Bachmann wins straw poll in Iowa

[WillyBagseed]

Cool breeze in Wyoming? Is that why there are snow fences all over Wyoming, to slow down the "breeze". lol

Wyoming, North Dakota and Eastern Colorado (where I live) do not get "breezes" very often, it is usually plain ass WIND and lots of it.

Wind SUCKS.

 

[NoDrama]

Cool breeze in Wyoming? Is that why there are snow fences all over Wyoming, to slow down the "breeze". lol

Wyoming, North Dakota and Eastern Colorado (where I live) do not get "breezes" very often, it is usually plain ass WIND and lots of it.

Wind SUCKS.

Yeah, I always thought that Breeze meant it was just a little wind, but damned wouldn't you know, a Breeze is actually a classification indicating winds up to 31 MPH, which most people would consider really windy, above breeze is Gale....Its called the Beaufort scale. Meteorologists use it to indicate wind speeds. Windy and Breezy are basically synonyms. But, Yes, you are right, its fucking windy there all the time. About the only calm days are early in the morning or late in the evening. Snow fences? I bet most people think they are there to hold the snow back.

 

[UncleBuck]

Cool breeze in Wyoming? Is that why there are snow fences all over Wyoming, to slow down the "breeze". lol

Wyoming, North Dakota and Eastern Colorado (where I live) do not get "breezes" very often, it is usually plain ass WIND and lots of it.

Wind SUCKS.

you're right, it is downright windy.

do you know why it is so windy in eastern colorado?

because kansas sucks.

i'll be here all week. but not really.

 

[UncleBuck]

There isn't anything where you are at but some distant Buttes. Where the Antelope play and the sagebrush scents the breeze. I lived In Rock Springs and Green River when I was Younger. My father helped build Briger Power Plant and My Grandparents owned a lot of land up by the Flaming Gorge. I know Exactly where you are, hot days and beautiful sunsets painted by the scoria vistas. Most people are Mormons in them parts.

the local news comes from salt lake city.

and i like those distant buttes. staring at a distant butte is a pretty complete analogy for my life, and i like it.

 

[DelSlow]

If the subsidies are legal, it is irrelevant.

If you have a problem with farm subsidies, go after farm subsidies; not the people who receive them legally.

I say eliminate farm subsidies.

Fuck, let's eliminate the Department of Agriculture while we are at it.

It just seems a bit hypocritical to rail against government/spending/subsidies while receiving them. That's all I was trying to point out, not trying to start a witch hunt or anything.

 

[Johnnyorganic]

It just seems a bit hypocritical to rail against government/spending/subsidies while receiving them. That's all I was trying to point out, not trying to start a witch hunt or anything.

Then my point remains unchanged.

If the farm subsidies are LEGAL, then who receives them is irrelevant.

If you are against the subsidies THEMSELVES, then go after them.

 

[redivider]

The flat tax doesn't get rid of the IRS and their intrusions into our private lives. In a truly free society, it is none of the government's business how much the citizen makes, how the citizen makes it, or how the citizen spends it, as long as the citizen doesn't violate the rights of another in the process. Therefore, I support the FairTax ... a simple, end user sales tax.

do I really have to re-explain how an 'end user flat sales tax' benefits the rich much MUUCH more than the progressive, loophole ridden tax code we have now?? really??

 

[MuyLocoNC]

and again, he doesn't mind if he pays 3% more to earn another $100k.

I'm a little unclear what benefit it serves to raise income tax on certain people by 3%. As I had posted earlier (with no dissention by the way), if you increased taxes on everyone earning a million dollars and up to 100% AND took every asset they currently hold...it only gets you $800 Billion, not even half of just THIS YEAR'S deficit. I understand it's a long term problem, but a 3% increase on people earning over $250k/yr doesn't amount to shit. It's less than shit, it's such a small amount compared to just one year's deficit, that it would be nothing more than a symbolic gesture.

