|
|
Clinton says this as if.... it's a good thing???? Via Instapundit...... Daily Times - Site Edition Friday, October 30, 2009 Al Qaeda leadership in Pakistan: Hillary Clinton LAHORE: The leadership of Al Qaeda is in Pakistan, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Thursday. ?I find it hard to believe that nobody in your government knows where they are and couldn?t get them if they really wanted to,? she added. ?Maybe that?s the case; maybe they?re not gettable. I don?t know... As far as we know, they are in Pakistan,? Clinton told senior Pakistani newspaper editors in Lahore, AFP reported. ?The percentage of taxes on GDP (in Pakistan) is among the lowest in the world... We (the United States) tax everything that moves and doesn?t move, and that?s not what we see in Pakistan,? she said. ?You do have 180 million people. Your population is projected to be about 300 million. And I don?t know what you?re going to do with that kind of challenge, unless you start planning right now,? she said. ?If we are going to have a mature partnership where we work together? then ?there are issues that not just the United States but others have with your government and with your military security establishment?. Separately, Clinton also met army chief General Ashfaq Kayani and exchanged views on a host of security-related issues. link
|
Posts:
8,237
Registered:
11/27/04
|
|
(538 of 613)
Re: H Clinton: "We tax everything that moves..."
Nov 12, 2009 10:27 PM
|
how can anyone be so certain that future generations will not be able or willing to sustain? they must base it on an indefinite population, indefinite level of wages and most foolish of all, a static culture.
if we are all allowed the same privilege of speculation, costs for primary services we know today will continue downward as evolving/advanced services provide more in terms of needs met and fill the void of consumption. liberalsim will move toward even more programs that offer basic human services in order to maintain an educated, skilled and healthy work force.
if there is an aspect of concern? it is that the masses needed to support programs will be contantly marginalized and suppressed economically by wealthy influences and power.
--
Edited by facedecoolo at 11/12/2009 7:28 PM PST
--
Edited by facedecoolo at 11/12/2009 7:28 PM PST
|
|
|
Posts:
8,237
Registered:
11/27/04
|
|
(537 of 613)
Re: H Clinton: "We tax everything that moves..."
Nov 12, 2009 10:14 PM
Rate this post:
|
i wasn't envious of richie rich fuld when he shit himself in committee. richie boy can afford new undies. there's a list these days of american execs that have been disgraced. i wonder if there's a similar list for the rest of the corporate world? anyway when workers fuck up on even a scale,measurable?they are fired. never rewarded and certainly not protected like they are endangered species.
but i think someone put forth a pointed question. which is one that captious individiuals often put forth in order to divert the central concern the overwhelming majority of americans have when it comes to some of our corporate leaders these days.
we are told by the right that we all must entitle certain individuals to the benefit of the doubt despite past fuck ups, profits, (because that always an entitlement)and recently heaps of tax payer money, despite gargantuan fuck ups. and when we reisist, they claim crucified. they cry victim..often. they try to invoke sympathy, which is why this question of envy is misleading.
|
|
|
Posts:
3,166
Registered:
6/29/09
|
|
(536 of 613)
Re: H Clinton: "We tax everything that moves..."
Nov 12, 2009 8:02 PM
|
We have the worst healthcare of any modern nation.
We have been systematically destroying our workforce for several decades.
Many people are assholes.
I don't see that as a problem with social security.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,604
Registered:
10/30/05
|
|
(535 of 613)
Re: H Clinton: "We tax everything that moves..."
Nov 12, 2009 7:58 PM
|
JaredP wrote:
>"The act is my return. *shrug* "
Good on you. But precious few of those now employed would fork over payroll taxes if they could opt out.
> ... "as we live longer we also are productive longer. The age limit has been pushed back. DI is still there for those who need it before they are senior. People are trying to reform healthcare."
I don't agree that the working age span is increasing. Today's expectation is that a young person will attend and graduate from college - hopefully by age 22 but more often at twenty five-ish. If you check out any large business (or bureaucracy) you'll find that very few people still remain employed at age 65, most having been fired, laid off or involuntarily retired by that time. The typical working career today is roughly 40 years, or less.
In the 1930s, people were generally expected to work from age 18 to 65 -- say 47 years. At best, it's been a push over the past eighty years or so.
As for DI and reforming healthcare, they only compound the financing problem. Treatments for cancer, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's disease and other such old age afflictions are woefully expensive and increasingly common. Childhood autism was scarcely recognized as a medical problem thirty years ago. Now, there are on-going efforts to include more coverage under Medicare/Medicaid.
|
|
|
Posts:
3,166
Registered:
6/29/09
|
|
(534 of 613)
Re: H Clinton: "We tax everything that moves..."
