we can beat
Ireland's 12.5%. Corporations from all over the world will be moving
here! Burger King, and the 40 others that packed up and left over the
last 10 years may even come back.
You have such a naive view of the world! Why would they come back?
This is the great race to the bottom and the only two reasons for a
company to relocate in the US is to reduce shipping costs and customer
support costs. Potential jobs on the first would be minimized by
automation and the second is pretty obviously not a priority. We still
have a lucrative market, but the game that corporations are playing will
not produce jobs in the US. It is only likely to move the deck chairs.
We shall see.
Betting on the come?
Since you put it that way -- Yes. If I (and a lot of economists) are
proven wrong, there will have to be more legislation. However the
current situation is intolerable.
I agree that the current situation is intolerable but I don't see
anything in the current House and Senate bills that will make it better.
On the contrary this will make things worse for everyone but the wealthy.
El Castor
2017-12-04 21:47:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by m***@my-deja.com
Post by Jack Fate
I am backing President Trump’s efforts for a major tax reduction and reform plan because I think it will create one of the greatest economic booms in history.
Bush had the same plan. He made it happen. Then everything went to hell.
Insanity is thinking that if you do the same thing again, you will get
different results. Only stupid dip shit bigoted racists like you believe
that shit.
Over the last 10 years or so I have come to think that they are
no longer concerned about the nations outcome. They have to say
something to the American people that sounds good to get them to
keep quiet.
Their true sentiments are evident in this tax bill.
The national debt is not their concern, they know it will not
shrink it, but only make it bigger.
Most new investments will be made overseas.
Trump is easily played.
Somebody here, I apologize for not remembering who,
said that what motivates Trump is "narcissism" Everything
else is just hoped-for fuel to bolster his conviction about his
own wonderfulness.
I don't think that Trump cares what is in the tax bill as long as he can
claim a legislative accomplishment. The Republican dominated Congress
is determined to take advantage of that. If this tax bill passes, it
will be the biggest gift to the wealthy ever put into law, even
comparing it to the largess of Andrew Mellon during the Golden Age.
That produced the Great Depression.
Why is that? Is a corporate tax cut a gift to the wealthy?
Most corporate equity is owned by the wealthy. It is most likely that a
corporate tax cut will result in dividends to stockholders rather than
being passed through in the form of wages to workers. Trickle down
simply doesn't work.
And don't get me started on pass-throughs and carried interest
loopholes. The middle class is getting raped once again.
Just a guess, but with minimal research it looks like around 50% of US
equities are held in IRAs, 401Ks & 403Bs, as well as state/local
pension funds, like CALPERS. That is not the territory of
billionaires. But frankly, my interest is not in dividends, it's jobs
and trillions of our capital forced overseas.
Our competitors, many of whom you might consider socialist, have
corporate tax rates vastly lower than the US. Why do you think that
is?
For example ...
United States 39.5%
Sweden 22%
Switzerland 17.92%
Denmark 22%
Germany 29.65%
UK 19%
China 25%
Here are Stanford based commentaries worth a read. One thing they do
not bother to discuss in relation to corporate tax reform is dividends
that might go to the rich. That is not what this debate is about.
"Lisa De Simone: How U.S. Companies Export Profits to Save on Taxes"
https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/lisa-de-simone-how-us-companies-export-profits-save-taxes
"Can the GOP Fix the Corporate Income Tax?"
https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/can-gop-fix-corporate-income-tax
It is an enormous stretch of the imagination to believe that lowering
the corporate tax will produce jobs. Why would it? Corporations are
awash in money and there is more available at low interest rates. It is
far more likely that companies will use any excess cash to buy back
their own stock, inflating the value and increasing the wealth of the
stock holders. As I'm sure you know, there are two ways to make money
as a stockholder. Dividends used to be the most important, but
increased equity value is the way most people now depend upon to
increase their wealth. If you look at the portfolios of pension funds,
only a small portion is allocated to stocks that pay dividends. Rather
they emphasize balanced portfolios. You probably do as well, if not
making your own selections but by investing in the various forms of
funds that do it for you. As to the investments made in tax deferred
accounts, most people in the middle class have very little invested.
The last study by the GAO estimates a median net worth of $337K, most of
it in their home. That is roughly the equivalent of a $1,000 per month
annuity. Try living on that!
As to bringing money back on-shore, why would it? There are many
incentives to leave money abroad where there are innumerable reasons to
keep it there, low wages still being the most important. It is only
when transportation costs become important that that would change.
Otherwise, I would favor reducing the corporate income tax, but only if
the loopholes are closed. There is only a minimal effort to close
loopholes in the bills being considered. Germany does a much better job
of this than we do with a top marginal rate of nearly 30%. Why do you
suppose that is?
It is really frustrating that the Democrats dig us out of financial
difficulty that the Republicans put us in only to see the Republicans
get back into power and do everything that they can to destroy the
economy once again. Yes, they are fulfilling their promise to the
people who finance their campaigns, but most of the people who actually
work for a living suffer.
So why does socialist Sweden have a 22% rate?
Because they do not have a tax system that is so full of loopholes that
it favors large corporations. If you think that the bill that the
Republicans are ramming through Congress will make our tax system
equivalent to Sweden's, I have a bridge to sell you. This is all about
appeasing the political donors.
Well, that's good news! Maybe with a few more loopholes we can beat
Ireland's 12.5%. Corporations from all over the world will be moving
here! Burger King, and the 40 others that packed up and left over the
last 10 years may even come back.
You have such a naive view of the world! Why would they come back?
This is the great race to the bottom and the only two reasons for a
company to relocate in the US is to reduce shipping costs and customer
support costs. Potential jobs on the first would be minimized by
automation and the second is pretty obviously not a priority. We still
have a lucrative market, but the game that corporations are playing will
not produce jobs in the US. It is only likely to move the deck chairs.
We shall see.
Betting on the come?
Since you put it that way -- Yes. If I (and a lot of economists) are
proven wrong, there will have to be more legislation. However the
current situation is intolerable.
I agree that the current situation is intolerable but I don't see
anything in the current House and Senate bills that will make it better.
On the contrary this will make things worse for everyone but the wealthy.
You need to get over this fixation with anyone who has more money than
you do. Maybe there is a pill?
Emily
2017-12-02 01:40:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
I don't think that Trump cares what is in the tax bill as long as he can
claim a legislative accomplishment. The Republican dominated Congress
is determined to take advantage of that. If this tax bill passes, it
will be the biggest gift to the wealthy ever put into law, even
comparing it to the largess of Andrew Mellon during the Golden Age.
That produced the Great Depression.
I see us charging headlong into doom. I don't know if we can survive
until we can vote these idiots out. I see hard times ahead. I'm
feeling grateful that I got to enjoy several damned good decades and
I'm not all that upset that I probably won't be around to see a lot of
the fallout from this disaster.
islander
2017-12-03 01:55:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Emily
Post by islander
I don't think that Trump cares what is in the tax bill as long as he can
claim a legislative accomplishment. The Republican dominated Congress
is determined to take advantage of that. If this tax bill passes, it
will be the biggest gift to the wealthy ever put into law, even
comparing it to the largess of Andrew Mellon during the Golden Age.
That produced the Great Depression.
I see us charging headlong into doom. I don't know if we can survive
until we can vote these idiots out. I see hard times ahead. I'm
feeling grateful that I got to enjoy several damned good decades and
I'm not all that upset that I probably won't be around to see a lot of
the fallout from this disaster.
It took GW Bush 7 years to destroy the economy. Perhaps Trump is trying
to do it in half the time. :(
Emily
2017-12-03 17:30:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by Emily
Post by islander
I don't think that Trump cares what is in the tax bill as long as he can
claim a legislative accomplishment. The Republican dominated Congress
is determined to take advantage of that. If this tax bill passes, it
will be the biggest gift to the wealthy ever put into law, even
comparing it to the largess of Andrew Mellon during the Golden Age.
That produced the Great Depression.
I see us charging headlong into doom. I don't know if we can survive
until we can vote these idiots out. I see hard times ahead. I'm
feeling grateful that I got to enjoy several damned good decades and
I'm not all that upset that I probably won't be around to see a lot of
the fallout from this disaster.
It took GW Bush 7 years to destroy the economy. Perhaps Trump is trying
to do it in half the time. :(
He's not only trying to destroy the economy, he's going for everything
-- education, national parks, health care, you name it. Has he, or
his faithful minions, done anything that is of benefit to anyone but
the filthy rich?
El Castor
2017-12-03 21:23:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Emily
Post by islander
Post by Emily
Post by islander
I don't think that Trump cares what is in the tax bill as long as he can
claim a legislative accomplishment. The Republican dominated Congress
is determined to take advantage of that. If this tax bill passes, it
will be the biggest gift to the wealthy ever put into law, even
comparing it to the largess of Andrew Mellon during the Golden Age.
That produced the Great Depression.
I see us charging headlong into doom. I don't know if we can survive
until we can vote these idiots out. I see hard times ahead. I'm
feeling grateful that I got to enjoy several damned good decades and
I'm not all that upset that I probably won't be around to see a lot of
the fallout from this disaster.
It took GW Bush 7 years to destroy the economy. Perhaps Trump is trying
to do it in half the time. :(
He's not only trying to destroy the economy, he's going for everything
-- education, national parks, health care, you name it. Has he, or
his faithful minions, done anything that is of benefit to anyone but
the filthy rich?
On the subject of National Parks (ie. federal land ownership), the
federal government owns 47% of the land in the Western States. It's
about time something was done about that.
Emily
2017-12-04 00:57:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 03 Dec 2017 13:23:19 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by Emily
Post by islander
Post by Emily
Post by islander
I don't think that Trump cares what is in the tax bill as long as he can
claim a legislative accomplishment. The Republican dominated Congress
is determined to take advantage of that. If this tax bill passes, it
will be the biggest gift to the wealthy ever put into law, even
comparing it to the largess of Andrew Mellon during the Golden Age.
That produced the Great Depression.
I see us charging headlong into doom. I don't know if we can survive
until we can vote these idiots out. I see hard times ahead. I'm
feeling grateful that I got to enjoy several damned good decades and
I'm not all that upset that I probably won't be around to see a lot of
the fallout from this disaster.
It took GW Bush 7 years to destroy the economy. Perhaps Trump is trying
to do it in half the time. :(
He's not only trying to destroy the economy, he's going for everything
-- education, national parks, health care, you name it. Has he, or
his faithful minions, done anything that is of benefit to anyone but
the filthy rich?
On the subject of National Parks (ie. federal land ownership), the
federal government owns 47% of the land in the Western States. It's
about time something was done about that.
Why?
El Castor
2017-12-04 07:51:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Emily
On Sun, 03 Dec 2017 13:23:19 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by Emily
Post by islander
Post by Emily
Post by islander
I don't think that Trump cares what is in the tax bill as long as he can
claim a legislative accomplishment. The Republican dominated Congress
is determined to take advantage of that. If this tax bill passes, it
will be the biggest gift to the wealthy ever put into law, even
comparing it to the largess of Andrew Mellon during the Golden Age.
That produced the Great Depression.
I see us charging headlong into doom. I don't know if we can survive
until we can vote these idiots out. I see hard times ahead. I'm
feeling grateful that I got to enjoy several damned good decades and
I'm not all that upset that I probably won't be around to see a lot of
the fallout from this disaster.
It took GW Bush 7 years to destroy the economy. Perhaps Trump is trying
to do it in half the time. :(
He's not only trying to destroy the economy, he's going for everything
-- education, national parks, health care, you name it. Has he, or
his faithful minions, done anything that is of benefit to anyone but
the filthy rich?
On the subject of National Parks (ie. federal land ownership), the
federal government owns 47% of the land in the Western States. It's
about time something was done about that.
Why?
I am all in favor of National Parks and Monuments, but why should a
government that can barely manage Amtrak and the VA be entrusted with
the care of land not already in the custody of the Park Service,
Forest Service, and Fish & Game. Transfer the non
Park/Monument/Forest/Fish&Game land to the states or sell it to
farmers and ranchers who are probably already using it. The thousands
of bureaucrats who are busying themselves with that 386,000 square
miles of land should find something else to do with their time.
Gary
2017-12-04 13:03:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by Emily
On Sun, 03 Dec 2017 13:23:19 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by Emily
Post by islander
It took GW Bush 7 years to destroy the economy. Perhaps Trump is trying
to do it in half the time. :(
He's not only trying to destroy the economy, he's going for everything
-- education, national parks, health care, you name it. Has he, or
his faithful minions, done anything that is of benefit to anyone but
the filthy rich?
On the subject of National Parks (ie. federal land ownership), the
federal government owns 47% of the land in the Western States. It's
about time something was done about that.
Why?
I am all in favor of National Parks and Monuments, but why should a
government that can barely manage Amtrak and the VA be entrusted with
the care of land not already in the custody of the Park Service,
Forest Service, and Fish & Game. Transfer the non
Park/Monument/Forest/Fish&Game land to the states or sell it to
farmers and ranchers who are probably already using it. The thousands
of bureaucrats who are busying themselves with that 386,000 square
miles of land should find something else to do with their time.
Had the state governments been in charge of the parks -- there would be less than 38
square miles of them now. State politics have always been designed to reward their
supporters. And how better to reward than -- with thousands of acres of free land ?
El Castor
2017-12-04 21:55:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gary
Post by El Castor
Post by Emily
On Sun, 03 Dec 2017 13:23:19 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by Emily
Post by islander
It took GW Bush 7 years to destroy the economy. Perhaps Trump is trying
to do it in half the time. :(
He's not only trying to destroy the economy, he's going for everything
-- education, national parks, health care, you name it. Has he, or
his faithful minions, done anything that is of benefit to anyone but
the filthy rich?
On the subject of National Parks (ie. federal land ownership), the
federal government owns 47% of the land in the Western States. It's
about time something was done about that.
Why?
I am all in favor of National Parks and Monuments, but why should a
government that can barely manage Amtrak and the VA be entrusted with
the care of land not already in the custody of the Park Service,
Forest Service, and Fish & Game. Transfer the non
Park/Monument/Forest/Fish&Game land to the states or sell it to
farmers and ranchers who are probably already using it. The thousands
of bureaucrats who are busying themselves with that 386,000 square
miles of land should find something else to do with their time.
Had the state governments been in charge of the parks -- there would be less than 38
square miles of them now. State politics have always been designed to reward their
supporters. And how better to reward than -- with thousands of acres of free land ?
That 386,000 square miles (!) is in addition to all the parks,
monuments, and preserves. When the US moved West it bought or seized
all that land. My paternal grandparents homesteaded some in Montana,
but homesteading ended long ago. If that land can be sold to ranchers,
farmers, or whatever, why not?
wolfbat359
2017-12-04 23:13:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by Gary
Post by El Castor
Post by Emily
On Sun, 03 Dec 2017 13:23:19 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by Emily
Post by islander
It took GW Bush 7 years to destroy the economy. Perhaps Trump is trying
to do it in half the time. :(
He's not only trying to destroy the economy, he's going for everything
-- education, national parks, health care, you name it. Has he, or
his faithful minions, done anything that is of benefit to anyone but
the filthy rich?
On the subject of National Parks (ie. federal land ownership), the
federal government owns 47% of the land in the Western States. It's
about time something was done about that.
Why?
I am all in favor of National Parks and Monuments, but why should a
government that can barely manage Amtrak and the VA be entrusted with
the care of land not already in the custody of the Park Service,
Forest Service, and Fish & Game. Transfer the non
Park/Monument/Forest/Fish&Game land to the states or sell it to
farmers and ranchers who are probably already using it. The thousands
of bureaucrats who are busying themselves with that 386,000 square
miles of land should find something else to do with their time.
Had the state governments been in charge of the parks -- there would be less than 38
square miles of them now. State politics have always been designed to reward their
supporters. And how better to reward than -- with thousands of acres of free land ?
That 386,000 square miles (!) is in addition to all the parks,
monuments, and preserves. When the US moved West it bought or seized
all that land. My paternal grandparents homesteaded some in Montana,
but homesteading ended long ago. If that land can be sold to ranchers,
farmers, or whatever, why not?
The States to become states agreed that that land was Federal land!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_lands
El Castor
2017-12-05 07:42:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 15:13:04 -0800 (PST), wolfbat359
Post by wolfbat359
Post by El Castor
Post by Gary
Post by El Castor
Post by Emily
On Sun, 03 Dec 2017 13:23:19 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by Emily
Post by islander
It took GW Bush 7 years to destroy the economy. Perhaps Trump is trying
to do it in half the time. :(
He's not only trying to destroy the economy, he's going for everything
-- education, national parks, health care, you name it. Has he, or
his faithful minions, done anything that is of benefit to anyone but
the filthy rich?
On the subject of National Parks (ie. federal land ownership), the
federal government owns 47% of the land in the Western States. It's
about time something was done about that.
Why?
I am all in favor of National Parks and Monuments, but why should a
government that can barely manage Amtrak and the VA be entrusted with
the care of land not already in the custody of the Park Service,
Forest Service, and Fish & Game. Transfer the non
Park/Monument/Forest/Fish&Game land to the states or sell it to
farmers and ranchers who are probably already using it. The thousands
of bureaucrats who are busying themselves with that 386,000 square
miles of land should find something else to do with their time.
Had the state governments been in charge of the parks -- there would be less than 38
square miles of them now. State politics have always been designed to reward their
supporters. And how better to reward than -- with thousands of acres of free land ?
That 386,000 square miles (!) is in addition to all the parks,
monuments, and preserves. When the US moved West it bought or seized
all that land. My paternal grandparents homesteaded some in Montana,
but homesteading ended long ago. If that land can be sold to ranchers,
farmers, or whatever, why not?
The States to become states agreed that that land was Federal land!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_lands
Well that was then, this is now. Maybe times have changed.
wolfbat359
2017-12-05 13:41:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 15:13:04 -0800 (PST), wolfbat359
Post by wolfbat359
Post by El Castor
Post by Gary
Post by El Castor
Post by Emily
On Sun, 03 Dec 2017 13:23:19 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by Emily
Post by islander
It took GW Bush 7 years to destroy the economy. Perhaps Trump is trying
to do it in half the time. :(
He's not only trying to destroy the economy, he's going for everything
-- education, national parks, health care, you name it. Has he, or
his faithful minions, done anything that is of benefit to anyone but
the filthy rich?
On the subject of National Parks (ie. federal land ownership), the
federal government owns 47% of the land in the Western States. It's
about time something was done about that.
Why?
I am all in favor of National Parks and Monuments, but why should a
government that can barely manage Amtrak and the VA be entrusted with
the care of land not already in the custody of the Park Service,
Forest Service, and Fish & Game. Transfer the non
Park/Monument/Forest/Fish&Game land to the states or sell it to
farmers and ranchers who are probably already using it. The thousands
of bureaucrats who are busying themselves with that 386,000 square
miles of land should find something else to do with their time.
Had the state governments been in charge of the parks -- there would be less than 38
square miles of them now. State politics have always been designed to reward their
supporters. And how better to reward than -- with thousands of acres of free land ?
That 386,000 square miles (!) is in addition to all the parks,
monuments, and preserves. When the US moved West it bought or seized
all that land. My paternal grandparents homesteaded some in Montana,
but homesteading ended long ago. If that land can be sold to ranchers,
farmers, or whatever, why not?
The States to become states agreed that that land was Federal land!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_lands
Well that was then, this is now. Maybe times have changed.
Maybe if you want ti change the constitution!
Gary
2017-12-05 14:39:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by wolfbat359
Post by El Castor
On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 15:13:04 -0800 (PST), wolfbat359
Post by wolfbat359
Post by El Castor
Post by Gary
Had the state governments been in charge of the parks -- there would be less than 38
square miles of them now. State politics have always been designed to reward their
supporters. And how better to reward than -- with thousands of acres of free land ?
That 386,000 square miles (!) is in addition to all the parks,
monuments, and preserves. When the US moved West it bought or seized
all that land. My paternal grandparents homesteaded some in Montana,
but homesteading ended long ago. If that land can be sold to ranchers,
farmers, or whatever, why not?
The States to become states agreed that that land was Federal land!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_lands
Well that was then, this is now. Maybe times have changed.
Maybe if you want ti change the constitution!
We don't need to change the Constitution. We only need to change the dip-shits who
interpret it.
El Castor
2017-12-05 21:21:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 5 Dec 2017 05:41:39 -0800 (PST), wolfbat359
Post by wolfbat359
Post by El Castor
On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 15:13:04 -0800 (PST), wolfbat359
Post by wolfbat359
Post by El Castor
Post by Gary
Post by El Castor
Post by Emily
On Sun, 03 Dec 2017 13:23:19 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by Emily
Post by islander
It took GW Bush 7 years to destroy the economy. Perhaps Trump is trying
to do it in half the time. :(
He's not only trying to destroy the economy, he's going for everything
-- education, national parks, health care, you name it. Has he, or
his faithful minions, done anything that is of benefit to anyone but
the filthy rich?
On the subject of National Parks (ie. federal land ownership), the
federal government owns 47% of the land in the Western States. It's
about time something was done about that.
Why?
I am all in favor of National Parks and Monuments, but why should a
government that can barely manage Amtrak and the VA be entrusted with
the care of land not already in the custody of the Park Service,
Forest Service, and Fish & Game. Transfer the non
Park/Monument/Forest/Fish&Game land to the states or sell it to
farmers and ranchers who are probably already using it. The thousands
of bureaucrats who are busying themselves with that 386,000 square
miles of land should find something else to do with their time.
Had the state governments been in charge of the parks -- there would be less than 38
square miles of them now. State politics have always been designed to reward their
supporters. And how better to reward than -- with thousands of acres of free land ?
That 386,000 square miles (!) is in addition to all the parks,
monuments, and preserves. When the US moved West it bought or seized
all that land. My paternal grandparents homesteaded some in Montana,
but homesteading ended long ago. If that land can be sold to ranchers,
farmers, or whatever, why not?
The States to become states agreed that that land was Federal land!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_lands
Well that was then, this is now. Maybe times have changed.
Maybe if you want ti change the constitution!
So someone will sue and the courts will decide.
Gary
2017-12-05 12:32:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by Gary
Post by El Castor
Post by Emily
On Sun, 03 Dec 2017 13:23:19 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by Emily
Post by islander
It took GW Bush 7 years to destroy the economy. Perhaps Trump is trying
to do it in half the time. :(
He's not only trying to destroy the economy, he's going for everything
-- education, national parks, health care, you name it. Has he, or
his faithful minions, done anything that is of benefit to anyone but
the filthy rich?
On the subject of National Parks (ie. federal land ownership), the
federal government owns 47% of the land in the Western States. It's
about time something was done about that.
Why?
I am all in favor of National Parks and Monuments, but why should a
government that can barely manage Amtrak and the VA be entrusted with
the care of land not already in the custody of the Park Service,
Forest Service, and Fish & Game. Transfer the non
Park/Monument/Forest/Fish&Game land to the states or sell it to
farmers and ranchers who are probably already using it. The thousands
of bureaucrats who are busying themselves with that 386,000 square
miles of land should find something else to do with their time.
Had the state governments been in charge of the parks -- there would be less than 38
square miles of them now. State politics have always been designed to reward their
supporters. And how better to reward than -- with thousands of acres of free land ?
That 386,000 square miles (!) is in addition to all the parks,
monuments, and preserves. When the US moved West it bought or seized
all that land. My paternal grandparents homesteaded some in Montana,
but homesteading ended long ago. If that land can be sold to ranchers,
farmers, or whatever, why not?
Some of my ancestors homesteaded Georgia about 300 years ago. They saw all that fertile
land and sunny skies and said: "We gonna grow cotton and get rich ! But we need some
slaves to pick it for us !"

