Teh Ricer Civic!

Well there is nothing to prevent another metal from working. Just takes a little research and some good old try 'n see experimentation.

A little McCain quote. Hmmm... McCain calling for REGULATIONS on Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac? What?? Obama has been receiving money from Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac. There's change we can believe in! Perhaps its possible, just possible, that if congress had listened to this commission, this current crisis could have at least somewhat been eased or possibly averted.

i think you may have misread what i showed. Our income/SS taxes are roughly EQUAL to theirs. So unless they have some pretty insane sales tax or property tax, their people are effectively being taxed less than ours and yet have government "services". This would tell me that A) their government is ran as efficient as a company, or B) we would be better off with a 3rd grader managing our governments spending. The operative words being "right now" This was not the case for much of the last half century. Speaking of employment, this little article does a nice job discussing it. http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2...lead_us_to.html just to warn you this is a supply side guy. He is not a Keynesian guy. And just watch, the poor US economy is generally what drives global markets, if we fall into a recession they probably will or will fare very very low growth. And to your response about unionization, yes that is true, but protections almost always hurt more than they help. So what say you to that? Unfortunately, while this little bail-out by the non-fiscally-conservative Bush administration may have saved our little behinds in the stock market, it has also opened up the possibility that our GOVERNMENT COULD DEFAULT. Now, essentially, the government is going to buy extremely high risk securities. It is still POSSIBLE that these securities may yield a possible cash flow. If that is the case (or they turn out to only loose a little) in the end it wouldn't really have cost the government very much or perhaps they could have made money on the deal (which could be a nice sum of cash). However, literally all these securities are worthless at the moment and are thus illiquid. If these securities end up to be truly worthless, then we are in for a world of hurt. So now, more than ever, It should be the goal of our next president not so much on social issues (They will still be there once things are A-OK) but for economic issues. Deficit reduction will be vital. Whoever becomes president must realize this. They must also realize that increased government spending to "fix" the economy probably wont work (at least not if you want to create lots of new jobs, if you only want some new jobs then sure). They will have to cut government spending and begin to reduce the debt before it consumes us.

Well on the flip side, Keynesian economics didn't exactly do wonders for us from the 60s to "supply side" Regan era. Plus, American culture is far different than Japanese, In Japan, if the CEO fails, they take that as a hit to their personal honor. If an American CEO fails, he takes his severance pay and merrily hops off to find another company to ruin. This is taken off a Netherlands website, their income tax is BRUTAL: So that means that if we had that here in the USA, by the time we made about 32,500 bucks we would be in the top income tax bracket. I am not familiar with their other taxes (i assume they have a property tax too). Although... we pay about 15% into SS/FICA + 25% for middle class... thats 40%. Eh... they must have some other revenues from somewhere. and 35%+15% = 50%. So... basically increasing the taxes on OUR wealthiest puts them at a potentially GREATER disadvantage than those who live in the Netherlands... without me knowing what other tax laws they have. It appears they also have a "wage tax" although i dont see any numbers for it, nor understand how its different than an income tax. Heres some Dutch corporation tax code. ::EDIT:: looking at the website im getting this off of, this may only be for foreigners who reside in the netherlands and not citizens... im somewhat confused. Additionally, i do understand that demand drives supply. However, i don't approve of taking one mans money and giving it to another because "they need it." Like i said, if the great masses of Americans want better pay, Unionize! But it will still contribute to driving up costs, so in the end, whats the point? I think the best approach lies somewhere in the middle between Demand Side and Supply side. Your ideas have merit to them, and supply-side has some merit to it too. Just like on health care both sides have SOME MERIT to them. I suppose theoretically having higher taxes across the board could POSSIBLY lead to lower inflation rates, because people simply don't have as much money which means things need to cost less for them to be able to afford it. If that is the case, then there really is a net zero sum in the long run (other than the government not having a debt). But the government must maintain responsibility because if it decides to spend it, it may create rather vast inflation very quickly.

I know! if we really want to address health care at this time, we should wait until we have this deficit settled. tieing up 10% (and increasing daily) of our budget into interest is crazy. Additional government programs really need to be put on hold until this is all repaid IMO, the public won't want to hear it, but then again most of the public doesn't understand the ramifications of this in the long run. However, it seems as if Obama's method to do this is to cut our military/defense expenditures. I'm not really sure that's the best way to go about our deficit in these times. EDIT:: You know Olds, the more we argue the more i come to think that we both really want the same exact thing, we just have different ideas of how to get there.

