That's not an answer :P

Non-answers to non-questions.

As always the Democrats avoid the issues when faced

Love YA!!!!!!!!!!!!! :P hehehehehe

Interesting to read about the income tax thing.

Please educate me by letting me know if I'm erring; American History 101: when the Democrats left 6 some years ago, Clinton and co. Was hated, etc. People were fed-up with them, even though the USA had a considerable budget surplus and the economy was rolling. However already it had a large trade deficit. Traditionally the Democrats are more 'socialist' i.e. Spending on social programs.

When the Reps came over 6 some years ago, for different reasons (911, etc.), they started to rake a budget deficit. That deficit compounded and is now actually reaching ridiculous proportions, in the Trillion (unfathomable amount of money if you ask me). Traditionally Republicans are 'Conservatives'; cutting taxes and limiting the government involvement, being fiscally conservative, etc. Now, from what I'm reading, this Rep administration did just the reverse: they actually deposed budget with growing deficits, they gave selected tax break to the upper-tiers (although this is understandable in a world of moving global capital), and instead of cutting in programs, the US govt now spend more than ever on its prgrams.

So I'm just puzzled why those PTTers are so worried about rising taxes? Question: who will pay for your deficit? How can your deficit be paid without cutting programs and raising taxes?

Check this out on your monthly trade deficit:
http://www.americaneconomicalert.org/ticker_home.asp

Check this out on your national debt:
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

More on the trade deficit. Trade deficit is an important measurement because basically it means US dollars are leaving the country. It is often quoted as a cause of the Fall of the roman Empire - Rome and Italy consuming so much and raking a huge trade deficit with the rest of the Empire, in the long run causing their financial system to implode.

---
Although I'm a measly 35 ;) what I'm noticing on the governemnt is basically tax juggling.
You cut one tax here, and then levy a fee there. It's all tax deplacement.
Overall Govt spending has been steadily rising for decades, workers are working more hours for less amount of money than the 70s, taxation (direct and indirect) has been raising steadily. And the boomers are retiring soon

---y
For years now every day I've been reading the Globe and Mail (our national newspaper). The have a 'Report of Business' section; very dry read, full of juice.
For those who did not know our 2 countries have the largest trade in the world; we're huge partner. And yes, your country also has a trade ficifit with mine. And what I can tell you is this: the editorialists, economists, CEOs and etc. Are really worried about your country budget deficit and trade deficit. It does not look good in the long run.

I'm writing that cause I love you. Someone need a reality check.

----
History: Canada had the biggest deficit (% of GDP) of the G7 in 1992. It was often though that Canada would be the next New Zealand (the govt went bankrupt there in 1984 or something).

But someone woke up; our government has been running deficit-free budgets since 1993; that's 13 years.
We'steal paying debts raked in by a generation of incompetent politicians (1970's to 1992)/

I think these are the major issues facing your country today: budget deficit, trade deficit.

More from the Pooper :P....
1.Cheney’s 2001 National Energy Policy Report and the quasi-governmental African Oil Policy Initiative Group indicate that the United States seems intent on establishing a stronger foothold in the African oil market.

2.Keeping America competitive requires affordable energy. And here we have a serious problem: America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world. The best way to break this addiction is through technology. Since 2001, we have spent nearly $10 billion to develop cleaner, cheaper, and more reliable alternative energy sources -- and we are on the threshold of incredible advances.

A 22-percent increase in clean-energy research -- at the Department of Energy, to push for breakthroughs in two vital areas. To change how we power our homes and offices, we will invest more in zero-emission coal-fired plants, revolutionary solar and wind technologies, and clean, safe nuclear energy.
We must also change how we power our automobiles. We will increase our research in better batteries for hybrid and electric cars, and in pollution-free cars that run on hydrogen. We'll also fund additional research in cutting-edge methods of producing ethanol, not just from corn, but from wood chips and stalks, or switch grass. Our goal is to make this new kind of ethanol practical and competitive within six years.

Breakthroughs on this and other new technologies will help us reach another great goal: to replace more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025. By applying the talent and technology of America, this country can dramatically improve our environment, move beyond a petroleum-based economy, and make our dependence on Middle Eastern oil a thing of the past.

Sheena has you guys by the tail.
She speaks for me.
Nice work Sheena.
Thanks for letting me catch my breath.
XD

Hogo late me take a shot at this. First your comparing apple to oranges or peace v war. You have to remember Bubba was coming off a few good years of peace thanks to W's dad. :). Not to mention market cycles and that bubba was having the meistro (Al) take the money supply threw the roof. To a lot of people the last thing you want is to have the govenment have anytype of surplus since they are the most inefficient thing on the universe. Which is why we have started to see the economy turn around even with the Fed raising rates (tightening up money) but lowering the tax rates and paying out money to the people instead, seeminlgy much more efficient. I think Bubbas first thing he should have done with the surplus was get it back the people, and not by some goverment program.