Instead of growing cotton -- imagine what Georgia would be like today had they left the
wildlife in place and not grown cotton. We would have a lot of Georgia wildlife -- and
no African wildlife :-)
El Castor
2017-12-05 21:22:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gary
Post by El Castor
Post by Gary
Post by El Castor
Post by Emily
On Sun, 03 Dec 2017 13:23:19 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by Emily
Post by islander
It took GW Bush 7 years to destroy the economy. Perhaps Trump is trying
to do it in half the time. :(
He's not only trying to destroy the economy, he's going for everything
-- education, national parks, health care, you name it. Has he, or
his faithful minions, done anything that is of benefit to anyone but
the filthy rich?
On the subject of National Parks (ie. federal land ownership), the
federal government owns 47% of the land in the Western States. It's
about time something was done about that.
Why?
I am all in favor of National Parks and Monuments, but why should a
government that can barely manage Amtrak and the VA be entrusted with
the care of land not already in the custody of the Park Service,
Forest Service, and Fish & Game. Transfer the non
Park/Monument/Forest/Fish&Game land to the states or sell it to
farmers and ranchers who are probably already using it. The thousands
of bureaucrats who are busying themselves with that 386,000 square
miles of land should find something else to do with their time.
Had the state governments been in charge of the parks -- there would be less than 38
square miles of them now. State politics have always been designed to reward their
supporters. And how better to reward than -- with thousands of acres of free land ?
That 386,000 square miles (!) is in addition to all the parks,
monuments, and preserves. When the US moved West it bought or seized
all that land. My paternal grandparents homesteaded some in Montana,
but homesteading ended long ago. If that land can be sold to ranchers,
farmers, or whatever, why not?
Some of my ancestors homesteaded Georgia about 300 years ago. They saw all that fertile
land and sunny skies and said: "We gonna grow cotton and get rich ! But we need some
slaves to pick it for us !"
Instead of growing cotton -- imagine what Georgia would be like today had they left the
wildlife in place and not grown cotton. We would have a lot of Georgia wildlife -- and
no African wildlife :-)
My grandparents didn't have slaves -- just 3 kids. (-8
Gary
2017-12-05 23:50:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by Gary
Post by El Castor
Post by Gary
Had the state governments been in charge of the parks -- there would be less than 38
square miles of them now. State politics have always been designed to reward their
supporters. And how better to reward than -- with thousands of acres of free land ?
That 386,000 square miles (!) is in addition to all the parks,
monuments, and preserves. When the US moved West it bought or seized
all that land. My paternal grandparents homesteaded some in Montana,
but homesteading ended long ago. If that land can be sold to ranchers,
farmers, or whatever, why not?
Some of my ancestors homesteaded Georgia about 300 years ago. They saw all that fertile
land and sunny skies and said: "We gonna grow cotton and get rich ! But we need some
slaves to pick it for us !"
Instead of growing cotton -- imagine what Georgia would be like today had they left the
wildlife in place and not grown cotton. We would have a lot of Georgia wildlife -- and
no African wildlife :-)
My grandparents didn't have slaves -- just 3 kids. (-8
My grandparents didn't have slaves either. However, my grandfather's mother (my great
grandmother) was born in 1864. Her father was enjoying his last year as master of 21
slaves. I use to see her quite often until she died when I was 8 years old. That
nice old lady is the closest I ever came to the institution of slavery.

Her parents -- my great-great grandparents -- had eight children. But when you own 21
slaves -- you can afford it. And you have a lot of help raising them. But in 1865 --
the last thing G-G-Grandpa saw of his slaves -- they were running down the road carrying
most of his possessions with them.