Thats not what i said. However, i did deal with my wisdom teeth removed without pain meds AFTERWARDS (not during the surgery of course!) but that was because the vicoden made me very very sick. Having your wisdom teeth out is a LEGITIMATE medical concern, and should be treated as such! I'm talking about more frivolous things (and let me be the first to admit that i have contributed to this!). Breaking a bone is a VERY LEGIT concern, and once again should be fully treated! But if you minorly sprain your wrist (you know, like it will heal in a week without any problems), then BUCK UP (unless of course it is negatively affecting your job or something important like that). Your are doing nothing but wasting medical staffs time, honestly, what are they going to do for you? Of course, if you have reason to believe you may have broken a bone, then sure its a legit thing. Another thing that really gets at me is people always want an anti-biotic or some drug to take care of their problem (that your body can probably handle by itself in a week or 2). Its been shown that overuse of anti-biotic has created very dangerous situations FOR US ALL, it is also a nice contributor to pointless drug use which helps drive up costs. Apparently it is so important to people to feel good in 3 days as opposed to 5 days that they are willing to put the entire world at risk of furthering the development of drug resistant strains. and once again i stress that if it is a legitimately serious thing, then by all means every drug, surgery, and alternative medicine, in the world should be thrown at you if it means saving your life or saving the use of your limbs etc Leading a sedimentary life style, eating nothing but junk food, and never exercising often leads to diabetes. This is (in many many cases) an AVOIDABLE THING PEOPLE, but since people insist on doing it, it now costs us the HMO (or medicare) users money so that the HMO can cover these drugs to treat diabetes. High blood pressure is another, usually, avoidable thing. And once again, let me be the first to admit that i lead this kind of life myself. How about skateboarders? Heres a group that often gets hurt (although i doubt they really tie up very much time or drugs or anything), but for the purpose of an analogy. Why should >>I<< be forced to help pay for some dumbass kid who breaks a bone while defacing public property and generally annoying people? Once again, im sure they are a very very insignificant cause for medical problems. Im just using this as an analogy. So, my fellow Americans, it is time for us to take up own own responsiblity. Our health is largely due to how we contribute to it. We need to exercise more, eat better, and lead healthier lives so that we aren't constantly relying on the medical system, and when we do, the costs are somewhat more reasonable. I know that i am guilty of this, and i need to work on it, but if i do end up being affected by it, im not going to blame society, im not going to blame McDonalds, its my own damn fault and im the one who should be paying, not the rest of you.

Nay, you see, the wealthiest get the best health care plans. These would be taxed quite nicely and would encourage a more level heal care playing field for all workers. Now, if either candidate proposed a government healthcare system which was essentially just an HMO with the governments name on it, i might be slightly more in favor of it. However, it would need to meet a few criteria. 1) The ONLY taxpayer funding for it should be initially. 2) They should be required to repay this initial funding with interest. 3) It must be ran as a non-profit and NOT AS A GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY. Even then it likely wont be as efficient as a private company, but it would be better than a bureaucracy running it if it HAD TO BE DONE. Theoretically a mix of Obama's and McCains plans could create an environment much more conducive to competition and lowering health care prices provided said government HMO was as i described above. You see, there are 2 thoughts in this world. Thought A) says solve the problem at the roots. Thought B) says throw money at it and make it a government responsibility without actually addressing the root cause. And Thought C) says do nothing about it and let it ride cause maybe it will solve itself (which occasionally happens). Democrats typically advocate B and republicans usually either go with route C or some mix of A and B. Now neither of those are obviously very good routes to take, its a shame most people dont realize that the ROOT OF THE PROBLEM will CAUSES THE SYMPTOMS. You can mask the symptoms all you want, but the root will just get worse (as in you make a government sponsored health care plan which addresses the symptoms, but not the root problem, which means that costs will still continue to rise astronomically). At least McCain makes a rather poor attempt at addressing the root problem instead of the symptoms. Of course, BOTH McCains and Obama's arguments miss the point (well McCain addresses a very small portion of a real problem). The simple point of the matter is that Americans lead very unhealthy lifestyles. They should not be having to go to the doctor for anything unless it was quite serious. The amount of drugs that Americans are on because they have "problems" is dizzying and disgusting to me. COME ON PEOPLE, just cause you hurt your arm and it kinda hurts doesnt mean you need PAIN MEDS. A Pill CANNOT SOLVE all your problems. YOU YOURSELF CAN. This is the real root of our problems in my opinion (and as a hypochondriac i should know!). I have an extremely low threshold to pain, but when i get a cold, or have the flu, or have to have dental work, i dont drug myself up to get through it. I take the pain and ride along with it. I remember one time, a friend of mine got a new doctor. So the first time he sees the new doc the doc asks him what drugs he is currently on. My buddy said "i dont take anything," the doc then gave him a puzzling look and said "really?" That alone, i believe, shows how bad our society has become. Frivolous things like this tie up our medical staff and drive up costs of health care due to damn near pointless use of drugs which the HMOs have to at least partially cover (so they charge everyone more to make up for it). And of course the old regulations on how drug makers can advertise should be re-instated