So, say the Repubs concur and give in on the tax increase, what do you do about cutting $7-$8 Trillion over the next 10 years, just so we don't actually add to the national debt? It looks to me like you're only gonna get about $200 Billion a year from said tax increases. Is the plan really that increasing taxes is going to increase job growth, stimulate the economy and make our boo-boos all betters?

 

[redivider]

we have to end the wars and scale down the defense budget until it's just that, defense.

we have to raise taxes on the rich a bit, they've had enough time with these tax cuts and they're just outsourcing jobs, not creating them. enough of that. it's not symbolic, it's actually doing something about the deficit. 3% increase isn't that much and it does something to reduce the deficit. better than doing NOTHING.

we have to stop outsourcing. they're not going to volunteer to stop outsourcing, so we have to FORCE it upon them. it sounds harsh but corporations aren't really persons, the constitution wasn't intended to protect the interests of corporations, it's meant to protect the freedoms of PERSONS. no where in the constitution does it say that the government has the duty to make sure that corporations are able to enjoy the benefits of outsourced labor, and we shouldn't pretend it does. less government doesn't always translate to a better country. look at SOMALIA.

we have to re-regulate the financial sector. keep insurance companies out of banking. keep investment banking out of insurance. keep savings and loans operations out of the checking account business. keep regular banks just that, regular banks. etc etc etc. keep the money FLOWING. we cannot allow these companies to hold so much wealth. b/c they'll do just that. HOLD ON TO IT and keep us in a hole, like right now.

we have to start holding large companies and their bosses accountable when they deceive. we can't just let them claim ignorance then act like it didn't happen. instead of de-regulating large business to the point that the government, which is supposed to represent actual living breathing HUMANS, is unable to protect it's citizens.

 

[tet1953]

if you increased taxes on everyone earning a million dollars and up to 100% AND took every asset they currently hold...it only gets you $800 Billion

This statement doesn't add up for me. I do not know what the added revenue would be, but the expiration of the Bush cuts alone are supposed to be about 4 trillion over 10 years. The part that really floored me though was the part about taking all their assets. Given that 400 wealthiest individuals in the country hold as much wealth as the bottom 150 million, I am guessing that the figure will come in somewhere north of 800 billion.

Conservatives keep making the debate about tax increases VERSUS spending cuts, because they can't make an argument against what the real debate is. The question is whether or not to include tax increases as part of the plan, not whether tax increases will be the plan. You know that, and so does Bachmann and the rest. We need to do it all: spending cuts, entitlement reform, and yes tax increases.

 

[Johnnyorganic]

This statement doesn't add up for me. I do not know what the added revenue would be, but the expiration of the Bush cuts alone are supposed to be about 4 trillion over 10 years. The part that really floored me though was the part about taking all their assets. Given that 400 wealthiest individuals in the country hold as much wealth as the bottom 150 million, I am guessing that the figure will come in somewhere north of 800 billion.

Conservatives keep making the debate about tax increases VERSUS spending cuts, because they can't make an argument against what the real debate is. The question is whether or not to include tax increases as part of the plan, not whether tax increases will be the plan. You know that, and so does Bachmann and the rest. We need to do it all: spending cuts, entitlement reform, and yes tax increases.

Tax increases which ONLY focus on two-hundred-thousandaires and two-hundred-fifty-thousandaires while ignoring the 47% of filers who pay no incomes taxes is not a balanced approach.

The Donks are not serious when they say "balanced approach' until they address the actual deadbeats.

The people at the upper end of the salary scale pay the most income taxes, while the bottom half pays nothing. There is no balance there.

To pretend there is balance is to insult the intelligence of the American people.

 

[londonfog]

Then my point remains unchanged.

If the farm subsidies are LEGAL, then who receives them is irrelevant.

If you are against the subsidies THEMSELVES, then go after them.

Guy Bachmann is a hypocrite plain and simple...How can you receive farm and medical subsidies whilst complaining about other government handouts ..WTF...Stimulus is just as legal as subsidies so whats your point on shit being legal ??? Some legal shit just down right STUPID....Subsidies can be view just as wasteful, as other government spending...I mean money for a "pray away a gay" clinic..WTF...and you defend this as legal...??? Come on..a hand out is a hand out and you need to call it like it is, but as we know you don't care who wins as long as it is not your current POTUS...pretty sad seeing how folks like yourself would have this bat crazzzy broad leading our nation..