Just a few Southern Thoughts :-)
El Castor
2017-12-06 07:51:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gary
Post by El Castor
Post by Gary
Post by El Castor
Post by Gary
Had the state governments been in charge of the parks -- there would be less than 38
square miles of them now. State politics have always been designed to reward their
supporters. And how better to reward than -- with thousands of acres of free land ?
That 386,000 square miles (!) is in addition to all the parks,
monuments, and preserves. When the US moved West it bought or seized
all that land. My paternal grandparents homesteaded some in Montana,
but homesteading ended long ago. If that land can be sold to ranchers,
farmers, or whatever, why not?
Some of my ancestors homesteaded Georgia about 300 years ago. They saw all that fertile
land and sunny skies and said: "We gonna grow cotton and get rich ! But we need some
slaves to pick it for us !"
Instead of growing cotton -- imagine what Georgia would be like today had they left the
wildlife in place and not grown cotton. We would have a lot of Georgia wildlife -- and
no African wildlife :-)
My grandparents didn't have slaves -- just 3 kids. (-8
My grandparents didn't have slaves either. However, my grandfather's mother (my great
grandmother) was born in 1864. Her father was enjoying his last year as master of 21
slaves. I use to see her quite often until she died when I was 8 years old. That
nice old lady is the closest I ever came to the institution of slavery.
Her parents -- my great-great grandparents -- had eight children. But when you own 21
slaves -- you can afford it. And you have a lot of help raising them. But in 1865 --
the last thing G-G-Grandpa saw of his slaves -- they were running down the road carrying
most of his possessions with them.
Can't blame the slaves. That's what I would have been doing -- back
wages.
Post by Gary
Just a few Southern Thoughts :-)
m***@my-deja.com
2017-12-06 10:03:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gary
Post by El Castor
Post by Gary
Post by El Castor
Post by Gary
Had the state governments been in charge of the parks -- there would be less than 38
square miles of them now. State politics have always been designed to reward their
supporters. And how better to reward than -- with thousands of acres of free land ?
That 386,000 square miles (!) is in addition to all the parks,
monuments, and preserves. When the US moved West it bought or seized
all that land. My paternal grandparents homesteaded some in Montana,
but homesteading ended long ago. If that land can be sold to ranchers,
farmers, or whatever, why not?
Some of my ancestors homesteaded Georgia about 300 years ago. They saw all that fertile
land and sunny skies and said: "We gonna grow cotton and get rich ! But we need some
slaves to pick it for us !"
Instead of growing cotton -- imagine what Georgia would be like today had they left the
wildlife in place and not grown cotton. We would have a lot of Georgia wildlife -- and
no African wildlife :-)
My grandparents didn't have slaves -- just 3 kids. (-8
My grandparents didn't have slaves either. However, my grandfather's mother (my great
grandmother) was born in 1864. Her father was enjoying his last year as master of 21
slaves. I use to see her quite often until she died when I was 8 years old. That
nice old lady is the closest I ever came to the institution of slavery.
Her parents -- my great-great grandparents -- had eight children. But when you own 21
slaves -- you can afford it. And you have a lot of help raising them. But in 1865 --
the last thing G-G-Grandpa saw of his slaves -- they were running down the road carrying
most of his possessions with them.
Just a few Southern Thoughts :-)
On my side the slaves were told they were free to go where they
chose and work for who they could get work from. After about a
week of being gone, they returned to my great-great grandfather
and said "we don't know where to go or get work. We has always
worked for you, and we gots to work somewhere so we just as soon
work for you if thats alright". Reality. Not all slave owners
were monsters.
islander
2017-12-05 14:54:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by Gary
Post by El Castor
Post by Emily
On Sun, 03 Dec 2017 13:23:19 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by Emily
Post by islander
It took GW Bush 7 years to destroy the economy. Perhaps Trump is trying
to do it in half the time. :(
He's not only trying to destroy the economy, he's going for everything
-- education, national parks, health care, you name it. Has he, or
his faithful minions, done anything that is of benefit to anyone but
the filthy rich?
On the subject of National Parks (ie. federal land ownership), the
federal government owns 47% of the land in the Western States. It's
about time something was done about that.
Why?
I am all in favor of National Parks and Monuments, but why should a
government that can barely manage Amtrak and the VA be entrusted with
the care of land not already in the custody of the Park Service,
Forest Service, and Fish & Game. Transfer the non
Park/Monument/Forest/Fish&Game land to the states or sell it to
farmers and ranchers who are probably already using it. The thousands
of bureaucrats who are busying themselves with that 386,000 square
miles of land should find something else to do with their time.
Had the state governments been in charge of the parks -- there would be less than 38
square miles of them now. State politics have always been designed to reward their
supporters. And how better to reward than -- with thousands of acres of free land ?
That 386,000 square miles (!) is in addition to all the parks,
monuments, and preserves. When the US moved West it bought or seized
all that land. My paternal grandparents homesteaded some in Montana,
but homesteading ended long ago. If that land can be sold to ranchers,
farmers, or whatever, why not?
For the same reason that the Homestead Act was the direct cause of the
worst man-made ecological disaster in American history - the dust bowl.
A classic example of the Tragedy of the Commons. This is not to say
that Bears Ears and Grand Staircase will become dust bowls without
federal protection, but these areas will certainly suffer if it is left
to the political whims of Utah politicians who bend over backward to
allow private interests to exploit what little was still protected
before Trump's action.
El Castor
2017-12-05 21:25:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by Gary
Post by El Castor
Post by Emily
On Sun, 03 Dec 2017 13:23:19 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by Emily
Post by islander
It took GW Bush 7 years to destroy the economy. Perhaps Trump is trying
to do it in half the time. :(
He's not only trying to destroy the economy, he's going for everything
-- education, national parks, health care, you name it. Has he, or
his faithful minions, done anything that is of benefit to anyone but
the filthy rich?
On the subject of National Parks (ie. federal land ownership), the
federal government owns 47% of the land in the Western States. It's
about time something was done about that.
Why?
I am all in favor of National Parks and Monuments, but why should a
government that can barely manage Amtrak and the VA be entrusted with
the care of land not already in the custody of the Park Service,
Forest Service, and Fish & Game. Transfer the non
Park/Monument/Forest/Fish&Game land to the states or sell it to
farmers and ranchers who are probably already using it. The thousands
of bureaucrats who are busying themselves with that 386,000 square
miles of land should find something else to do with their time.
Had the state governments been in charge of the parks -- there would be less than 38
square miles of them now. State politics have always been designed to reward their
supporters. And how better to reward than -- with thousands of acres of free land ?
That 386,000 square miles (!) is in addition to all the parks,
monuments, and preserves. When the US moved West it bought or seized
all that land. My paternal grandparents homesteaded some in Montana,
but homesteading ended long ago. If that land can be sold to ranchers,
farmers, or whatever, why not?
For the same reason that the Homestead Act was the direct cause of the
worst man-made ecological disaster in American history - the dust bowl.
A classic example of the Tragedy of the Commons. This is not to say
that Bears Ears and Grand Staircase will become dust bowls without
federal protection, but these areas will certainly suffer if it is left
to the political whims of Utah politicians who bend over backward to
allow private interests to exploit what little was still protected
before Trump's action.
Those Utah politicians have a greater understanding of, and vested
interest in, caring for their own backyard, than some bureaucrat in
DC.
wolfbat359
2017-12-05 22:01:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by Gary
Post by El Castor
Post by Emily
On Sun, 03 Dec 2017 13:23:19 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by Emily
Post by islander
It took GW Bush 7 years to destroy the economy. Perhaps Trump is trying
to do it in half the time. :(
He's not only trying to destroy the economy, he's going for everything
-- education, national parks, health care, you name it. Has he, or
his faithful minions, done anything that is of benefit to anyone but
the filthy rich?
On the subject of National Parks (ie. federal land ownership), the
federal government owns 47% of the land in the Western States. It's
about time something was done about that.
Why?
I am all in favor of National Parks and Monuments, but why should a
government that can barely manage Amtrak and the VA be entrusted with
the care of land not already in the custody of the Park Service,
Forest Service, and Fish & Game. Transfer the non
Park/Monument/Forest/Fish&Game land to the states or sell it to
farmers and ranchers who are probably already using it. The thousands
of bureaucrats who are busying themselves with that 386,000 square
miles of land should find something else to do with their time.
Had the state governments been in charge of the parks -- there would be less than 38
square miles of them now. State politics have always been designed to reward their
supporters. And how better to reward than -- with thousands of acres of free land ?
That 386,000 square miles (!) is in addition to all the parks,
monuments, and preserves. When the US moved West it bought or seized
all that land. My paternal grandparents homesteaded some in Montana,
but homesteading ended long ago. If that land can be sold to ranchers,
farmers, or whatever, why not?
For the same reason that the Homestead Act was the direct cause of the
worst man-made ecological disaster in American history - the dust bowl.
A classic example of the Tragedy of the Commons. This is not to say
that Bears Ears and Grand Staircase will become dust bowls without
federal protection, but these areas will certainly suffer if it is left
to the political whims of Utah politicians who bend over backward to
allow private interests to exploit what little was still protected
before Trump's action.
Those Utah politicians have a greater understanding of, and vested
interest in, caring for their own backyard, than some bureaucrat in
DC.
Yea, it is called power politics! To the greatest investor goes the spoils! Littloe room for ecosystems or wild game there!
islander
2017-12-05 23:52:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by Gary
Post by El Castor
Post by Emily
On Sun, 03 Dec 2017 13:23:19 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by Emily
Post by islander
It took GW Bush 7 years to destroy the economy. Perhaps Trump is trying
to do it in half the time. :(
He's not only trying to destroy the economy, he's going for everything
-- education, national parks, health care, you name it. Has he, or
his faithful minions, done anything that is of benefit to anyone but
the filthy rich?
On the subject of National Parks (ie. federal land ownership), the
federal government owns 47% of the land in the Western States. It's
about time something was done about that.
Why?
I am all in favor of National Parks and Monuments, but why should a
government that can barely manage Amtrak and the VA be entrusted with
the care of land not already in the custody of the Park Service,
Forest Service, and Fish & Game. Transfer the non
Park/Monument/Forest/Fish&Game land to the states or sell it to
farmers and ranchers who are probably already using it. The thousands
of bureaucrats who are busying themselves with that 386,000 square
miles of land should find something else to do with their time.
Had the state governments been in charge of the parks -- there would be less than 38
square miles of them now. State politics have always been designed to reward their
supporters. And how better to reward than -- with thousands of acres of free land ?
That 386,000 square miles (!) is in addition to all the parks,
monuments, and preserves. When the US moved West it bought or seized
all that land. My paternal grandparents homesteaded some in Montana,
but homesteading ended long ago. If that land can be sold to ranchers,
farmers, or whatever, why not?
For the same reason that the Homestead Act was the direct cause of the
worst man-made ecological disaster in American history - the dust bowl.
A classic example of the Tragedy of the Commons. This is not to say
that Bears Ears and Grand Staircase will become dust bowls without
federal protection, but these areas will certainly suffer if it is left
to the political whims of Utah politicians who bend over backward to
allow private interests to exploit what little was still protected
before Trump's action.
Those Utah politicians have a greater understanding of, and vested
interest in, caring for their own backyard, than some bureaucrat in
DC.
What evidence do you have that Utah politicians have a greater
understanding of and vested interest in these two monuments? How well
were they caring for them before Obama protected them?
El Castor
2017-12-06 08:08:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by Gary
Post by El Castor
Post by Emily
On Sun, 03 Dec 2017 13:23:19 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by Emily
Post by islander
It took GW Bush 7 years to destroy the economy. Perhaps Trump is trying
to do it in half the time. :(
He's not only trying to destroy the economy, he's going for everything
-- education, national parks, health care, you name it. Has he, or
his faithful minions, done anything that is of benefit to anyone but
the filthy rich?
On the subject of National Parks (ie. federal land ownership), the
federal government owns 47% of the land in the Western States. It's
about time something was done about that.
Why?
I am all in favor of National Parks and Monuments, but why should a
government that can barely manage Amtrak and the VA be entrusted with
the care of land not already in the custody of the Park Service,
Forest Service, and Fish & Game. Transfer the non
Park/Monument/Forest/Fish&Game land to the states or sell it to
farmers and ranchers who are probably already using it. The thousands
of bureaucrats who are busying themselves with that 386,000 square
miles of land should find something else to do with their time.
Had the state governments been in charge of the parks -- there would be less than 38
square miles of them now. State politics have always been designed to reward their
supporters. And how better to reward than -- with thousands of acres of free land ?
That 386,000 square miles (!) is in addition to all the parks,
monuments, and preserves. When the US moved West it bought or seized
all that land. My paternal grandparents homesteaded some in Montana,
but homesteading ended long ago. If that land can be sold to ranchers,
farmers, or whatever, why not?
For the same reason that the Homestead Act was the direct cause of the
worst man-made ecological disaster in American history - the dust bowl.
A classic example of the Tragedy of the Commons. This is not to say
that Bears Ears and Grand Staircase will become dust bowls without
federal protection, but these areas will certainly suffer if it is left
to the political whims of Utah politicians who bend over backward to
allow private interests to exploit what little was still protected
before Trump's action.
Those Utah politicians have a greater understanding of, and vested
interest in, caring for their own backyard, than some bureaucrat in
DC.
What evidence do you have that Utah politicians have a greater
understanding of and vested interest in these two monuments? How well
were they caring for them before Obama protected them?
Protected them?

"Corrupt Bureau of Land Management successfully kicked out of the
sacred Blackfoot Native American Nation"
https://www.naturalnews.com/053478_BLM_Blackfoot_Native_American_Nation_Badger-Two_Medicine_region.html

"Report: Corruption and Mismanagement at BLM Wild Horse Program Runs
Deep"
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/another-government-report-shows-corruption-and-mismanagement_us_58174aa2e4b096e87069686e

"The BLM’s Corrupt Coal Leasing Program: Billions In Subsidies To
Peabody, Gigatons Of Carbon Pollution For The Rest Of Us"
https://thinkprogress.org/the-blms-corrupt-coal-leasing-program-billions-in-subsidies-to-peabody-gigatons-of-carbon-pollution-ba1f0b125a5/

"BLM illegally sold thousands of wild horses for slaughter: report"
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/24/blm-illegally-sold-thousands-wild-horses-slaughter/

"Probe finds multiple wrongdoings by ex-Farmington BLM head"
http://nmpoliticalreport.com/92297/probe-finds-multiple-wrongdoings-by-ex-farmington-blm-head/

Etc.
islander
2017-12-06 15:57:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by Gary
Post by El Castor
Post by Emily
On Sun, 03 Dec 2017 13:23:19 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by Emily
Post by islander
It took GW Bush 7 years to destroy the economy. Perhaps Trump is trying
to do it in half the time. :(
He's not only trying to destroy the economy, he's going for everything
-- education, national parks, health care, you name it. Has he, or
his faithful minions, done anything that is of benefit to anyone but
the filthy rich?
On the subject of National Parks (ie. federal land ownership), the
federal government owns 47% of the land in the Western States. It's
about time something was done about that.
Why?
I am all in favor of National Parks and Monuments, but why should a
government that can barely manage Amtrak and the VA be entrusted with
the care of land not already in the custody of the Park Service,
Forest Service, and Fish & Game. Transfer the non
Park/Monument/Forest/Fish&Game land to the states or sell it to
farmers and ranchers who are probably already using it. The thousands
of bureaucrats who are busying themselves with that 386,000 square
miles of land should find something else to do with their time.
Had the state governments been in charge of the parks -- there would be less than 38
square miles of them now. State politics have always been designed to reward their
supporters. And how better to reward than -- with thousands of acres of free land ?
That 386,000 square miles (!) is in addition to all the parks,
monuments, and preserves. When the US moved West it bought or seized
all that land. My paternal grandparents homesteaded some in Montana,
but homesteading ended long ago. If that land can be sold to ranchers,
farmers, or whatever, why not?
For the same reason that the Homestead Act was the direct cause of the
worst man-made ecological disaster in American history - the dust bowl.
A classic example of the Tragedy of the Commons. This is not to say
that Bears Ears and Grand Staircase will become dust bowls without
federal protection, but these areas will certainly suffer if it is left
to the political whims of Utah politicians who bend over backward to
allow private interests to exploit what little was still protected
before Trump's action.
Those Utah politicians have a greater understanding of, and vested
interest in, caring for their own backyard, than some bureaucrat in
DC.
What evidence do you have that Utah politicians have a greater
understanding of and vested interest in these two monuments? How well
were they caring for them before Obama protected them?
Protected them?
"Corrupt Bureau of Land Management successfully kicked out of the
sacred Blackfoot Native American Nation"
https://www.naturalnews.com/053478_BLM_Blackfoot_Native_American_Nation_Badger-Two_Medicine_region.html
"Report: Corruption and Mismanagement at BLM Wild Horse Program Runs
Deep"
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/another-government-report-shows-corruption-and-mismanagement_us_58174aa2e4b096e87069686e
"The BLM’s Corrupt Coal Leasing Program: Billions In Subsidies To
Peabody, Gigatons Of Carbon Pollution For The Rest Of Us"
https://thinkprogress.org/the-blms-corrupt-coal-leasing-program-billions-in-subsidies-to-peabody-gigatons-of-carbon-pollution-ba1f0b125a5/
"BLM illegally sold thousands of wild horses for slaughter: report"
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/24/blm-illegally-sold-thousands-wild-horses-slaughter/
"Probe finds multiple wrongdoings by ex-Farmington BLM head"
http://nmpoliticalreport.com/92297/probe-finds-multiple-wrongdoings-by-ex-farmington-blm-head/
Etc.
I asked specifically about the Bears Ears and Staircase monuments. I
tend to agree that the Interior Department and the BLM in particular
have had major problems for decades. Those problems usually centered
around the conflict between promoting commercial mineral extraction and
protecting these often fragile regions from harm. You have to start
somewhere in cleaning up what has been exploited by commercial interests
for decades. Quite frankly, Obama had a full plate when he came into
office. I think that he did a good thing, if belatedly, in protecting
these regions, unfortunately too easily undone now by Trump.