As for the trade deficit and monies leaving you have to remember that a lot of US companies are multinational. Also our economy is going to more of an outsourcing shift and trying to become more of a service economy, which I think compounds the numbers. Not to mention were do you think a lot of the money goes too? Oil. Then they throw it back into our bond markets, kinda freaky really. Personally I think we should be a little more peeved at OPEC for wanting to cut back on production. There is no real need to, cept for pure profits.

Last edited: Saturday, November 11, 2006 at 8:20:07 PM

Even more from the Pooper :P
I think we should make less terrorists (Qoute) how do you suggest we do that?
by burning the Qu'ran?

Allah only wants mankind to worship Him alone and ascribe no partners with Him in worship, and truly be His slaves. He wants them to surrender to His will, as they surrender to His control for the means of their lives. It is only fair to worship only the One who holds the existence of everything and everyone is in His Hands. One should thank Allah who, alone, provides for him by worshipping Him alone. Allah said, what translated means: "And whatever of blessings and good things you have, it is from Allah. Then, when harm touches you, unto Him you cry aloud for help." [16:53]
The Qur’an on Jihad

‘Jihad is ordained for you (Muslims) though you dislike it, and it may be that you dislike something which is good for you and that you like something which is bad for you. Allah knows but you do not know.’

(Surat-al-Baqarah (2), ayah 216)

‘O you who believe! Be not like those who disbelieve (hypocrites) and who say to their brethren when they travel through the earth or go out to fight: 'If they had stayed with us, they would not have died or been killed,' so that Allah may make it a cause of regret in their hearts. It is Allah that gives life and causes death. And Allah is All-Seer of what you do. And if you are killed or die in the Way of Allah, forgiveness and mercy from Allah are far better than all that they amass (of worldly wealth etc.). And whether you die, or are killed, verily, unto Allah you shall be gathered.’

(Surat-aal-Imran (3), ayah 156-158)

Ummmm terrorist read this pray and are taught this every day of there lives and you think you can...just not make terrorists

And as far as your last Question need to reserch that one I'm sure a Democrate knew about it and did nothing...I'll have to check on it but beddie bye time for me.... :P But please bring on more I'm lovin this!!!!

Flea, I love that last post.
So true!
I agree 100% regarding oil.
-KKB

@ Flea
The point I was trying to make was that had Bubba given back the money, then, we probably wouldn't be as far in debt as we are now. I think its laughable that people think that the US economy should be run like your household expenses. If W wanted to have the debt paid off he could just start lowering the interest, then we would probably go into inflation, but who cares. Seriouse how bad are things? http://www.treas.gov/economic-plan/

As for buying American and Union I am right behind you. I think poeple have forgotten the best way to cast your vote is with your dollars. I am allfor free trade and all that jazz, but on a level playing field. I think its unfair and bad that our textiles/clothing/etc have to go up against China that has been caught numerouse times using kids. Not to mention the abuse they (China, Mexico, Lati America, etc) get away with raping the earth while making cheaper products to sell HERE. I am all for FAIR and open competition. Next time you buy that cheaper shirt made in China you just voted for the Chinese to keep effin its people over while raping the earth.

Oil=Terrorism?
That does make me go hmmm. I thnik the terrost know that if they started bombing or attacking oil it would go threw the roof and really hurt us. Yet they reall havn't. Could it be that there is a conection and that the oil people are "paying them off".

How does a blank blue picture suddenly bring on a talk about terrorists???? :o

^^ geez what we force our kids to do :P

Ok FLEA here ya go!!.....Dems and the Nuclear energy solution.....hehehehe

The Anti-Nukes in the White House
The election of Jimmy Carter in November 1976 brought the counterculture, the anti-nuclear movement, and the zero-growth cultural paradigm shift begun in the 1960s, into the Executive office.

The day after his inauguration in 1977, President Carter named RAND Corp. Utopian James Schlesinger as energy "czar." With the promulgation of the National Energy Act later that year, Schlesinger declared: "The era of cheap and abundant energy is recognized to be over."

But this insane policy was not going to go unchallenged—Lyndon LaRouche's Fusion Energy Foundation (FEF) was on the scene. The FEF was soon to be in a head-to-head fight with the Trilateral Commission's Carter Administration, and the Council on Foreign Relations' 1980s "controlled economic disintegration" project, which had included contributions from "Arc of Crisis" ideologue Zbigniew Brzezinski, and "Clash of Civilizations" author Samuel P. Huntington.