I feel sorry for the victims of fraud, but people need to learn not to take things at their face value if they want to get ahead in life. But Fraud is still a crime, and it should have been nipped before it was a problem. This was still WELL WITHIN governments means to control it, even with deregulation. Manufacturing is gone from this country, you can't get a good paying job with only a high school education these days. The only way the Working/Middle class will see a large change is if they either A. Unionize all the crappy jobs, or B. make the rest of the world expensive to manufacture in. Both of these will raise inflation considerably. Both of these will likely lead to no advantage over now. Now you advocating that NAFTA was a bad deal just shows you believe in protectionist policies, which time and time again have PROVEN to be a massive failure. Incentives to manufacture here may be a more viable and beneficial route. And in argument of McCain's plan, his plan has the merits of POSSIBLY reducing health care costs, i HIGHLY doubt a government ran health care plan would be efficient enough to have any sort of downward push on private HMOs. You see, the beauty of the tax credit, is that it modifies peoples behavior, plus they can be quite temporary. If his plan has the effect of significantly lowering healthcare costs, then the credits can be phased out. Under Obama's plan, there is no possible phasing out of government spent money. So in the long run, Obama's plan would likely end up costing US THE TAXPAYER more money when you net everything out. But, do not forget that under McCain's plan, health care benefits become taxable, they are not currently taxed, so that tax credit is a bit more muddled than you would think.

What capital gains would a small business have? Unless its a financial investment start-up, i don't see any. $500 is laughable at best, is this a credit for the business or for the worker? even if it was for the business, lets say you had 10 employees, $5000 is not really all that much money for a business (sure it helps a little). After a little scrummaging amongst census statistics. seen here http://www.census.gov/epcd/www/smallbus.html I determined that for small businesses (0 to 19 employees) There was an average of roughly 4 employees. Payroll (including benefits, bonuses, sick leave, etc) was on average $121,320 and the average receipts for the year were $614,225. Of course average #s don't really represent too well when we are talking business (extremes affect the average), but they are good starting place to look at these businesses. The receipts represent NET OF TAXES revenues, which means that those are revenues excluding revenue that was used to pay taxes (local, state, and federal). So while there may be a good many people who are not in the $250,000 bracket, there certainly are a CONSIDERABLE number that are.

I know, this is bad enough, there were better ways at stabilizing the financial sector than this. I hate this. But, Obama's Universal healthcare will rank us among the Europeans in socialistic countries, plus INCOME REDISTRIBUTION is the hallmark of socialistic policies. So while there may be (god awful) socialism in the McCain presidency due to regulators not doing their jobs and AMERICANS making bad decisions and CORPORATIONS making bad decisions. There will still be far less socialism during a McCain presidency than an Obama one. Socialism is the easy way out. Socialism is how you attract idiotic peoples votes (oh well hey government giving me money sounds good! He-yup!). Socialism is what you turn to when you have admitted defeat. Capitalism is like playing a video game on the hard difficulty. Your potential rewards are better, you can get a better score. But it's a lot harder to successfully manage capitalism in a way that benefits everyone. It can be done, but it takes some skill. Socialism is like playing that same game on easy. You get less rewards, its easier, and you get a lot lower score. Plus you need a bigass bureaucracy to manage it all. <rant> ARgh, this whole deal sickens me. "well hey, i didnt know i was getting into a bad loan here..." WTF man, did you not read your own terms of contract?! did you HONESTLY BELIEVE that these house prices weren't inflated? What is wrong with people? Are people really this stupid? And to corporations: HOW THE HELL did you believe that giving loans to people with TERRIBLE credit, OR people who don't have very much income is a GOOD IDEA? WTF is wrong with you financial America? You people must have been slapped by the idiot stick a few too many times. And to the Gubment: WHY THE HELL were you encouraging people to continue buying houses? you COULDNT TELL THAT THERE WAS A BIGASS INFLATIONARY BUBBLE GOING ON IN THE HOUSING MARKET? WTF. FURTHERMORE, WHY THE HELL ARE YOU FORCING US intelligent, rational, taxpayers who steered clear of this whole mess (because it was quite obvious what was going to happen) to bail out these idiotic Americans? Why are you forcing us to pay CORPORATE AMERICA money because of their stupid decisions? Why should we be paying YOU for problems that YOU YOURSELF contributed to by not doing your job (even with less regulations, there were still regulators in place who should have sought to nip this in the heels when it was still a non-problem)? Why should we be paying for an EXTREMELY risky venture to rectify this mess? Why didn't YOU choose a far less risky venture that involved less capital expenditures (as there are other means of stabilizing a sector than shoving money down its throat). </rant>