Do you think that things have improved in the Department of the Interior
with the appointment of Ryan Zinke? Here is his record:
http://scorecard.lcv.org/moc/ryan-zinke
El Castor
2017-12-06 17:24:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by Gary
Post by El Castor
Post by Emily
On Sun, 03 Dec 2017 13:23:19 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by Emily
Post by islander
It took GW Bush 7 years to destroy the economy. Perhaps Trump is trying
to do it in half the time. :(
He's not only trying to destroy the economy, he's going for everything
-- education, national parks, health care, you name it. Has he, or
his faithful minions, done anything that is of benefit to anyone but
the filthy rich?
On the subject of National Parks (ie. federal land ownership), the
federal government owns 47% of the land in the Western States. It's
about time something was done about that.
Why?
I am all in favor of National Parks and Monuments, but why should a
government that can barely manage Amtrak and the VA be entrusted with
the care of land not already in the custody of the Park Service,
Forest Service, and Fish & Game. Transfer the non
Park/Monument/Forest/Fish&Game land to the states or sell it to
farmers and ranchers who are probably already using it. The thousands
of bureaucrats who are busying themselves with that 386,000 square
miles of land should find something else to do with their time.
Had the state governments been in charge of the parks -- there would be less than 38
square miles of them now. State politics have always been designed to reward their
supporters. And how better to reward than -- with thousands of acres of free land ?
That 386,000 square miles (!) is in addition to all the parks,
monuments, and preserves. When the US moved West it bought or seized
all that land. My paternal grandparents homesteaded some in Montana,
but homesteading ended long ago. If that land can be sold to ranchers,
farmers, or whatever, why not?
For the same reason that the Homestead Act was the direct cause of the
worst man-made ecological disaster in American history - the dust bowl.
A classic example of the Tragedy of the Commons. This is not to say
that Bears Ears and Grand Staircase will become dust bowls without
federal protection, but these areas will certainly suffer if it is left
to the political whims of Utah politicians who bend over backward to
allow private interests to exploit what little was still protected
before Trump's action.
Those Utah politicians have a greater understanding of, and vested
interest in, caring for their own backyard, than some bureaucrat in
DC.
What evidence do you have that Utah politicians have a greater
understanding of and vested interest in these two monuments? How well
were they caring for them before Obama protected them?
Protected them?
"Corrupt Bureau of Land Management successfully kicked out of the
sacred Blackfoot Native American Nation"
https://www.naturalnews.com/053478_BLM_Blackfoot_Native_American_Nation_Badger-Two_Medicine_region.html
"Report: Corruption and Mismanagement at BLM Wild Horse Program Runs
Deep"
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/another-government-report-shows-corruption-and-mismanagement_us_58174aa2e4b096e87069686e
"The BLM’s Corrupt Coal Leasing Program: Billions In Subsidies To
Peabody, Gigatons Of Carbon Pollution For The Rest Of Us"
https://thinkprogress.org/the-blms-corrupt-coal-leasing-program-billions-in-subsidies-to-peabody-gigatons-of-carbon-pollution-ba1f0b125a5/
"BLM illegally sold thousands of wild horses for slaughter: report"
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/24/blm-illegally-sold-thousands-wild-horses-slaughter/
"Probe finds multiple wrongdoings by ex-Farmington BLM head"
http://nmpoliticalreport.com/92297/probe-finds-multiple-wrongdoings-by-ex-farmington-blm-head/
Etc.
I asked specifically about the Bears Ears and Staircase monuments. I
tend to agree that the Interior Department and the BLM in particular
have had major problems for decades. Those problems usually centered
around the conflict between promoting commercial mineral extraction and
protecting these often fragile regions from harm. You have to start
somewhere in cleaning up what has been exploited by commercial interests
for decades. Quite frankly, Obama had a full plate when he came into
office. I think that he did a good thing, if belatedly, in protecting
these regions, unfortunately too easily undone now by Trump.
Do you think that things have improved in the Department of the Interior
http://scorecard.lcv.org/moc/ryan-zinke
I would not give legitimate national parks and monuments, like
Yosemite and Muir woods to the state, although I doubt it would matter
much if we did. But some states in the West are more than 50% owned by
the federal government, and managed by the BLM. I do not share your
confidence in the wisdom of the central government, and believe that
states, and local people are more likely to properly care for their
own environment. Here are some interesting maps that illustrate the
extent of federal ownership in the West.
http://bigthink.com/strange-maps/291-federal-lands-in-the-us
Utah is 57.4% federal, and Maine 1.1%. I don't think you could argue
that the people of Maine have destroyed their environment.
islander
2017-12-06 23:55:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by Gary
Post by El Castor
Post by Emily
On Sun, 03 Dec 2017 13:23:19 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by Emily
Post by islander
It took GW Bush 7 years to destroy the economy. Perhaps Trump is trying
to do it in half the time. :(
He's not only trying to destroy the economy, he's going for everything
-- education, national parks, health care, you name it. Has he, or
his faithful minions, done anything that is of benefit to anyone but
the filthy rich?
On the subject of National Parks (ie. federal land ownership), the
federal government owns 47% of the land in the Western States. It's
about time something was done about that.
Why?
I am all in favor of National Parks and Monuments, but why should a
government that can barely manage Amtrak and the VA be entrusted with
the care of land not already in the custody of the Park Service,
Forest Service, and Fish & Game. Transfer the non
Park/Monument/Forest/Fish&Game land to the states or sell it to
farmers and ranchers who are probably already using it. The thousands
of bureaucrats who are busying themselves with that 386,000 square
miles of land should find something else to do with their time.
Had the state governments been in charge of the parks -- there would be less than 38
square miles of them now. State politics have always been designed to reward their
supporters. And how better to reward than -- with thousands of acres of free land ?
That 386,000 square miles (!) is in addition to all the parks,
monuments, and preserves. When the US moved West it bought or seized
all that land. My paternal grandparents homesteaded some in Montana,
but homesteading ended long ago. If that land can be sold to ranchers,
farmers, or whatever, why not?
For the same reason that the Homestead Act was the direct cause of the
worst man-made ecological disaster in American history - the dust bowl.
A classic example of the Tragedy of the Commons. This is not to say
that Bears Ears and Grand Staircase will become dust bowls without
federal protection, but these areas will certainly suffer if it is left
to the political whims of Utah politicians who bend over backward to
allow private interests to exploit what little was still protected
before Trump's action.
Those Utah politicians have a greater understanding of, and vested
interest in, caring for their own backyard, than some bureaucrat in
DC.
What evidence do you have that Utah politicians have a greater
understanding of and vested interest in these two monuments? How well
were they caring for them before Obama protected them?
Protected them?
"Corrupt Bureau of Land Management successfully kicked out of the
sacred Blackfoot Native American Nation"
https://www.naturalnews.com/053478_BLM_Blackfoot_Native_American_Nation_Badger-Two_Medicine_region.html
"Report: Corruption and Mismanagement at BLM Wild Horse Program Runs
Deep"
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/another-government-report-shows-corruption-and-mismanagement_us_58174aa2e4b096e87069686e
"The BLM’s Corrupt Coal Leasing Program: Billions In Subsidies To
Peabody, Gigatons Of Carbon Pollution For The Rest Of Us"
https://thinkprogress.org/the-blms-corrupt-coal-leasing-program-billions-in-subsidies-to-peabody-gigatons-of-carbon-pollution-ba1f0b125a5/
"BLM illegally sold thousands of wild horses for slaughter: report"
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/24/blm-illegally-sold-thousands-wild-horses-slaughter/
"Probe finds multiple wrongdoings by ex-Farmington BLM head"
http://nmpoliticalreport.com/92297/probe-finds-multiple-wrongdoings-by-ex-farmington-blm-head/
Etc.
I asked specifically about the Bears Ears and Staircase monuments. I
tend to agree that the Interior Department and the BLM in particular
have had major problems for decades. Those problems usually centered
around the conflict between promoting commercial mineral extraction and
protecting these often fragile regions from harm. You have to start
somewhere in cleaning up what has been exploited by commercial interests
for decades. Quite frankly, Obama had a full plate when he came into
office. I think that he did a good thing, if belatedly, in protecting
these regions, unfortunately too easily undone now by Trump.
Do you think that things have improved in the Department of the Interior
http://scorecard.lcv.org/moc/ryan-zinke
I would not give legitimate national parks and monuments, like
Yosemite and Muir woods to the state, although I doubt it would matter
much if we did. But some states in the West are more than 50% owned by
the federal government, and managed by the BLM. I do not share your
confidence in the wisdom of the central government, and believe that
states, and local people are more likely to properly care for their
own environment. Here are some interesting maps that illustrate the
extent of federal ownership in the West.
http://bigthink.com/strange-maps/291-federal-lands-in-the-us
Utah is 57.4% federal, and Maine 1.1%. I don't think you could argue
that the people of Maine have destroyed their environment.
OK, so this is really about your distrust of the federal government. I
recognize that your are reluctant to be specific about the Bears Ears
and Staircase monuments. Likewise, I note that you are unwilling to
comment about the appointment of Ryan Zinke. Perhaps you are biased by
your politics and unwilling to talk about specifics? Are specifics too
uncomfortable to you? Do they conflict with your politics? Is there a
reason for that?
El Castor
2017-12-07 01:54:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by Gary
Post by El Castor
Post by Emily
On Sun, 03 Dec 2017 13:23:19 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by Emily
Post by islander
It took GW Bush 7 years to destroy the economy. Perhaps Trump is trying
to do it in half the time. :(
He's not only trying to destroy the economy, he's going for everything
-- education, national parks, health care, you name it. Has he, or
his faithful minions, done anything that is of benefit to anyone but
the filthy rich?
On the subject of National Parks (ie. federal land ownership), the
federal government owns 47% of the land in the Western States. It's
about time something was done about that.
Why?
I am all in favor of National Parks and Monuments, but why should a
government that can barely manage Amtrak and the VA be entrusted with
the care of land not already in the custody of the Park Service,
Forest Service, and Fish & Game. Transfer the non
Park/Monument/Forest/Fish&Game land to the states or sell it to
farmers and ranchers who are probably already using it. The thousands
of bureaucrats who are busying themselves with that 386,000 square
miles of land should find something else to do with their time.
Had the state governments been in charge of the parks -- there would be less than 38
square miles of them now. State politics have always been designed to reward their
supporters. And how better to reward than -- with thousands of acres of free land ?
That 386,000 square miles (!) is in addition to all the parks,
monuments, and preserves. When the US moved West it bought or seized
all that land. My paternal grandparents homesteaded some in Montana,
but homesteading ended long ago. If that land can be sold to ranchers,
farmers, or whatever, why not?
For the same reason that the Homestead Act was the direct cause of the
worst man-made ecological disaster in American history - the dust bowl.
A classic example of the Tragedy of the Commons. This is not to say
that Bears Ears and Grand Staircase will become dust bowls without
federal protection, but these areas will certainly suffer if it is left
to the political whims of Utah politicians who bend over backward to
allow private interests to exploit what little was still protected
before Trump's action.
Those Utah politicians have a greater understanding of, and vested
interest in, caring for their own backyard, than some bureaucrat in
DC.
What evidence do you have that Utah politicians have a greater
understanding of and vested interest in these two monuments? How well
were they caring for them before Obama protected them?
Protected them?
"Corrupt Bureau of Land Management successfully kicked out of the
sacred Blackfoot Native American Nation"
https://www.naturalnews.com/053478_BLM_Blackfoot_Native_American_Nation_Badger-Two_Medicine_region.html
"Report: Corruption and Mismanagement at BLM Wild Horse Program Runs
Deep"
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/another-government-report-shows-corruption-and-mismanagement_us_58174aa2e4b096e87069686e
"The BLM’s Corrupt Coal Leasing Program: Billions In Subsidies To
Peabody, Gigatons Of Carbon Pollution For The Rest Of Us"
https://thinkprogress.org/the-blms-corrupt-coal-leasing-program-billions-in-subsidies-to-peabody-gigatons-of-carbon-pollution-ba1f0b125a5/
"BLM illegally sold thousands of wild horses for slaughter: report"
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/24/blm-illegally-sold-thousands-wild-horses-slaughter/
"Probe finds multiple wrongdoings by ex-Farmington BLM head"
http://nmpoliticalreport.com/92297/probe-finds-multiple-wrongdoings-by-ex-farmington-blm-head/
Etc.
I asked specifically about the Bears Ears and Staircase monuments. I
tend to agree that the Interior Department and the BLM in particular
have had major problems for decades. Those problems usually centered
around the conflict between promoting commercial mineral extraction and
protecting these often fragile regions from harm. You have to start
somewhere in cleaning up what has been exploited by commercial interests
for decades. Quite frankly, Obama had a full plate when he came into
office. I think that he did a good thing, if belatedly, in protecting
these regions, unfortunately too easily undone now by Trump.
Do you think that things have improved in the Department of the Interior
http://scorecard.lcv.org/moc/ryan-zinke
I would not give legitimate national parks and monuments, like
Yosemite and Muir woods to the state, although I doubt it would matter
much if we did. But some states in the West are more than 50% owned by
the federal government, and managed by the BLM. I do not share your
confidence in the wisdom of the central government, and believe that
states, and local people are more likely to properly care for their
own environment. Here are some interesting maps that illustrate the
extent of federal ownership in the West.
http://bigthink.com/strange-maps/291-federal-lands-in-the-us
Utah is 57.4% federal, and Maine 1.1%. I don't think you could argue
that the people of Maine have destroyed their environment.
OK, so this is really about your distrust of the federal government. I
recognize that your are reluctant to be specific about the Bears Ears
and Staircase monuments. Likewise, I note that you are unwilling to
comment about the appointment of Ryan Zinke. Perhaps you are biased by
your politics and unwilling to talk about specifics? Are specifics too
uncomfortable to you? Do they conflict with your politics? Is there a
reason for that?
I favor local control. State and local governments do everything from
levying taxes to writing building codes, setting speed limits and
enforcing laws. I would rather trust them with management of vast
portions of their state than some Washington bureaucrat. As for Ryan
Zinke, you and I could argue endlessly about Trump's appointees -- you
hate them all. I have more important things to do. I hear my parrot
calling me.
Emily
2017-12-04 15:49:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 03 Dec 2017 23:51:36 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by Emily
On Sun, 03 Dec 2017 13:23:19 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
On the subject of National Parks (ie. federal land ownership), the
federal government owns 47% of the land in the Western States. It's
about time something was done about that.
Why?
I am all in favor of National Parks and Monuments, but why should a
government that can barely manage Amtrak and the VA be entrusted with
the care of land not already in the custody of the Park Service,
Forest Service, and Fish & Game.
Why has Amtrak never managed to break even, much less make a profit,
or have I been misinformed? Aren't they always booked solid?
Post by El Castor
Transfer the non
Park/Monument/Forest/Fish&Game land to the states or sell it to
farmers and ranchers who are probably already using it. The thousands
of bureaucrats who are busying themselves with that 386,000 square
miles of land should find something else to do with their time.
Or better yet, somehow manage to do a better job of what they're
supposed to be doing. My objection to that land being sold is that it
would almost certainly be bought by people who wanted to frack all
over the place, but with tRump and his minions in charge, they'll most
likely be able to frack the hell out of it without selling it.