Just a year after its founding in 1974, the FEF held a conference on thermonuclear fusion energy, at the New York Academy of Sciences. If Schlesinger et al. Were against nuclear fission because it held the promise of abundant energy supplies for the world, imagine their horror at the prospect of developing nuclear fusion, which can use isotopes of hydrogen for fuel that are found in universally available seawater!

In 1976, the Fusion Energy Foundation held more than a dozen conferences around the country on energy and economic development, explaining how current and more advanced nuclear fission technologies, and tomorrow's nuclear fusion, would defeat the propaganda of conservation, austerity, and "limits to growth."

By early 1977, as the Trilateral Commission was settling in at the White House and Schlesinger was mapping out his plan to turn the United States into a solar-powered post-industrial scrap heap, the FEF was planning a series of conferences on "solving the energy crisis," with the participation of corporate executives, scientists, and engineers from universities and government laboratories, elected officials, trade union representatives, and diplomats.

The response from the "powers that be" was swift. Days before a conference was to take place in Pittsburgh on April 29, 1977, the FEF learned that 12 of the scheduled speakers had withdrawn, after being subjected to a campaign of blackmail, libel, and coercion from the office of Schlesinger in Washington, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation office in Pittsburgh. Months before, it was learned, the FBI had characterized the FEF as a subversive and dangerous group, due to its affiliation with Lyndon LaRouche. As early as 1976, scientists working with the FEF had reported being threatened that their Federal research funding could be cut off.

Two days before the Pittsburgh conference, the FEF went into court and was granted a temporary restraining order by Judge William Knox, who determined that there was enough evidence against the FBI, Schlesinger, and the U.S. Attorney General, for the court to prevent any further harassment of the FEF.

Two years later, the incident at Pennsylvania's Three Mile Island nuclear plant on March 29, 1979 brought the FEF into national prominence as the only organization in the country that unconditionally supported the expanded use of nuclear energy. While the nuclear industry hid under their beds, hoping that the bad publicity and growing anti-nuclear movement would go away (and slandered the FEF), organizers for the FEF stood on street corners and in airports with signs stating: "Nuclear Power Is Safer Than Sex."

Here's some more...... :P

With the election of Jimmy Carter as President in 1976, anti-nuclear, pro-environmental policy was brought right into the White House. In preparation for the new Democratic Administration, the New York Council on Foreign Relations, a spinoff of the London’s Royal Institute of International Affairs, produced its Project 1980s report, which called specifically for the “controlled disintegration” of the U.S. Economy.

The Rockefeller-funded Trilateral Commission, whose membership dominated the Carter Administration, adopted this Project 1980s perspective as its own. Central to their theme of controlled disintegration was the halt of new energy technologies on the horizon, such as advanced nuclear fission and fusion energy. In their place, they promoted the institutionalization of “conservation,” and small-is-beautiful “alternative” energy, based on inefficient and expensive wind, solar, and biomass—technologies which had virtually disappeared after the Industrial Revolution. Billions of dollars in federal subsidies were poured into these 19th century throwbacks, to try to make them economically palatable to an otherwise highly skeptical public.

Is there something wrong with that?

Is there something wrong with that?

This picture is awful.

Conspicuous consumption, flea. It it breathes and grows, eat it. If it functions, buy it. If it loses value, throw it away. By conservative, what made you think they meant conservative ?

^^ pointing out to Flea that a Democrate knew about Nuclear energy and did nothing about it....... :P

That always makes me laugh. Think about the name and why it was set up, is/was still needed?

Again, war v peace, apples v oranges.

In regards to energy, the Germans did some good things with hydrogen in WW2.

In retrospect we as a country haven't done a dang thing to pursue this low cost,environmently friendly and efficient fuel technology.

Me guesses that the almighty dollar has a bigger hand.

Indeed it often seems the car industry in NA is totally stuck in the 50s. Pathetic. I won't even mention the designs - or lack thereof. One of the big 3 will go down soon... Toyota has a near-monopoly on hybrids. I don't care who puts them out on the market, I'm just glad it;s happening.

Hydrogen is a no-no, a side show. We'll never have an hydrogen civilization. The leader, Ballard is based in Vancouver; it's a scam, a PR thing, a tax heaven.

Up to now it costs more energy for hydrogen production than it returns. Now bio-mass is growing and also has a negative return... Go figure. At least it releases less crap in the air, and does not necessitate an entirely new infrastructure like hydrogen does (tank, service station, etc.).