Nov 12, 2009 7:07 PM
|
The act is my return. *shrug*
as we live longer we also are productive longer. The age limit has been pushed back. DI is still there for those who need it before they are senior. People are trying to reform healthcare.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,604
Registered:
10/30/05
|
|
(533 of 613)
Re: H Clinton: "We tax everything that moves..."
Nov 12, 2009 6:56 PM
|
JaredP wrote:
>"Beagle,
>I assume nothing. This is my generation carrying some of your generation. I consider it a worthy goal. If future generations decide it is not worth carrying my generation, so be it. That it no way relieves me if my duties.
>Your argument is that future generations are going to be bigger assholes than I am. Perhaps. It doesn't mean I should be an ass. Nor have I ever implied that it should be a free ride for one and all."
I'm not following your logic very clearly but I've never characterized future generations or yourself in such terms.
The simple truth is that the demographic makeup of the United States trends toward an aging population where fewer and fewer people are working productively and they are supporting a heavier and heavier burden of the elderly, sick, indigent and poor. This isn't just a US problem; it prevails in the EU, the UK, Russia, Japan and in many other countries.
I don't believe you or anyone else has a "duty" to pay OASDI taxes without the expectation that there will be an income return when productive employment is no longer possible.
|
|
|
Posts:
3,166
Registered:
6/29/09
|
|
(532 of 613)
Re: H Clinton: "We tax everything that moves..."
Nov 12, 2009 3:57 PM
|
> > >> Mazola party? I'm game.
> > >>
> > >> One thing: I want a couch covered with
> washable
> > >> sheets dedicated for me to give massages on.
>
> > >
> > >Ok, if you insist. 
> >
> > Alright! I'll bring some veggies, eggs, and
> bread and
> > cook a vegetable stew and biscotti with eggs.
> But
> > none of the ladies get to eat until they've
> been
> > massaged to a limp puddle. 
>
> If I'm a limp puddle, you'll have to feed me.
That's fair. I'll include holding you up to be fed as part of the massage.
|
|
|
Posts:
9,549
Registered:
3/25/08
|
|
(531 of 613)
Re: H Clinton: "We tax everything that moves..."
Nov 12, 2009 3:45 PM
|
> >> Mazola party? I'm game.
> >>
> >> One thing: I want a couch covered with washable
> >> sheets dedicated for me to give massages on.
> >
> >Ok, if you insist.
>
> Alright! I'll bring some veggies, eggs, and bread and
> cook a vegetable stew and biscotti with eggs. But
> none of the ladies get to eat until they've been
> massaged to a limp puddle.
If I'm a limp puddle, you'll have to feed me.
|
|
|
Posts:
9,549
Registered:
3/25/08
|
|
(530 of 613)
Re: H Clinton: "We tax everything that moves..."
Nov 12, 2009 3:44 PM
|
> Here's a question. If I
> make a company say a billion dollars in revenue, and
> you help me make that billion by keeping the lobby
> clean, should you get the same compensation that I
> did for brokering the deal?
No, and I never suggested the person cleaning the lobby should make as much as the CEO.
> If not, how much
> compensation should I get? And based on that, how
> much should the janitor make? And let's be specific
> this time.
You shouldn't make over 300 times more than the janitor, if 300+ times less than what you make doesn't make for the living wage you could easily afford to pay.
>
> >In adjusted dollars, middle class wages have been
> stagnant for a decade
>
> So has inflation. What, prey tell have the middle
> class done to be more productive? How have the
> diffentiated their labor skill sets to offset the
> malaise of income stagnation?
Why do they have to be more productive than being as entirely productive as they always were?
>
> >and jobs like in manufacturing make considerably
> less in adjusted dollars than they did a decade ago.
>
> They compete with economies that charge fractions of
> what they receive in this country. A welder at GM
> makes 65K a year. A welder in S Korea makes 25K a
> year ad Deawoo. A welder in Indonesia makes 10K a
> year for PT Astra . They all have the same skill
> sets. What does a welder at GM do that substantively
> different from the one in Malaysia?
Thank you for proving my point. They wnat to take all they can and fuck everyone else, including their employees. Rather than make 5 million kajillion dollars and paying a decent living wage to their workers, they'd prefer to make 6 and fuck whoever suffers as a result.
>
> >What skill set did they suddenly lose to justify
> that?
>
> And that's the problem. They haven't improved their
> skill set. Failure to improve.
>
> >Always just a matter of time before ya bust out the
> "lazy."