It would be mildly inspirational to hear of even one government agency
that isn't obviously totally incompetent.
El Castor
2017-12-05 21:37:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Emily
On Sun, 03 Dec 2017 23:51:36 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by Emily
On Sun, 03 Dec 2017 13:23:19 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
On the subject of National Parks (ie. federal land ownership), the
federal government owns 47% of the land in the Western States. It's
about time something was done about that.
Why?
I am all in favor of National Parks and Monuments, but why should a
government that can barely manage Amtrak and the VA be entrusted with
the care of land not already in the custody of the Park Service,
Forest Service, and Fish & Game.
Why has Amtrak never managed to break even, much less make a profit,
or have I been misinformed? Aren't they always booked solid?
AMTRAK is a government enterprise, so by definition it is run
inefficiently. If they charged enough to pay for the cost of their
inefficient enterprise, they would lose riders, and bring in even less
revenue, so you get to subsidize it with your tax dollars.
Post by Emily
Post by El Castor
Transfer the non
Park/Monument/Forest/Fish&Game land to the states or sell it to
farmers and ranchers who are probably already using it. The thousands
of bureaucrats who are busying themselves with that 386,000 square
miles of land should find something else to do with their time.
Or better yet, somehow manage to do a better job of what they're
supposed to be doing. My objection to that land being sold is that it
would almost certainly be bought by people who wanted to frack all
over the place, but with tRump and his minions in charge, they'll most
likely be able to frack the hell out of it without selling it.
It would be mildly inspirational to hear of even one government agency
that isn't obviously totally incompetent.
wolfbat359
2017-12-05 22:03:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by Emily
On Sun, 03 Dec 2017 23:51:36 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by Emily
On Sun, 03 Dec 2017 13:23:19 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
On the subject of National Parks (ie. federal land ownership), the
federal government owns 47% of the land in the Western States. It's
about time something was done about that.
Why?
I am all in favor of National Parks and Monuments, but why should a
government that can barely manage Amtrak and the VA be entrusted with
the care of land not already in the custody of the Park Service,
Forest Service, and Fish & Game.
Why has Amtrak never managed to break even, much less make a profit,
or have I been misinformed? Aren't they always booked solid?
AMTRAK is a government enterprise, so by definition it is run
inefficiently. If they charged enough to pay for the cost of their
inefficient enterprise, they would lose riders, and bring in even less
revenue, so you get to subsidize it with your tax dollars.
And the commercial enterprises running passengers?
Post by El Castor
Post by Emily
Post by El Castor
Transfer the non
Park/Monument/Forest/Fish&Game land to the states or sell it to
farmers and ranchers who are probably already using it. The thousands
of bureaucrats who are busying themselves with that 386,000 square
miles of land should find something else to do with their time.
Or better yet, somehow manage to do a better job of what they're
supposed to be doing. My objection to that land being sold is that it
would almost certainly be bought by people who wanted to frack all
over the place, but with tRump and his minions in charge, they'll most
likely be able to frack the hell out of it without selling it.
It would be mildly inspirational to hear of even one government agency
that isn't obviously totally incompetent.
El Castor
2017-12-05 22:53:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 5 Dec 2017 14:03:00 -0800 (PST), wolfbat359
Post by wolfbat359
Post by El Castor
Post by Emily
On Sun, 03 Dec 2017 23:51:36 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by Emily
On Sun, 03 Dec 2017 13:23:19 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
On the subject of National Parks (ie. federal land ownership), the
federal government owns 47% of the land in the Western States. It's
about time something was done about that.
Why?
I am all in favor of National Parks and Monuments, but why should a
government that can barely manage Amtrak and the VA be entrusted with
the care of land not already in the custody of the Park Service,
Forest Service, and Fish & Game.
Why has Amtrak never managed to break even, much less make a profit,
or have I been misinformed? Aren't they always booked solid?
AMTRAK is a government enterprise, so by definition it is run
inefficiently. If they charged enough to pay for the cost of their
inefficient enterprise, they would lose riders, and bring in even less
revenue, so you get to subsidize it with your tax dollars.
And the commercial enterprises running passengers?
Commercial enterprises either pay for themselves, or they don't
happen. Buses, cars, and airlines do it. If the government wants to
be in the transportation business, that is OK with me, but please
charge the passengers enough to pay for the service.

"The expensive Amtrak fantasy"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/robert-samuelson-the-expensive-amtrak-fantasy/2013/03/05/4224bfe6-85de-11e2-9d71-f0feafdd1394_story.html
Post by wolfbat359
Post by El Castor
Post by Emily
Post by El Castor
Transfer the non
Park/Monument/Forest/Fish&Game land to the states or sell it to
farmers and ranchers who are probably already using it. The thousands
of bureaucrats who are busying themselves with that 386,000 square
miles of land should find something else to do with their time.
Or better yet, somehow manage to do a better job of what they're
supposed to be doing. My objection to that land being sold is that it
would almost certainly be bought by people who wanted to frack all
over the place, but with tRump and his minions in charge, they'll most
likely be able to frack the hell out of it without selling it.
It would be mildly inspirational to hear of even one government agency
that isn't obviously totally incompetent.
wolfbat359
2017-12-05 22:59:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 5 Dec 2017 14:03:00 -0800 (PST), wolfbat359
Post by wolfbat359
Post by El Castor
Post by Emily
On Sun, 03 Dec 2017 23:51:36 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by Emily
On Sun, 03 Dec 2017 13:23:19 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
On the subject of National Parks (ie. federal land ownership), the
federal government owns 47% of the land in the Western States. It's
about time something was done about that.
Why?
I am all in favor of National Parks and Monuments, but why should a
government that can barely manage Amtrak and the VA be entrusted with
the care of land not already in the custody of the Park Service,
Forest Service, and Fish & Game.
Why has Amtrak never managed to break even, much less make a profit,
or have I been misinformed? Aren't they always booked solid?
AMTRAK is a government enterprise, so by definition it is run
inefficiently. If they charged enough to pay for the cost of their
inefficient enterprise, they would lose riders, and bring in even less
revenue, so you get to subsidize it with your tax dollars.
And the commercial enterprises running passengers?
Commercial enterprises either pay for themselves, or they don't
happen. Buses, cars, and airlines do it. If the government wants to
be in the transportation business, that is OK with me, but please
charge the passengers enough to pay for the service.
"The expensive Amtrak fantasy"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/robert-samuelson-the-expensive-amtrak-fantasy/2013/03/05/4224bfe6-85de-11e2-9d71-f0feafdd1394_story.html
Again, how many private enterprise concerns are providing rail transportation for passengers? And why did Amtrak have to come into existence?
Post by El Castor
Post by wolfbat359
Post by El Castor
Post by Emily
Post by El Castor
Transfer the non
Park/Monument/Forest/Fish&Game land to the states or sell it to
farmers and ranchers who are probably already using it. The thousands
of bureaucrats who are busying themselves with that 386,000 square
miles of land should find something else to do with their time.
Or better yet, somehow manage to do a better job of what they're
supposed to be doing. My objection to that land being sold is that it
would almost certainly be bought by people who wanted to frack all
over the place, but with tRump and his minions in charge, they'll most
likely be able to frack the hell out of it without selling it.
It would be mildly inspirational to hear of even one government agency
that isn't obviously totally incompetent.
islander
2017-12-05 23:42:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 5 Dec 2017 14:03:00 -0800 (PST), wolfbat359
Post by wolfbat359
Post by El Castor
Post by Emily
On Sun, 03 Dec 2017 23:51:36 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by Emily
On Sun, 03 Dec 2017 13:23:19 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
On the subject of National Parks (ie. federal land ownership), the
federal government owns 47% of the land in the Western States. It's
about time something was done about that.
Why?
I am all in favor of National Parks and Monuments, but why should a
government that can barely manage Amtrak and the VA be entrusted with
the care of land not already in the custody of the Park Service,
Forest Service, and Fish & Game.
Why has Amtrak never managed to break even, much less make a profit,
or have I been misinformed? Aren't they always booked solid?
AMTRAK is a government enterprise, so by definition it is run
inefficiently. If they charged enough to pay for the cost of their
inefficient enterprise, they would lose riders, and bring in even less
revenue, so you get to subsidize it with your tax dollars.
And the commercial enterprises running passengers?
Commercial enterprises either pay for themselves, or they don't
happen. Buses, cars, and airlines do it. If the government wants to
be in the transportation business, that is OK with me, but please
charge the passengers enough to pay for the service.
"The expensive Amtrak fantasy"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/robert-samuelson-the-expensive-amtrak-fantasy/2013/03/05/4224bfe6-85de-11e2-9d71-f0feafdd1394_story.html
Hmmm. How much of our public works budget supports the infrastructure
that buses, cars, and trucks operate on? How much of our transportation
budget supports the infrastructure that airlines depend upon to stay in
operation? The bottom line is that most transportation industries are
heavily subsidized.
Post by El Castor
Post by wolfbat359
Post by El Castor
Post by Emily
Post by El Castor
Transfer the non
Park/Monument/Forest/Fish&Game land to the states or sell it to
farmers and ranchers who are probably already using it. The thousands
of bureaucrats who are busying themselves with that 386,000 square
miles of land should find something else to do with their time.
Or better yet, somehow manage to do a better job of what they're
supposed to be doing. My objection to that land being sold is that it
would almost certainly be bought by people who wanted to frack all
over the place, but with tRump and his minions in charge, they'll most
likely be able to frack the hell out of it without selling it.
It would be mildly inspirational to hear of even one government agency
that isn't obviously totally incompetent.
rumpelstiltskin
2017-12-06 03:05:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 5 Dec 2017 14:03:00 -0800 (PST), wolfbat359
Post by wolfbat359
Post by El Castor
Post by Emily
On Sun, 03 Dec 2017 23:51:36 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by Emily
On Sun, 03 Dec 2017 13:23:19 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
On the subject of National Parks (ie. federal land ownership), the
federal government owns 47% of the land in the Western States. It's
about time something was done about that.
Why?
I am all in favor of National Parks and Monuments, but why should a
government that can barely manage Amtrak and the VA be entrusted with
the care of land not already in the custody of the Park Service,
Forest Service, and Fish & Game.
Why has Amtrak never managed to break even, much less make a profit,
or have I been misinformed? Aren't they always booked solid?
AMTRAK is a government enterprise, so by definition it is run
inefficiently. If they charged enough to pay for the cost of their
inefficient enterprise, they would lose riders, and bring in even less
revenue, so you get to subsidize it with your tax dollars.
And the commercial enterprises running passengers?
Commercial enterprises either pay for themselves, or they don't
happen. Buses, cars, and airlines do it. If the government wants to
be in the transportation business, that is OK with me, but please
charge the passengers enough to pay for the service.
"The expensive Amtrak fantasy"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/robert-samuelson-the-expensive-amtrak-fantasy/2013/03/05/4224bfe6-85de-11e2-9d71-f0feafdd1394_story.html
Hmmm. How much of our public works budget supports the infrastructure
that buses, cars, and trucks operate on? How much of our transportation
budget supports the infrastructure that airlines depend upon to stay in
operation? The bottom line is that most transportation industries are
heavily subsidized.
The San Francisco Muni is free to me because I'm a pitiful senior,
but it costs $2.75 for normals now, and since the transfers are only
good for 90 minutes, that means that even a long shopping trip
will cost $5.50 just going there and getting back! The transfers
used to be all torn off paper, so they were usually good for
a lot more than 90 minutes - often as much as six hours. The
subway is mechanized though so when you got a ticket for them
it was always just good for a Stalinist 90 minutes. I was
outraged when my son was last here that the Divisadero Bus
had gone to a mechanized system too though, so my son is
in the same fix there now as he is with the subway. He's a
walker though, so he walks out to the beach and back a lot,
about 10 miles considering the meanderingness of the
route, or even further if he proceeds along the beach, without
ever touching public transportation.