by the sheer numbers in the tax books, you are quite correct my friend. Small businesses tend to be owned by those in the brackets that are in increases among taxes in obama, plus the addition of additional payments of social security + some other features, the worst impacted small businesses (assuming you are in the "wrong place in the wrong time") will see their taxes go from like 35 to 50%. Obama's plan is not really what it seems when its just spelled out for you. Those charts floating around don't represent the full extent of his ideas.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/09212008/busin...ddon_130110.htm Apparently the stock market could have been in far worse trouble if the fed didn't intervene. I don't know though, im still not a fan of this.

Nice job of making fun of a man who can only surf the net with his mouse, Why? Because of his war injuries it hurts him to type! As a result he has to have his wife type responses while at home. Like i said he can surf with a mouse though as it doesn't hurt him as much apparently. He has stated that he DOES read his own mail, but he just can't himself write responses because it pains him to type. I dont see a computer in the oval office anyways, do you? Perhaps when he is president they will get him one of those doohickies that lets people move the mouse with their mind, and perhaps even type with it. Anyways if you are quite done making fun of a man's disabilities, http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-h...ck-if-they-let-

McCain would offer Andrew Cuomo job of head of the SEC. http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypoli...mo-for-sec.html

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11670.html WSJ is a good read too http://www.wsj.com/article/SB121910303529751345.html You see, There is far more to tax than simply income bracket %s. Various credits, social security + various other taxes (which your probably aren't even familiar with). Obama's plan is very detrimental to small business (sole proprietorship's, partnerships, S-corportations) because those companies are not taxed as businesses, they are taxed as personal taxes (hence the benefit of single taxation, C-corps are double taxed but that's a different story). Obama's plan is also detrimental to the stock market, his tax changes would severely undermine efforts to keep our stock market going strong. Eliminating Bush's more favorable rate on eligible capital gains would slow stock market recovery (as I'm sure it will depress in the months to come). So what it comes down to is this, if the economy was stagnant and never changed, then yes Obama's tax plan would give the government more revenue, but that is simply not the case, as the economy slips into recession (which im quite sure it will) the difference in money raised/lost will lessen between McCains and Obama's, but the economy will likely grow faster under McCains, which will lead to more revenues. Over time, their tax plans may end up equaling out in overall revenues brought in. There's an old saying that says, don't bite the hand that feeds you. Well Obama wants to bite that hand for a significant amount of our population. Obama will lead us down the path to socalism. He will lead us down the path to less innovation. Obama will promote the idea that, its okay if you don't do your best, the government will bail you out. You don't have to make good decisions, because there is equality of results. Your success will be heavily taxed, because you don't deserve to be successful and employ others you bastard! America's work ethic may be upon its death throes. Sure, the economy will continue, and sure there will still be people who will try and be successful because that is just their nature, but overall it will have a detrimental effect on American ingenuity. Of course, i will admit that McCains tax plan isn't the best either, but its better than Obama's, and McCain isn't proposing undermining what little is left of the Protestant Work Ethic. http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2...plan_impac.html http://www.american.com/archive/2008/augus...a2019s-tax-plan

Mmmm french fried pertaters Nice car.

Well, God Save the Queen Another interesting read: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/...e_doesnt_w.html

A "trepidatious" McCain supporter who also happens to be an economist (i really cannot tell of what school of thought he subscribes to?) http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200809u/mccain-economics Its an interesting viewpoint if nothing else. I would love to hear him explain how Bush's tax cuts make our tax system more progressive (am i missing something or what? is it because the top 1% now pay 70% of income taxes rather than a mere 20% in 1980?) And Obama is only getting a bounce because the vast majority of Americans are ignorant about the economy and believe that protectionism is their savior.

The Austin Heeley Neatomobile.

1931 ............................................................................... 3,116 / 3,577 / –462 1932 ............................................................................... 1,924 / 4,659 / –2,735 1933 ............................................................................... 1,997 / 4,598 / –2,602 The income tax hike was enacted in 1932. Given the revenues, it is clear that raising the taxes in a bad economic time did VERY LITTLE on the bottom line other than placing increased burdon on people who would create jobs. FDR utilized extreme deficit spending which made the GOVERNMENT the leading provider of jobs, which is grossly INEFFICIENT, it lead to large GDP growth because of the TONS of DEFICIT spending that was going on. Once WWII broke out in Europe, manufacturing was making lots of stuff for Europe, and Europeans were borrowing US money to buy US things, which lead to the boom in GDP at that time. Plus, you know, FDR criticized Hoovers deficit spending, and then brought deficit spending to unheard of levels during his own tenure.