 

[Johnnyorganic]

Guy Bachmann is a hypocrite plain and simple...How can you receive farm and medical subsidies whilst complaining about other government handouts ..WTF...Stimulus is just as legal as subsidies so whats your point on shit being legal ??? Some legal shit just down right STUPID....Subsidies can be view just as wasteful, as other government spending...I mean money for a "pray away a gay" clinic..WTF...and you defend this as legal...??? Come on..a hand out is a hand out and you need to call it like it is, but as we know you don't care who wins as long as it is not your POTUS...pretty sad seeing how folks like yourself would have this bat crazzzy broad leading our nation..

Have I endorsed Bachmann?

As I recall I have not endorsed any one particular candidate yet. It's way too early. The field just now finalized, for Christ's sake. In fact, I believe what I have said is I will support the candidate who has the best chance of evicting the current resident of the White House. And Pickles. And her Momma.

You can relax, LF. Bachmann will not be the nominee. She barely edged out Paul and everyone knows he ain't gonna win. The Iowa Straw poll is next to worthless as a predictor. It's only value is to kick off the race to the White House.

My point, which obviously escaped you, is to go after the subsidy. I did that by the way. In fact, I will expand that by saying that ALL subsidies and ALL tax exemptions should be eliminated. Every motherfucking one of them.

To attack a person accepting a subsidy on one hand while defending the subsidy on the other hand is the very definition of hypocritical.

And just because something is legal does not mean it is wise. Which again, was my point when I stated that one should go after the subsidy itself rather than the person benefitting from it legally.

 

[londonfog]

My point which you want to ignore is if you receive hand outs don't bitch about others who receive hand outs...some subsidies are needed..just like some stimulus may be needed...don't bitch about one while you getting the other.. its called being a hypocrite .. being legal means nothing because both are legal..hell people like her is who made it legal..Fuckin tax money for " praying away the gay" WTF

 

[Johnnyorganic]

My point which you want to ignore is if you receive hand outs don't bitch about others who receive hand outs...some subsidies are needed..just like some stimulus may be needed...don't bitch about one while you getting the other.. its called being a hypocrite .. being legal means nothing because both are legal..hell people like her is who made it legal..Fuckin tax money for " praying away the gay" WTF

I saw your point. I simply disagree.

By your logic, NOBODY should be able to complain about ANY subsidy/tax exemption because at some level or another EVERYONE accepts subsidies and/or tax exemptions. That is how convoluted a system gets when the government tries to pick the winners and losers.

The fact that you only choose to single out Bachmann for criticism only indicates your partisanship.

I say eliminate ALL subsidies and tax exemptions. What is so hypocritical about that?

 

[MuyLocoNC]

we have to end the wars and scale down the defense budget until it's just that, defense.

we have to raise taxes on the rich a bit, they've had enough time with these tax cuts and they're just outsourcing jobs, not creating them. enough of that. it's not symbolic, it's actually doing something about the deficit. 3% increase isn't that much and it does something to reduce the deficit. better than doing NOTHING.

we have to stop outsourcing. they're not going to volunteer to stop outsourcing, so we have to FORCE it upon them. it sounds harsh but corporations aren't really persons, the constitution wasn't intended to protect the interests of corporations, it's meant to protect the freedoms of PERSONS. no where in the constitution does it say that the government has the duty to make sure that corporations are able to enjoy the benefits of outsourced labor, and we shouldn't pretend it does. less government doesn't always translate to a better country. look at SOMALIA.

we have to re-regulate the financial sector. keep insurance companies out of banking. keep investment banking out of insurance. keep savings and loans operations out of the checking account business. keep regular banks just that, regular banks. etc etc etc. keep the money FLOWING. we cannot allow these companies to hold so much wealth. b/c they'll do just that. HOLD ON TO IT and keep us in a hole, like right now.

we have to start holding large companies and their bosses accountable when they deceive. we can't just let them claim ignorance then act like it didn't happen. instead of de-regulating large business to the point that the government, which is supposed to represent actual living breathing HUMANS, is unable to protect it's citizens.