When I first came to San Fran in 1968, bus fares were 25¢ and
that included the Cable Cars. Now the Cable Cars cost $7, last I
heard, and there's talk of raising the fare to $10. Nobody except
tourists and people who are so rich they should be shot uses
cable cars any more. If they disappeared tomorrow, I and most
other San Franciscans wouldn't miss them at all now.
islander
2017-12-06 16:10:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 5 Dec 2017 14:03:00 -0800 (PST), wolfbat359
Post by wolfbat359
Post by El Castor
Post by Emily
On Sun, 03 Dec 2017 23:51:36 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by Emily
On Sun, 03 Dec 2017 13:23:19 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
On the subject of National Parks (ie. federal land ownership), the
federal government owns 47% of the land in the Western States. It's
about time something was done about that.
Why?
I am all in favor of National Parks and Monuments, but why should a
government that can barely manage Amtrak and the VA be entrusted with
the care of land not already in the custody of the Park Service,
Forest Service, and Fish & Game.
Why has Amtrak never managed to break even, much less make a profit,
or have I been misinformed? Aren't they always booked solid?
AMTRAK is a government enterprise, so by definition it is run
inefficiently. If they charged enough to pay for the cost of their
inefficient enterprise, they would lose riders, and bring in even less
revenue, so you get to subsidize it with your tax dollars.
And the commercial enterprises running passengers?
Commercial enterprises either pay for themselves, or they don't
happen. Buses, cars, and airlines do it. If the government wants to
be in the transportation business, that is OK with me, but please
charge the passengers enough to pay for the service.
"The expensive Amtrak fantasy"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/robert-samuelson-the-expensive-amtrak-fantasy/2013/03/05/4224bfe6-85de-11e2-9d71-f0feafdd1394_story.html
Hmmm. How much of our public works budget supports the infrastructure
that buses, cars, and trucks operate on? How much of our transportation
budget supports the infrastructure that airlines depend upon to stay in
operation? The bottom line is that most transportation industries are
heavily subsidized.
The San Francisco Muni is free to me because I'm a pitiful senior,
but it costs $2.75 for normals now, and since the transfers are only
good for 90 minutes, that means that even a long shopping trip
will cost $5.50 just going there and getting back! The transfers
used to be all torn off paper, so they were usually good for
a lot more than 90 minutes - often as much as six hours. The
subway is mechanized though so when you got a ticket for them
it was always just good for a Stalinist 90 minutes. I was
outraged when my son was last here that the Divisadero Bus
had gone to a mechanized system too though, so my son is
in the same fix there now as he is with the subway. He's a
walker though, so he walks out to the beach and back a lot,
about 10 miles considering the meanderingness of the
route, or even further if he proceeds along the beach, without
ever touching public transportation.
When I first came to San Fran in 1968, bus fares were 25¢ and
that included the Cable Cars. Now the Cable Cars cost $7, last I
heard, and there's talk of raising the fare to $10. Nobody except
tourists and people who are so rich they should be shot uses
cable cars any more. If they disappeared tomorrow, I and most
other San Franciscans wouldn't miss them at all now.
Count your blessings! My wife and I are trying to plan a trip to
Seattle during the holidays and would like to not have to drive. Public
transportation here really sucks. It might work if one has a lot of
time to wait for connections and is willing to figure out the routes and
schedules. I feel for those who have to depend on public
transportation. To add insult to injury, we thought that it would be
pleasant to take the train from Mt. Vernon to Seattle. Not only is the
schedule inconvenient, but the return route is on a bus! So much for
that idea!
El Castor
2017-12-06 08:20:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 5 Dec 2017 14:03:00 -0800 (PST), wolfbat359
Post by wolfbat359
Post by El Castor
Post by Emily
On Sun, 03 Dec 2017 23:51:36 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by Emily
On Sun, 03 Dec 2017 13:23:19 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
On the subject of National Parks (ie. federal land ownership), the
federal government owns 47% of the land in the Western States. It's
about time something was done about that.
Why?
I am all in favor of National Parks and Monuments, but why should a
government that can barely manage Amtrak and the VA be entrusted with
the care of land not already in the custody of the Park Service,
Forest Service, and Fish & Game.
Why has Amtrak never managed to break even, much less make a profit,
or have I been misinformed? Aren't they always booked solid?
AMTRAK is a government enterprise, so by definition it is run
inefficiently. If they charged enough to pay for the cost of their
inefficient enterprise, they would lose riders, and bring in even less
revenue, so you get to subsidize it with your tax dollars.
And the commercial enterprises running passengers?
Commercial enterprises either pay for themselves, or they don't
happen. Buses, cars, and airlines do it. If the government wants to
be in the transportation business, that is OK with me, but please
charge the passengers enough to pay for the service.
"The expensive Amtrak fantasy"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/robert-samuelson-the-expensive-amtrak-fantasy/2013/03/05/4224bfe6-85de-11e2-9d71-f0feafdd1394_story.html
Hmmm. How much of our public works budget supports the infrastructure
that buses, cars, and trucks operate on? How much of our transportation
budget supports the infrastructure that airlines depend upon to stay in
operation? The bottom line is that most transportation industries are
heavily subsidized.
Hopefully Trump will shut down Amtrak. It would please me greatly.

"Amtrak Managed to Lose $833 Million Selling $9.50 Hamburgers"
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/08/your-950-hamburger-costs-amtrak-fortune/325114/

Mill Valley's Phyllis' Giant Burger, the best burger in Marin, sells
her famous half pound Giant Burger for $6.75, and makes money doing
it. Perhaps Amtrak should hire her?
http://www.phyllisgiantburgers.com/menu/burgers.html
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by wolfbat359
Post by El Castor
Post by Emily
Post by El Castor
Transfer the non
Park/Monument/Forest/Fish&Game land to the states or sell it to
farmers and ranchers who are probably already using it. The thousands
of bureaucrats who are busying themselves with that 386,000 square
miles of land should find something else to do with their time.
Or better yet, somehow manage to do a better job of what they're
supposed to be doing. My objection to that land being sold is that it
would almost certainly be bought by people who wanted to frack all
over the place, but with tRump and his minions in charge, they'll most
likely be able to frack the hell out of it without selling it.
It would be mildly inspirational to hear of even one government agency
that isn't obviously totally incompetent.
islander
2017-12-06 16:14:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 5 Dec 2017 14:03:00 -0800 (PST), wolfbat359
Post by wolfbat359
Post by El Castor
Post by Emily
On Sun, 03 Dec 2017 23:51:36 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by Emily
On Sun, 03 Dec 2017 13:23:19 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
On the subject of National Parks (ie. federal land ownership), the
federal government owns 47% of the land in the Western States. It's
about time something was done about that.
Why?
I am all in favor of National Parks and Monuments, but why should a
government that can barely manage Amtrak and the VA be entrusted with
the care of land not already in the custody of the Park Service,
Forest Service, and Fish & Game.
Why has Amtrak never managed to break even, much less make a profit,
or have I been misinformed? Aren't they always booked solid?
AMTRAK is a government enterprise, so by definition it is run
inefficiently. If they charged enough to pay for the cost of their
inefficient enterprise, they would lose riders, and bring in even less
revenue, so you get to subsidize it with your tax dollars.
And the commercial enterprises running passengers?
Commercial enterprises either pay for themselves, or they don't
happen. Buses, cars, and airlines do it. If the government wants to
be in the transportation business, that is OK with me, but please
charge the passengers enough to pay for the service.
"The expensive Amtrak fantasy"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/robert-samuelson-the-expensive-amtrak-fantasy/2013/03/05/4224bfe6-85de-11e2-9d71-f0feafdd1394_story.html
Hmmm. How much of our public works budget supports the infrastructure
that buses, cars, and trucks operate on? How much of our transportation
budget supports the infrastructure that airlines depend upon to stay in
operation? The bottom line is that most transportation industries are
heavily subsidized.
Hopefully Trump will shut down Amtrak. It would please me greatly.
"Amtrak Managed to Lose $833 Million Selling $9.50 Hamburgers"
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/08/your-950-hamburger-costs-amtrak-fortune/325114/
Mill Valley's Phyllis' Giant Burger, the best burger in Marin, sells
her famous half pound Giant Burger for $6.75, and makes money doing
it. Perhaps Amtrak should hire her?
http://www.phyllisgiantburgers.com/menu/burgers.html
Same problem on our ferries. Awful food!

Public transportation in this country sucks.

But then, reducing regulation on the airline industry has not improved
things either. The airlines now freely compete and the result is
horrible. Have you flown anywhere lately?
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by wolfbat359
Post by El Castor
Post by Emily
Post by El Castor
Transfer the non
Park/Monument/Forest/Fish&Game land to the states or sell it to
farmers and ranchers who are probably already using it. The thousands
of bureaucrats who are busying themselves with that 386,000 square
miles of land should find something else to do with their time.
Or better yet, somehow manage to do a better job of what they're
supposed to be doing. My objection to that land being sold is that it
would almost certainly be bought by people who wanted to frack all
over the place, but with tRump and his minions in charge, they'll most
likely be able to frack the hell out of it without selling it.
It would be mildly inspirational to hear of even one government agency
that isn't obviously totally incompetent.
El Castor
2017-12-06 17:35:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 5 Dec 2017 14:03:00 -0800 (PST), wolfbat359
Post by wolfbat359
Post by El Castor
Post by Emily
On Sun, 03 Dec 2017 23:51:36 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by Emily
On Sun, 03 Dec 2017 13:23:19 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
On the subject of National Parks (ie. federal land ownership), the
federal government owns 47% of the land in the Western States. It's
about time something was done about that.
Why?
I am all in favor of National Parks and Monuments, but why should a
government that can barely manage Amtrak and the VA be entrusted with
the care of land not already in the custody of the Park Service,
Forest Service, and Fish & Game.
Why has Amtrak never managed to break even, much less make a profit,
or have I been misinformed? Aren't they always booked solid?
AMTRAK is a government enterprise, so by definition it is run
inefficiently. If they charged enough to pay for the cost of their
inefficient enterprise, they would lose riders, and bring in even less
revenue, so you get to subsidize it with your tax dollars.
And the commercial enterprises running passengers?
Commercial enterprises either pay for themselves, or they don't
happen. Buses, cars, and airlines do it. If the government wants to
be in the transportation business, that is OK with me, but please
charge the passengers enough to pay for the service.
"The expensive Amtrak fantasy"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/robert-samuelson-the-expensive-amtrak-fantasy/2013/03/05/4224bfe6-85de-11e2-9d71-f0feafdd1394_story.html
Hmmm. How much of our public works budget supports the infrastructure
that buses, cars, and trucks operate on? How much of our transportation
budget supports the infrastructure that airlines depend upon to stay in
operation? The bottom line is that most transportation industries are
heavily subsidized.
Hopefully Trump will shut down Amtrak. It would please me greatly.
"Amtrak Managed to Lose $833 Million Selling $9.50 Hamburgers"
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/08/your-950-hamburger-costs-amtrak-fortune/325114/
Mill Valley's Phyllis' Giant Burger, the best burger in Marin, sells
her famous half pound Giant Burger for $6.75, and makes money doing
it. Perhaps Amtrak should hire her?
http://www.phyllisgiantburgers.com/menu/burgers.html
Same problem on our ferries. Awful food!
Public transportation in this country sucks.
But then, reducing regulation on the airline industry has not improved
things either. The airlines now freely compete and the result is
horrible. Have you flown anywhere lately?
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by wolfbat359
Post by El Castor
Post by Emily
Post by El Castor
Transfer the non
Park/Monument/Forest/Fish&Game land to the states or sell it to
farmers and ranchers who are probably already using it. The thousands
of bureaucrats who are busying themselves with that 386,000 square
miles of land should find something else to do with their time.
Or better yet, somehow manage to do a better job of what they're
supposed to be doing. My objection to that land being sold is that it
would almost certainly be bought by people who wanted to frack all
over the place, but with tRump and his minions in charge, they'll most
likely be able to frack the hell out of it without selling it.
It would be mildly inspirational to hear of even one government agency
that isn't obviously totally incompetent.
The worst part of flying is the TSA lines. (-8

In any event, the point I was trying to make on the hamburgers was the
high cost of the burger for passengers, and the even higher cost to
the tax payer. You've probably read my account of under spending my
division's quarterly budget on the carrier I served on during the
Vietnam war. My boss, the Main Propulsion Assistant, ordered me to get
my ass in gear and spend every cent. Had that been the bank I later
worked for, I would have been congratulated and told to keep up the
good work.
islander
2017-12-06 23:48:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 5 Dec 2017 14:03:00 -0800 (PST), wolfbat359
Post by wolfbat359
Post by El Castor
Post by Emily
On Sun, 03 Dec 2017 23:51:36 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by Emily
On Sun, 03 Dec 2017 13:23:19 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
On the subject of National Parks (ie. federal land ownership), the
federal government owns 47% of the land in the Western States. It's
about time something was done about that.
Why?
I am all in favor of National Parks and Monuments, but why should a
government that can barely manage Amtrak and the VA be entrusted with
the care of land not already in the custody of the Park Service,
Forest Service, and Fish & Game.
Why has Amtrak never managed to break even, much less make a profit,
or have I been misinformed? Aren't they always booked solid?
AMTRAK is a government enterprise, so by definition it is run
inefficiently. If they charged enough to pay for the cost of their
inefficient enterprise, they would lose riders, and bring in even less
revenue, so you get to subsidize it with your tax dollars.
And the commercial enterprises running passengers?
Commercial enterprises either pay for themselves, or they don't
happen. Buses, cars, and airlines do it. If the government wants to
be in the transportation business, that is OK with me, but please
charge the passengers enough to pay for the service.
"The expensive Amtrak fantasy"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/robert-samuelson-the-expensive-amtrak-fantasy/2013/03/05/4224bfe6-85de-11e2-9d71-f0feafdd1394_story.html
Hmmm. How much of our public works budget supports the infrastructure
that buses, cars, and trucks operate on? How much of our transportation
budget supports the infrastructure that airlines depend upon to stay in
operation? The bottom line is that most transportation industries are
heavily subsidized.
Hopefully Trump will shut down Amtrak. It would please me greatly.
"Amtrak Managed to Lose $833 Million Selling $9.50 Hamburgers"
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/08/your-950-hamburger-costs-amtrak-fortune/325114/
Mill Valley's Phyllis' Giant Burger, the best burger in Marin, sells
her famous half pound Giant Burger for $6.75, and makes money doing
it. Perhaps Amtrak should hire her?
http://www.phyllisgiantburgers.com/menu/burgers.html
Same problem on our ferries. Awful food!
Public transportation in this country sucks.
But then, reducing regulation on the airline industry has not improved
things either. The airlines now freely compete and the result is
horrible. Have you flown anywhere lately?
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by wolfbat359
Post by El Castor
Post by Emily
Post by El Castor
Transfer the non
Park/Monument/Forest/Fish&Game land to the states or sell it to
farmers and ranchers who are probably already using it. The thousands
of bureaucrats who are busying themselves with that 386,000 square
miles of land should find something else to do with their time.
Or better yet, somehow manage to do a better job of what they're
supposed to be doing. My objection to that land being sold is that it
would almost certainly be bought by people who wanted to frack all
over the place, but with tRump and his minions in charge, they'll most
likely be able to frack the hell out of it without selling it.
It would be mildly inspirational to hear of even one government agency
that isn't obviously totally incompetent.
The worst part of flying is the TSA lines. (-8
In any event, the point I was trying to make on the hamburgers was the
high cost of the burger for passengers, and the even higher cost to
the tax payer. You've probably read my account of under spending my
division's quarterly budget on the carrier I served on during the
Vietnam war. My boss, the Main Propulsion Assistant, ordered me to get
my ass in gear and spend every cent. Had that been the bank I later
worked for, I would have been congratulated and told to keep up the
good work.
How much do you know about budgeting? You spend against your budget and
if you come up short, one of two things happen. Either you find ways to
spend your remaining funds with management ignoring what you are doing
or the money goes back into the budget at the next higher level. In my
experience at DARPA, there was constant awareness of performance against
budget and if you were behind in your spending, the money was made
available to other projects, even in other divisions. There is never a
shortage of ways to spend money, but if management is paying attention,
money is reapportioned to meet need.