I read today the Smart Car is 80% recyclable; it does not mean all of them WILL be recycled at 80%; it just means they have the potential. That's the 21st century future right there.

Here's what I really don't understand. The country across the board has an approval rating of about 37% (I'm being very generous) for Bush. So, 63% of America does not approve. Tricky math, but I think I got it right.

That said, the Right likes to point out in many social issues that this or that is what the majority wants to promote their policies. For instance, the majority are against gay marriage, the majority of Americans are Christian and are against stem-cell research. Please add many more if you'd like because it's an incredibly common trend.

On the flipside we now know from above that 67% disapprove of Bush, Congress had an approval rating of about 30%, 40% approve of his tax plan, and the confidence in the Iraq war drops monthly.

See why I'm confused? Which is it?

Some tidbits about the super tax cuts:

@ Sheen That was 1976. This is 2006.

About tax cut for the ultra-rich, etc.: this is a problem for all countries. Wealthy people have the means to move their asset and capital anywhere in the world - and most likely to places where they'll pay less taxes. So the taxman is left with no choice but to become competitive in order to try to stem the flow of capital leaving the country.

So maybe the rich pay less tax, but if it convince them to stay residents of your country, and to keep their corporation based in the US, etc. Well at least that's money trickling in.

I know it's weird to argue in favor of tax reduction to the rich but... It's a good move IMO. IRS is competing with the Bahamas, Isle iof Man, Cayman Islands, Monaco, etc.

^ Good post.
Shouldn't the common good prevail over the feeling of inequality generated by greed and jealousy? Or does an ideologically defined indecency justify impeding the wellfare of a nation?

I disagree.

Example, oil prices skyrocketed and the oil companies, to the shock of nobody, had record earnings. It still bugs me that we let big oil get away with this.

I can't seem to find the benefit these tax breaks for big oil have had on the rest of the economy. I'm mainly speaking of the middle and lower classes. If you were to weigh the tax breaks handed out against how much more it costs to fill up your tank I think you'll find that Bush's tax cuts did zero. The Fed could have easily tied down big oil and didn't. They failed, plain and simple.

Also, the NYSE has reached new highs. Take a glimpse at whom is reaping the benefits. It's not many with a household income below $100,000 cashing in I assure you.

Personally I believe our economy is running on borrowed time. This is an actuality and not an analogy. I say this because credit card debt is also at an all time high. How long before the bubble bursts and the teeth of debt rips the middle and lower class to bits? I think the incredibly wealthy forget who go them there. Without John and Jane Smith their bank accounts wouldn't exist. With all this debt we better really hope we don't run smack into a recession. I feel the margin for error is also at an all time low.

I guess what I'm trying to get at is that even though we are a Capitalist society, I think that the idea of the common good, and sense for that matter, should be used when handing out taxes. Currently this is not happening.

Lastly, if I hear one more time from somebody that this tax money would go to only those who are lazy and want to be supported I'll find you and tie you to my bumper.

Last edited: Monday, November 13, 2006 at 1:26:32 PM

It's call corporate welfare. ;)
Yes Big-Oil is hugely subsidized. 'Free Market' is an illusion. If you lobby well you get corporate welfare. We'd jump if we'd paid the real price for oil.

I agree. At this rate you have a potential meltdown; it never happened to our countries so we don't have the experience. At the same time everyone is aware that the US is crical to the world economy and won't let it sink (re. The Chinese/Saudis etc. Pulling out their $ from Treasury bonds, etc.)

But it happened to Brazil in 2000, Thailand a few years ago, etc. This is when you have an overnight slip of the value of your currency and hyperinflation, etc. Too much value nowadays rests on Speculation - just how much the NYSE is worth in real term?

The greenback already lost substancial value - which is good for exporters - and some want it even lower...

Couldn't bankruptcy laws could be rewritten exempting the US as a Sovereign State from having assets seized or being sued by another foreign state? Like, what are they gonna do, threaten not to import their crap to fill up dollar stores? Lol

Wow, very intersesting and informative posts here!

Wow, very intersesting and informative posts here!

FB: 'They' will come and seize you TT copy!

Hugo, don't interupt kkb...he wasn't finished. One more time kkb...all good things come in threes.

Ah... But that is exactly what Tally wanted to do... :) The color blue is quite open-ended, see- now we've gotten to fuel consumption. :P I say Bio-diesel is quite a good way to go.

@ Hugo -...gimme that car...

Is hiding your money from government taxes very
american. In that we are enriching possible
future adversaries???

Is this not economic treason?