It's an interesting approach. If the wars were actually ended, I think that would take care of a great deal of the defense cuts you're looking for. I guess if we forced the corporations to stop outsourcing, we'd all have to be willing to pay more for all our products.

The one thing that seems to be missing in your approach is spending cuts to entitlements and all other aspects of the government. Is this because you don't think we need to do so or because you assumed it's so obvious it doesn't need to be said?

This statement doesn't add up for me. I do not know what the added revenue would be, but the expiration of the Bush cuts alone are supposed to be about 4 trillion over 10 years. The part that really floored me though was the part about taking all their assets. Given that 400 wealthiest individuals in the country hold as much wealth as the bottom 150 million, I am guessing that the figure will come in somewhere north of 800 billion.

Conservatives keep making the debate about tax increases VERSUS spending cuts, because they can't make an argument against what the real debate is. The question is whether or not to include tax increases as part of the plan, not whether tax increases will be the plan. You know that, and so does Bachmann and the rest. We need to do it all: spending cuts, entitlement reform, and yes tax increases.

I'm almost certain that $4 trillion over ten years is up for debate. As all the government numbers seem to be these days. I wish I could find the article but it was specifically using people/families that earn over $1 million a year, not the $250k number. 100% tax rate and confiscate all assets equals about $800 billion on those people. Pointless if I can't find it.

If they need to give in to the tax increase to get actual spending cuts, not promises to maybe do it in the future, then I'm in. But the cuts need to be DEEP and PAINFUL. Not to be cruel or destructive to the people who exist on that spending, but because anything less than deep and painful is a waste of time.

 

[Johnnyorganic]

LF recently accepted green energy subsidies to purchase equipment for his business.

Yet he criticizes the Bachmanns for accepting subsidies.

By his logic he, too, is a hypocrite.

But his logic is deeply flawed.

 

[NoDrama]

do I really have to re-explain how an 'end user flat sales tax' benefits the rich much MUUCH more than the progressive, loophole ridden tax code we have now?? really??

Is that what its all about? Making sure the rich get soaked?

 

[redivider]

Tax increases which ONLY focus on two-hundred-thousandaires and two-hundred-fifty-thousandaires while ignoring the 47% of filers who pay no incomes taxes is not a balanced approach.

The Donks are not serious when they say "balanced approach' until they address the actual deadbeats.

The people at the upper end of the salary scale pay the most income taxes, while the bottom half pays nothing. There is no balance there.

To pretend there is balance is to insult the intelligence of the American people.

you want to take from those who have nothing, yet refuse to take from those who have everything.

you might think that these welfare programs are a drain on our economy but it's only because you haven't paused to consider the alternative.

i implore you to travel to nicaragua, so you see what it looks like when the poor really receive NOTHING.....

 

[jeff f]

My point which you want to ignore is if you receive hand outs don't bitch about others who receive hand outs...some subsidies are needed..just like some stimulus may be needed...don't bitch about one while you getting the other.. its called being a hypocrite .. being legal means nothing because both are legal..hell people like her is who made it legal..Fuckin tax money for " praying away the gay" WTF

fuck the gays, not literally. i dont think MOST normal people give a rats ass.

we have no money, our govt has been downgraded, unemployment around 10 for 2 years, we cant make enough electricity when its hot out, medical spending per capita is going through the roof, we are in 3 fucking wars, fatalities in 2 of them have been on the rise for the last 6 months, the epa wont let us build a power plant......do you really think ANYONE is going to be standing in front of the voting machine and saying, such and sush's spouse prays for gays to change? really? thats what you think? hahahaha idiot.

who gives a fuck about gays when they walk in the booth.

you fucking libs are so hung up on red herrings its pathetic.