This is a product of good or bad fiscal management. It has nothing to
do with government.
El Castor
2017-12-07 08:34:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 5 Dec 2017 14:03:00 -0800 (PST), wolfbat359
Post by wolfbat359
Post by El Castor
Post by Emily
On Sun, 03 Dec 2017 23:51:36 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by Emily
On Sun, 03 Dec 2017 13:23:19 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
On the subject of National Parks (ie. federal land ownership), the
federal government owns 47% of the land in the Western States. It's
about time something was done about that.
Why?
I am all in favor of National Parks and Monuments, but why should a
government that can barely manage Amtrak and the VA be entrusted with
the care of land not already in the custody of the Park Service,
Forest Service, and Fish & Game.
Why has Amtrak never managed to break even, much less make a profit,
or have I been misinformed? Aren't they always booked solid?
AMTRAK is a government enterprise, so by definition it is run
inefficiently. If they charged enough to pay for the cost of their
inefficient enterprise, they would lose riders, and bring in even less
revenue, so you get to subsidize it with your tax dollars.
And the commercial enterprises running passengers?
Commercial enterprises either pay for themselves, or they don't
happen. Buses, cars, and airlines do it. If the government wants to
be in the transportation business, that is OK with me, but please
charge the passengers enough to pay for the service.
"The expensive Amtrak fantasy"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/robert-samuelson-the-expensive-amtrak-fantasy/2013/03/05/4224bfe6-85de-11e2-9d71-f0feafdd1394_story.html
Hmmm. How much of our public works budget supports the infrastructure
that buses, cars, and trucks operate on? How much of our transportation
budget supports the infrastructure that airlines depend upon to stay in
operation? The bottom line is that most transportation industries are
heavily subsidized.
Hopefully Trump will shut down Amtrak. It would please me greatly.
"Amtrak Managed to Lose $833 Million Selling $9.50 Hamburgers"
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/08/your-950-hamburger-costs-amtrak-fortune/325114/
Mill Valley's Phyllis' Giant Burger, the best burger in Marin, sells
her famous half pound Giant Burger for $6.75, and makes money doing
it. Perhaps Amtrak should hire her?
http://www.phyllisgiantburgers.com/menu/burgers.html
Same problem on our ferries. Awful food!
Public transportation in this country sucks.
But then, reducing regulation on the airline industry has not improved
things either. The airlines now freely compete and the result is
horrible. Have you flown anywhere lately?
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by wolfbat359
Post by El Castor
Post by Emily
Post by El Castor
Transfer the non
Park/Monument/Forest/Fish&Game land to the states or sell it to
farmers and ranchers who are probably already using it. The thousands
of bureaucrats who are busying themselves with that 386,000 square
miles of land should find something else to do with their time.
Or better yet, somehow manage to do a better job of what they're
supposed to be doing. My objection to that land being sold is that it
would almost certainly be bought by people who wanted to frack all
over the place, but with tRump and his minions in charge, they'll most
likely be able to frack the hell out of it without selling it.
It would be mildly inspirational to hear of even one government agency
that isn't obviously totally incompetent.
The worst part of flying is the TSA lines. (-8
In any event, the point I was trying to make on the hamburgers was the
high cost of the burger for passengers, and the even higher cost to
the tax payer. You've probably read my account of under spending my
division's quarterly budget on the carrier I served on during the
Vietnam war. My boss, the Main Propulsion Assistant, ordered me to get
my ass in gear and spend every cent. Had that been the bank I later
worked for, I would have been congratulated and told to keep up the
good work.
How much do you know about budgeting? You spend against your budget and
if you come up short, one of two things happen. Either you find ways to
spend your remaining funds with management ignoring what you are doing
or the money goes back into the budget at the next higher level. In my
experience at DARPA, there was constant awareness of performance against
budget and if you were behind in your spending, the money was made
available to other projects, even in other divisions. There is never a
shortage of ways to spend money, but if management is paying attention,
money is reapportioned to meet need.
This is a product of good or bad fiscal management. It has nothing to
do with government.
Government is an obvious necessity, but it has potential flaws that
perhaps are always going to be with us. As a conservative I am
probably more uhh "sensitive" to those issues than you are.

Free enterprise is forced to police itself. The local hamburger place
I mentioned has numerous competitors -- so first it is going to try to
have the best product, and maybe one that differentiates it from its
competitors. It competes on quality, but it also must compete on
price, and in doing so the cost of the materials (bun, burger, etc) as
well as labor and rent all figure into the picture. A successful
hamburger is the product of a very complex juggling act that in the
end comes down to the best most efficiently produced product. The same
process has car companies competing with each other, smart phone
manufacturers, and virtually every product you buy on Amazon.

DARPA is an unusual and inventive attempts to make good use of free
market competition, but government is not DARPA. Government is largely
bureaucratic administration. Here is the list. It is incredible ...
https://www.usa.gov/federal-agencies/a
The first 10 starting with the letter "A" ...
AbilityOne Commission
Access Board
Administration for Children and Families (ACF)
Administration for Community Living
Administration for Native Americans
Administrative Conference of the United States
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
African Development Foundation
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)

What is important in a bureaucracy. The best hamburger or the best
iPhone. Not really. Often I suspect it comes down to titles, numbers
supervised, perceived importance, pay grade, and pension. The product
might be wonderful, but how often is it an AMTRAK, a VA, or simply an
out of control bloat? Probably far more often than we realize.
wolfbat359
2017-12-07 13:20:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 5 Dec 2017 14:03:00 -0800 (PST), wolfbat359
Post by wolfbat359
Post by El Castor
Post by Emily
On Sun, 03 Dec 2017 23:51:36 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by Emily
On Sun, 03 Dec 2017 13:23:19 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
On the subject of National Parks (ie. federal land ownership), the
federal government owns 47% of the land in the Western States. It's
about time something was done about that.
Why?
I am all in favor of National Parks and Monuments, but why should a
government that can barely manage Amtrak and the VA be entrusted with
the care of land not already in the custody of the Park Service,
Forest Service, and Fish & Game.
Why has Amtrak never managed to break even, much less make a profit,
or have I been misinformed? Aren't they always booked solid?
AMTRAK is a government enterprise, so by definition it is run
inefficiently. If they charged enough to pay for the cost of their
inefficient enterprise, they would lose riders, and bring in even less
revenue, so you get to subsidize it with your tax dollars.
And the commercial enterprises running passengers?
Commercial enterprises either pay for themselves, or they don't
happen. Buses, cars, and airlines do it. If the government wants to
be in the transportation business, that is OK with me, but please
charge the passengers enough to pay for the service.
"The expensive Amtrak fantasy"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/robert-samuelson-the-expensive-amtrak-fantasy/2013/03/05/4224bfe6-85de-11e2-9d71-f0feafdd1394_story.html
Hmmm. How much of our public works budget supports the infrastructure
that buses, cars, and trucks operate on? How much of our transportation
budget supports the infrastructure that airlines depend upon to stay in
operation? The bottom line is that most transportation industries are
heavily subsidized.
Hopefully Trump will shut down Amtrak. It would please me greatly.
"Amtrak Managed to Lose $833 Million Selling $9.50 Hamburgers"
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/08/your-950-hamburger-costs-amtrak-fortune/325114/
Mill Valley's Phyllis' Giant Burger, the best burger in Marin, sells
her famous half pound Giant Burger for $6.75, and makes money doing
it. Perhaps Amtrak should hire her?
http://www.phyllisgiantburgers.com/menu/burgers.html
Same problem on our ferries. Awful food!
Public transportation in this country sucks.
But then, reducing regulation on the airline industry has not improved
things either. The airlines now freely compete and the result is
horrible. Have you flown anywhere lately?
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by wolfbat359
Post by El Castor
Post by Emily
Post by El Castor
Transfer the non
Park/Monument/Forest/Fish&Game land to the states or sell it to
farmers and ranchers who are probably already using it. The thousands
of bureaucrats who are busying themselves with that 386,000 square
miles of land should find something else to do with their time.
Or better yet, somehow manage to do a better job of what they're
supposed to be doing. My objection to that land being sold is that it
would almost certainly be bought by people who wanted to frack all
over the place, but with tRump and his minions in charge, they'll most
likely be able to frack the hell out of it without selling it.
It would be mildly inspirational to hear of even one government agency
that isn't obviously totally incompetent.
The worst part of flying is the TSA lines. (-8
In any event, the point I was trying to make on the hamburgers was the
high cost of the burger for passengers, and the even higher cost to
the tax payer. You've probably read my account of under spending my
division's quarterly budget on the carrier I served on during the
Vietnam war. My boss, the Main Propulsion Assistant, ordered me to get
my ass in gear and spend every cent. Had that been the bank I later
worked for, I would have been congratulated and told to keep up the
good work.
How much do you know about budgeting? You spend against your budget and
if you come up short, one of two things happen. Either you find ways to
spend your remaining funds with management ignoring what you are doing
or the money goes back into the budget at the next higher level. In my
experience at DARPA, there was constant awareness of performance against
budget and if you were behind in your spending, the money was made
available to other projects, even in other divisions. There is never a
shortage of ways to spend money, but if management is paying attention,
money is reapportioned to meet need.
This is a product of good or bad fiscal management. It has nothing to
do with government.
Government is an obvious necessity, but it has potential flaws that
perhaps are always going to be with us. As a conservative I am
probably more uhh "sensitive" to those issues than you are.
Free enterprise is forced to police itself. The local hamburger place
I mentioned has numerous competitors -- so first it is going to try to
have the best product, and maybe one that differentiates it from its
competitors. It competes on quality, but it also must compete on
price,
Often they conclude to fix prices high! Unless they are monopolies and then they can charge high prices!

Price fixing is an agreement between participants on the same side in a market to buy or sell a product, service, or commodity only at a fixed price, or maintain the market conditions such that the price is maintained at a given level by controlling supply and demand.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_fixing


https://www.thebalance.com/price-fixing-types-examples-why-it-s-illegal-3305955




and in doing so the cost of the materials (bun, burger, etc) as
Post by El Castor
well as labor and rent all figure into the picture. A successful
hamburger is the product of a very complex juggling act that in the
end comes down to the best most efficiently produced product. The same
process has car companies competing with each other, smart phone
manufacturers, and virtually every product you buy on Amazon.
DARPA is an unusual and inventive attempts to make good use of free
market competition, but government is not DARPA. Government is largely
bureaucratic administration. Here is the list. It is incredible ...
https://www.usa.gov/federal-agencies/a
The first 10 starting with the letter "A" ...
AbilityOne Commission
Access Board
Administration for Children and Families (ACF)
Administration for Community Living
Administration for Native Americans
Administrative Conference of the United States
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
African Development Foundation
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)
What is important in a bureaucracy. The best hamburger or the best
iPhone. Not really. Often I suspect it comes down to titles, numbers
supervised, perceived importance, pay grade, and pension. The product
might be wonderful, but how often is it an AMTRAK, a VA, or simply an
out of control bloat? Probably far more often than we realize.
wolfbat359
2017-12-04 05:19:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by Emily
Post by islander
Post by Emily
Post by islander
I don't think that Trump cares what is in the tax bill as long as he can
claim a legislative accomplishment. The Republican dominated Congress
is determined to take advantage of that. If this tax bill passes, it
will be the biggest gift to the wealthy ever put into law, even
comparing it to the largess of Andrew Mellon during the Golden Age.
That produced the Great Depression.
I see us charging headlong into doom. I don't know if we can survive
until we can vote these idiots out. I see hard times ahead. I'm
feeling grateful that I got to enjoy several damned good decades and
I'm not all that upset that I probably won't be around to see a lot of
the fallout from this disaster.
It took GW Bush 7 years to destroy the economy. Perhaps Trump is trying
to do it in half the time. :(
He's not only trying to destroy the economy, he's going for everything
-- education, national parks, health care, you name it. Has he, or
his faithful minions, done anything that is of benefit to anyone but
the filthy rich?
On the subject of National Parks (ie. federal land ownership), the
federal government owns 47% of the land in the Western States. It's
about time something was done about that.
Yep, the Feds have protected vast stretches of land in Western US! Given to the states they are often sold to the highest bidder. Leading to fragmented landscapes, loss of wildlife habitat and the loss of places people can go to recreate!
Jack Fate
2017-12-01 11:20:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@my-deja.com
The national debt is not their concern, they know it will not
shrink it, but only make it bigger.
Oh, they will be all up in arms about the debt after the bill passes and
will go after Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps and Social Security. They
will suddenly become born again deficit hawks.
Tzatz Ziki
2017-12-03 23:05:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Oh,
"...but I will no longer be posting here. No one here is going to change
so, basically, I'm wasting the little time I have left by posting to
this obscure little group full of stupid bigoted and racist Trump
lovers."
Tzatz Ziki
2017-12-03 23:07:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Bu
"...but I will no longer be posting here. No one here is going to change
so, basically, I'm wasting the little time I have left by posting to
this obscure little group full of stupid bigoted and racist Trump
lovers."
wolfbat359
2017-11-30 19:03:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GLOBALIST
By Christopher Ruddy
Wednesday, 29 Nov 2017
I am backing President Trump’s efforts for a major tax reduction and reform plan because I think it will create one of the greatest economic booms in history.
Despite serious concerns about some provisions, buried in the Senate and House tax bills is a golden nugget.
The final tax plan won’t be hammered out until the House and Senate each pass their respective bills and send them to the conference committee where the president can truly weigh in.
So far everybody has been talking about the individual and business tax rates, but the true “gift” of the Trump tax plan will be in the proposed special rate for businesses that repatriate money from abroad.
Today, close to $3 trillion in profits sit in the coffers of U.S. company subsidiaries all across the globe. These companies have refused to repatriate these funds because tax rates here are confiscatory — among the highest in the developed world.
Lowering the repatriation tax rate to just 10 percent, as proposed by the Senate plan, will yield tremendous results. Assuming $2.5 trillion is brought back into the U.S. economy, it will serve as the greatest stimulus ever.
Consider that Obama’s stimulus of 2009 amounted to more than $850 billion. This will be almost three times that amount!
This one part of the tax plan will drive the economy for the next 10 years.
Everyone will benefit. And President Trump will see an open path for re-election in 2020. This will happen despite the protestations of CNN, MSNBC, and the elite class.
But there are also poison pills in the tax plans floating through Congress.
Former Bush Ambassador Earle Mack has written in The Hill about the inequities of the individual tax cuts versus the business cuts. For example, the individual tax cuts sunset after 2025. But the business cuts never do. That’s not right.
And Randy Levine, the Yankees president and a long-time supporter of President Trump, warns that a political disaster is looming if the state and local tax deduction (SALT) is not kept.
He’s right that eliminating it would amount to double taxation for many. (See “Mr. President, the Tax Plan Needs a Big Fix!")
And he’s also right that it will lead to political disaster for Trump and the Republicans.
Levine also points out that the “carried interest” tax loophole, which allows hedge fund operators to treat fees on their clients’ investments as capital gains instead of ordinary income and thus enjoy a lower tax rate, remains in the Senate bill.
As I said, the Senate and House should pass the respective bills, warts and all, and move it to the conference committee.
That’s when the president should pounce.
He should keep the big cuts, but also key deductions like SALT and charitable deductions, which could be eliminated for those who don’t itemize.
Thousands of churches and small nonprofits that depend on modest donations will soon find themselves crippled if that key deduction is struck.
President Trump has tremendously good political instincts coupled with powerful negotiating abilities.
Congress loaded a lot of “junk” on what should have been a clean tax reduction bill.
Soon the President will have his moment to get Congress to do the right thing. We need to unite behind President Trump and help him accomplish the mission.
---------------------------
Christopher Ruddy is CEO of Newsmax Media, Inc., one of the country's leading conservative news outlets. Read more Christopher Ruddy Insider articles — Click Here Now.
Like all his other "greatest" plans and outcomes! = LOL
bill bowden
2017-12-02 01:48:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Why is that? Is a corporate tax cut a gift to the wealthy?
A corporate tax cut simply reduces the price of their service/product since any taxes they pay are passed on to the consumer. So, it's the consumer that gets the tax break.
El Castor
2017-12-02 09:11:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 1 Dec 2017 17:48:27 -0800 (PST), bill bowden
Post by bill bowden
Post by El Castor
Why is that? Is a corporate tax cut a gift to the wealthy?
A corporate tax cut simply reduces the price of their service/product since any taxes they pay are passed on to the consumer. So, it's the consumer that gets the tax break.
True, and since business and manufacturing has become multinational,
corporations are compelled to book earnings in a country like Ireland,
with a corporate rate of 12.5%, compared to our rate of 39.5%. Even
Sweden is only 22%. Apple has 5,500 jobs in Ireland. Burger King
packed up its headquarters and left the US, along with 40 or 50 others
in the last 10 years.