>
> And of course, your response is that we should just
> pay folks more because we like them? Of course
> goverment works that way, they have built in cost of
> living increases, they have COLA, etc. They,
> however, don't have to exist in a zero sum economy.
> (Although California is figuring this out now...)
> ) Why should I pay an employee more for doing the
> same job? They don't make or produce more revenue
> for doing it? Why shouldn't those who actually
> produce receive the benefits of their own labor?
I would say Ford received the benefits of his labor, wouldn't you?
I would say CEO's in 1965 received the benefits of their labor, wouldn't you?
>
> >Be sure to teach them to take the most and give the
> least
>
> I'd settle for showing up to work, not expecting that
> when they don't and have used the entirety of their
> sick and vacations days to not whine when they don't
> get paid, stuff like that. And hey, perhaps they'd
> actually work while they're here. That would help
> too.
Maybe they are aspiring CEO's after all.
|
|
|
Posts:
12,042
Registered:
7/19/06
|
|
(529 of 613)
Re: H Clinton: "We tax everything that moves..."
Nov 12, 2009 3:43 PM
|
> Jared,
>
> You can as you will. It's called choice. And
> there's not one of us above a mistake. It's only
> those that fail to recongnize them I worry about.
You should concentrate on yourself!
|
|
|
Posts:
3,166
Registered:
6/29/09
|
|
(528 of 613)
Re: H Clinton: "We tax everything that moves..."
Nov 12, 2009 3:42 PM
|
>> Mazola party? I'm game.
>>
>> One thing: I want a couch covered with washable
>> sheets dedicated for me to give massages on.
>
>Ok, if you insist.
Alright! I'll bring some veggies, eggs, and bread and cook a vegetable stew and biscotti with eggs. But none of the ladies get to eat until they've been massaged to a limp puddle.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,881
Registered:
6/23/08
|
|
(527 of 613)
Re: H Clinton: "We tax everything that moves..."
Nov 12, 2009 3:41 PM
|
Jared,
You can as you will. It's called choice. And there's not one of us above a mistake. It's only those that fail to recongnize them I worry about.
|
|
|
Posts:
3,166
Registered:
6/29/09
|
|
(526 of 613)
Re: H Clinton: "We tax everything that moves..."
Nov 12, 2009 3:35 PM
|
> So has inflation.
Why should anyone listen to your opinion if you can't even get your facts right?
|
|
|
Posts:
9,549
Registered:
3/25/08
|
|
(525 of 613)
Re: H Clinton: "We tax everything that moves..."
Nov 12, 2009 3:33 PM
|
> Mazola party? I'm game.
>
> One thing: I want a couch covered with washable
> sheets dedicated for me to give massages on.
Ok, if you insist.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,881
Registered:
6/23/08
|
|
(524 of 613)
Re: H Clinton: "We tax everything that moves..."
Nov 12, 2009 3:31 PM
|
PW
You're correct. All this talk of SSA and SSi are pushing me towards my dotage....
So, I will address you.
>Of course not. It's not envy, it's disgust at such heights of greed to the purposeful detriment of others.
Really? I still say envy. Here's a question. If I make a company say a billion dollars in revenue, and you help me make that billion by keeping the lobby clean, should you get the same compensation that I did for brokering the deal? If not, how much compensation should I get? And based on that, how much should the janitor make? And let's be specific this time.
>In adjusted dollars, middle class wages have been stagnant for a decade
So has inflation. What, prey tell have the middle class done to be more productive? How have the diffentiated their labor skill sets to offset the malaise of income stagnation?
>and jobs like in manufacturing make considerably less in adjusted dollars than they did a decade ago.
They compete with economies that charge fractions of what they receive in this country. A welder at GM makes 65K a year. A welder in S Korea makes 25K a year ad Deawoo. A welder in Indonesia makes 10K a year for PT Astra . They all have the same skill sets. What does a welder at GM do that substantively different from the one in Malaysia?
>What skill set did they suddenly lose to justify that?
And that's the problem. They haven't improved their skill set. Failure to improve.
>Always just a matter of time before ya bust out the "lazy."
And of course, your response is that we should just pay folks more because we like them? Of course goverment works that way, they have built in cost of living increases, they have COLA, etc. They, however, don't have to exist in a zero sum economy. (Although California is figuring this out now...) Why should I pay an employee more for doing the same job? They don't make or produce more revenue for doing it? Why shouldn't those who actually produce receive the benefits of their own labor?
>Be sure to teach them to take the most and give the least
I'd settle for showing up to work, not expecting that when they don't and have used the entirety of their sick and vacations days to not whine when they don't get paid, stuff like that. And hey, perhaps they'd actually work while they're here. That would help too.
|
|
|
|
|