Actually i was showing what loki said, as well as showing that massive deficit spending can increase GDP, but at the risk of, oh i don't know INCREASING OUR DEBT. besides FDR accused Hoover of being too big a DEFICIT spender, that he was TAXING people too much. one of his aids accused Hoover of being a SOCIALIST? and what does FDR do? he continues and massively expands on the programs employed by Hoover. There is still no proof that the economy wouldn't have begun its uptick with or without FDRs New Deal.

From Wikipedia: Well this is a bit of a shocker, apparently Hoover WAS the visionary! And apparently FDR was a flip flopper of the greatest magnitude and a hypocrite! gasp! as one can see: The economy was beginning to rebound by 1933, the last year of Hoovers office at the height of the Great Depression, was this due to FDR's new deal? or was this due to the market slowly pulling itself out? During FDR's reign, government deficits rose rapidly, by the height of WW2, government debt was 109% of our GDP (of course this is unfair to cite a number from the mid 40s, WW2 was massive and required massive spending). Now, seeing as how this is eerily similar to now, and how there is evidence to suggest that FDR's programs THEMSELVES did relatively little to stimulate the economy as a whole (given that it appeared that the economy was generally looking to be at the very least leveling off when FDR came to power), why do you feel Obama's will fare any better? If the Deficit is your #1 priority, how can you agree with policies such as these? Do you want the vast majority of our economic growth to come from the government? to come from an institution famed for wasted money and inefficient practices? To add fuel to the fire, the supreme court at the time kept declaring several of FDRs programs to be unconstitutional (apparently capitalism was in the constitution back then), which means that even as these programs are being undone/redone there was still growth. Year......................................................... Income / Expenses / Flow 1930 ............................................................................... 4,058 / 3,320 / 738 1931 ............................................................................... 3,116 / 3,577 / –462 1932 ............................................................................... 1,924 / 4,659 / –2,735 1933 ............................................................................... 1,997 / 4,598 / –2,602 1934 ............................................................................... 2,955 / 6,541 / –3,586 1935 ............................................................................... 3,609 / 6,412 / –2,803 1936 ............................................................................... 3,923 / 8,228 / –4,304 1937 ............................................................................... 5,387 / 7,580 / –2,193 1938 ............................................................................... 6,751 / 6,840 / –89 1939 ............................................................................... 6,295 / 9,141 / –2,846 As you can see, throughout much of the depression, spending was considerably higher than the income recieved, for comparison here is the current overlays. Year.......................................................... Income / Expenses / Flow 2000 ............................................................................... 2,025,457 / 1,789,216 / 236,241 2001 ............................................................................... 1,991,426 / 1,863,190 / 128,236 2002 ............................................................................... 1,853,395 / 2,011,153 / –157,758 2003 ............................................................................... 1,782,532 / 2,160,117 / –377,585 2004 ............................................................................... 1,880,279 / 2,293,006 / –412,727 2005 ............................................................................... 2,153,859 / 2,472,205 / –318,346 2006 ............................................................................... 2,407,254 / 2,655,435 / –248,181 2007 estimate ................................................................ 2,540,096 / 2,784,267 / –244,171 2008 estimate ................................................................ 2,662,474 / 2,901,861 / –239,387 2009 estimate ................................................................ 2,798,307 / 2,985,473 / –187,166 2010 estimate ................................................................ 2,954,724 / 3,049,085 / –94,361 2011 estimate ................................................................ 3,103,554 / 3,157,328 / –53,774 2012 estimate ................................................................ 3,307,324 / 3,246,306 / 61,018 Of course, with our new financial crisis, these numbers are incorrect. They should now be far more dramatic.

On a side note, i know Ron Paul is rather bitter at McCain and well... everyone... at the moment, but i believe that WHOEVER becomes president, would be greatly served by having Ron Paul on as an adviser or cabinet member or something as it relates to the Economy. Ron Paul is an excellent business man who is even better at predicting the future of our current economic tracks. As an even smaller side note, I've noticed that amongst young kids, there seems to be a rather large sized Libertarian streak of people. Hopefully these are the ones that will inherit and bring the GOP into a more popular/rational stance.

Woo 9 of 15.

gateway 2000?