"What’s driving American firms overseas
America needs tax reform if it wants to stem the flow of firms abroad"
https://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2015/08/economist-explains-9
wolfbat359
2017-12-02 10:26:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bill bowden
Post by El Castor
Why is that? Is a corporate tax cut a gift to the wealthy?
A corporate tax cut simply reduces the price of their service/product since any taxes they pay are passed on to the consumer. So, it's the consumer that gets the tax break.
Why reduce prices when you can increase profits!
bill bowden
2017-12-03 04:40:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
So why does socialist Sweden have a 22% rate?
"Large, profitable U.S. corporations paid an average effective federal tax rate of 12.6% in 2010, the Government Accountability Office said Monday. The federal corporate tax rate stands at 35%, and jumps to 39.2% when state rates are taken into account.Jul 1, 2013 "

But nobody pays that. So it really doesn't matter what taxes they pay since it's all passed on to the consumer. Who cares what they pay other than higher corporate taxes equates to higher prices and higher costs to the consumer.
rumpelstiltskin
2017-12-03 07:26:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 2 Dec 2017 20:40:22 -0800 (PST), bill bowden
Post by bill bowden
Post by El Castor
So why does socialist Sweden have a 22% rate?
"Large, profitable U.S. corporations paid an average effective federal tax rate of 12.6% in 2010, the Government Accountability Office said Monday. The federal corporate tax rate stands at 35%, and jumps to 39.2% when state rates are taken into account.Jul 1, 2013 "
But nobody pays that. So it really doesn't matter what taxes they pay since it's all passed on to the consumer. Who cares what they pay other than higher corporate taxes equates to higher prices and higher costs to the consumer.
That assumes any savings from not paying higher taxes actually
are passed on to the consumer, but of course that doesn't happen
very much. We have so many billionaires in the USA because any
profits go preferentially to them.

Here are some charts:
https://tinyurl.com/yaqkdz3d
https://tinyurl.com/y9q6k2cs
me
2017-12-03 14:48:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
These charts do not show what you say they show. It shows the wealthy are getting wealthier not that lower corporate taxes are not passed on to consumers.

See
https://taxfoundation.org/ten-benefits-cutting-us-corporate-tax-rate/
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/451811/corporate-tax-cuts-benefit-ordinary-workers
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/07/tax_cuts.asp
islander
2017-12-03 15:56:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
So why does socialist Sweden have a 22% rate?
"Large, profitable U.S. corporations paid an average effective federal tax rate of 12.6% in 2010, the Government Accountability Office said Monday. The federal corporate tax rate stands at 35%, and jumps to 39.2% when state rates are taken into account.Jul 1, 2013"
But nobody pays that. So it really doesn't matter what taxes they pay since it's all passed on to the consumer. Who cares what they pay other than higher corporate taxes equates to higher prices and higher costs to the consumer.
Bill, by that same logic, the revenue paid in taxes supports government
services provided to the public who are the same consumers that you
refer to. What you seem to be missing is that any savings realized by
corporations is not likely to be passed on to the consumer, nor is it
likely to produce jobs. Why would any corporation reduce their
profitability, especially in inelastic markets. This is fundamentally
the difference between cost and price. Price is determined by the
market. Taxes are a cost. There is no reason to pass along cost
savings to the customer. It makes much more sense for companies to
either increase dividends or (more likely) to buy up their own stock in
order to inflate the price. The consumer will not benefit from this.

What we want is a healthy economy. What I see in state governments, the
supposed laboratories of democracy, is that the conservative claims of
reduced taxes are a sham. There is little partisan difference in the
amount of money spent by state governments, but a big difference in what
they spend it on. Liberal states have more vibrant economies and a
higher standard of living than conservative states. Why? Because they
take care of the people. People in liberal states tend to be happier
than those in conservative states and happy people tend to be more
productive.
https://wallethub.com/edu/happiest-states/6959/
bill bowden
2017-12-04 01:41:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
But nobody pays that. So it really doesn't matter what taxes they pay since >>it's all passed on to the consumer. Who cares what they pay other than higher >>corporate taxes equates to higher prices and higher costs to the consumer.
Bill, by that same logic, the revenue paid in taxes supports government
services provided to the public who are the same consumers that you
refer to. What you seem to be missing is that any savings realized by
corporations is not likely to be passed on to the consumer, nor is it
likely to produce jobs. Why would any corporation reduce their
profitability, especially in inelastic markets. This is fundamentally
the difference between cost and price. Price is determined by the
market. Taxes are a cost. There is no reason to pass along cost
savings to the customer. It makes much more sense for companies to
either increase dividends or (more likely) to buy up their own stock in
order to inflate the price. The consumer will not benefit from this.
What we want is a healthy economy. What I see in state governments, the
supposed laboratories of democracy, is that the conservative claims of
reduced taxes are a sham. There is little partisan difference in the
amount of money spent by state governments, but a big difference in what
they spend it on. Liberal states have more vibrant economies and a
higher standard of living than conservative states. Why? Because they
take care of the people. People in liberal states tend to be happier
than those in conservative states and happy people tend to be more
productive.
https://wallethub.com/edu/happiest-states/6959/
I think I agree with Jeff that corporations are seeking lower tax rates abroad. They have to remain competitive, so if the competition moves overseas, they have to do the same thing or die. As to stock buybacks, whoever is a stock holder benefits from that. My one share of AMZN has gone up 16 percent in 4 months. But as to government services, I was talking to a vietnam veteran today (who was shot up in the war and has a purple heart) who recently qualified for assisted housing and now lives in a studio apartment with a room-mate at government expense (no drugs or alcohol). And there is nothing wrong with the guy, he could easily get a job. He tried to talk me into claiming I suffered from PTSD even though I was never in a war zone and I could have a free apartment. I wasn't interested since I'm not homeless yet.
islander
2017-12-04 14:46:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bill bowden
Post by islander
But nobody pays that. So it really doesn't matter what taxes they pay since >>it's all passed on to the consumer. Who cares what they pay other than higher >>corporate taxes equates to higher prices and higher costs to the consumer.
Bill, by that same logic, the revenue paid in taxes supports government
services provided to the public who are the same consumers that you
refer to. What you seem to be missing is that any savings realized by
corporations is not likely to be passed on to the consumer, nor is it
likely to produce jobs. Why would any corporation reduce their
profitability, especially in inelastic markets. This is fundamentally
the difference between cost and price. Price is determined by the
market. Taxes are a cost. There is no reason to pass along cost
savings to the customer. It makes much more sense for companies to
either increase dividends or (more likely) to buy up their own stock in
order to inflate the price. The consumer will not benefit from this.
What we want is a healthy economy. What I see in state governments, the
supposed laboratories of democracy, is that the conservative claims of
reduced taxes are a sham. There is little partisan difference in the
amount of money spent by state governments, but a big difference in what
they spend it on. Liberal states have more vibrant economies and a
higher standard of living than conservative states. Why? Because they
take care of the people. People in liberal states tend to be happier
than those in conservative states and happy people tend to be more
productive.
https://wallethub.com/edu/happiest-states/6959/
I think I agree with Jeff that corporations are seeking lower tax rates abroad. They have to remain competitive, so if the competition moves overseas, they have to do the same thing or die. As to stock buybacks, whoever is a stock holder benefits from that. My one share of AMZN has gone up 16 percent in 4 months. But as to government services, I was talking to a vietnam veteran today (who was shot up in the war and has a purple heart) who recently qualified for assisted housing and now lives in a studio apartment with a room-mate at government expense (no drugs or alcohol). And there is nothing wrong with the guy, he could easily get a job. He tried to talk me into claiming I suffered from PTSD even though I was never in a war zone and I could have a free apartment. I wasn't interested since I'm not homeless yet.
I'm glad for you that you got lucky in the stock market, but you cannot
live on the return on one share of AMZN. Most people know nothing about
investing and don't have the time or interest in learning. The result
is that most ownership of equities in held in the top 5%.

Jeff likes to cite the various tax schemes that companies use to avoid
paying US taxes. They are schemes that have almost nothing to do with
the reasons for moving manufacturing abroad. They are simply a way of
moving money soas to take advantage of the lowest taxes, for example
moving a token headquarters to Ireland or Poland and then cycling the
money through a bank an Panama is a pretty common way of taking
advantage of the loopholes in our tax law. There will always be
countries that will offer lower taxes and favorable tax law and reducing
the US top marginal rate to 20% will not change that. As I've mentioned
before, the primary reasons for moving companies abroad is low labor
rates and lax regulations. Germany is an excellent example of how a
country can prosper by taking care of their workers. We should take a
lesson.

As to the vet who you know who got a "free" apartment. Homelessness
among vets is a national disgrace. For those suffering from PTSD, from
a practical point of view, it is less expensive to put them in an
apartment than to pay the costs of leaving them on the street. It is a
good program and was badly needed to help these men try to rebuild their
lives. Perhaps the vet in your example was gaming the system - there
will always be a few who would stoop to that. If so, shame on him for
taking an apartment that another vet deserved. But, if he is actually
suffering from PTSD, you might not know it. It is a nasty affliction
that destroys the life of not only the vet, but also those who are close
to him. You should probably not judge him unless you are qualified to
diagnose him.
bill bowden
2017-12-04 20:06:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Perhaps the vet in your example was gaming the system - there
will always be a few who would stoop to that. If so, shame on him for
taking an apartment that another vet deserved. But, if he is actually
suffering from PTSD, you might not know it. It is a nasty affliction
that destroys the life of not only the vet, but also those who are close
to him. You should probably not judge him unless you are qualified to
diagnose him.
You are probably right. I shouldn't judge anyone without extensive knowledge. I've known the guy for 23 years but never discussed the details of his disability. I bought a 18 watt solar panel from him in 1994 which is still my favorite possession. I would imagine if you ever had to level the sights of a rifle on another human being and pull the trigger and watch that person fall to the ground would qualify for a free apartment.
rumpelstiltskin
2017-12-04 21:14:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 12:06:10 -0800 (PST), bill bowden
Post by bill bowden
Post by islander
Perhaps the vet in your example was gaming the system - there
will always be a few who would stoop to that. If so, shame on him for
taking an apartment that another vet deserved. But, if he is actually
suffering from PTSD, you might not know it. It is a nasty affliction
that destroys the life of not only the vet, but also those who are close
to him. You should probably not judge him unless you are qualified to
diagnose him.
You are probably right. I shouldn't judge anyone without extensive knowledge. I've known the guy for 23 years but never discussed the details of his disability. I bought a 18 watt solar panel from him in 1994 which is still my favorite possession. I would imagine if you ever had to level the sights of a rifle on another human being and pull the trigger and watch that person fall to the ground would qualify for a free apartment.
Some people, civilians, will kill a 15-year-old kid
just to steal his sneakers. 1200 people a year
are killed for sneakers, according to this site:

https://tinyurl.com/yak2hfpm
bill bowden
2017-12-05 00:26:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Some people, civilians, will kill a 15-year-old kid
just to steal his sneakers. 1200 people a year
https://tinyurl.com/yak2hfpm
1200 is a drop in the bucket. During the vietnam war it was 250 a week or 13 thousand a year. And Islander was wrong about market investors. It's not 5%, more like 43% since there are 53 million workers invested in 401K plans out of 123 million eligible workers. They all own stocks whether they know that or not.
rumpelstiltskin
2017-12-05 01:15:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 16:26:14 -0800 (PST), bill bowden
Post by bill bowden
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Some people, civilians, will kill a 15-year-old kid
just to steal his sneakers. 1200 people a year
https://tinyurl.com/yak2hfpm
1200 is a drop in the bucket. During the vietnam war it was 250 a week or 13 thousand a year. And Islander was wrong about market investors. It's not 5%, more like 43% since there are 53 million workers invested in 401K plans out of 123 million eligible workers. They all own stocks whether they know that or not.
That was war though, and this is teenaged kids getting murdered
just for their sneakers. When we heard about it, I said to Rook
"Life is cheap." He agreed and came up with other examples.
islander
2017-12-05 02:20:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bill bowden
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Some people, civilians, will kill a 15-year-old kid
just to steal his sneakers. 1200 people a year
https://tinyurl.com/yak2hfpm
1200 is a drop in the bucket. During the vietnam war it was 250 a week or 13 thousand a year. And Islander was wrong about market investors. It's not 5%, more like 43% since there are 53 million workers invested in 401K plans out of 123 million eligible workers. They all own stocks whether they know that or not.
Bill, you misunderstood. I said that most equities are held by the top
5%. Most working people in 401K plans have very little invested.
Loading...