|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
 Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2008 6:14 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| mithridates wrote: |
Actually the original post was supposed to be about apostrophe usage (see the first image), but I can see how everybody thought it was just about Romney dropping out. Probably more interesting that way anyway.  |
Are you absolutely sure that "suspend" isn't Romney's last name? A lot of people have two last names these days. I guess not since it wasn't capitalized. But then if he can't use an apostrophe correctly, he may not be able to capitalize all that well either.
But really, would you want a president who couldn't properly use an apostrophe? Sure, George Bush cannot speak correctly but we are talking about writing here.
I'd like to take this opportunity to remind everyone that Ron Paul has NEVER misused an apostrophe.  |
I think the apostrophe belongs to some CNN news writer.
A better test for candidates might be the word "potato" or maybe everyone has already forgotten Vice President "Potatoe" Head.
I "Quale" at the thought of the grammar police descending on this forum. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
twg
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Location: Getting some fresh air...
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| I would say it only looks that way cause this is a radical board. |
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 1:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Czarjorge wrote: |
| Neither Obama or Hillary are that LIBERAL (boogie boogie). It seems you're so far right that the middle seems to be the left to you. |
| Quote: |
But if President Obama aimed first and foremost to advance US interests, as he would, then, regardless of how enlightened and encompassing his notion of US interests proved to be, overseas rapture at his election would quickly fade.
At home the disappointment might be worse. He is a liberal (the most liberal in the senate, according to National Journal�s annual assessment) yet running as a bipartisan moderate. If he were president, one of those tendencies would have to give way. |
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4c003b86-d7ff-11dc-98f7-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The_Conservative
Joined: 15 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 5:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Czarjorge wrote: |
| . I hope Obama does some bold things as president, my main hope is some redistribution of wealth from the rich to the not so rich. If that's done via tax burden that's fine by me. |
Higher taxes tend to fall more heavily on the "not so rich" as opposed to the rich. Higher taxes encourage the rich to find all kinds of ways (via their high-paid accountants) to hide their money.
Currently the top 1% of wealthy people in America pay 35% of the total tax burden. If it were hiked to 40% or more, what makes you think they won't be trying even harder to shelter money?
Plus high taxes tend to stiffle corporations and innovation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 7:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The_Conservative wrote: |
Plus high taxes tend to stiffle corporations and innovation. |
Perhaps, but corporate taxes are different from individual income taxes.
In regards to tax shelters, that is a why flat-tax should be introduced, or at least the tax code should be simplified. I think that would have more benefit than any tax increase. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 7:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| The_Conservative wrote: |
Plus high taxes tend to stiffle corporations and innovation. |
Perhaps, but corporate taxes are different from individual income taxes.
In regards to tax shelters, that is a why flat-tax should be introduced, or at least the tax code should be simplified. I think that would have more benefit than any tax increase. |
You can simplify the tax code and keep it tiered. A flat tax would be grossly inequitable and would threaten the very existence of an American middle-class. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 8:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The_Conservative wrote: |
Currently the top 1% of wealthy people in America pay 35% of the total tax burden. If it were hiked to 40% or more, what makes you think they won't be trying even harder to shelter money?
|
25%. http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2008/02/how_to_lower_income_inequality.cfm
Tax reductions can't come without a reduction in spending. Otherwise you just get the 'inflation tax' as governments borrow/print what they need. The US has major financial needs in the near future and I wouldn't hold out any hope that the tax differences between the USA and other Western states will survive much longer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 8:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| The_Conservative wrote: |
Plus high taxes tend to stiffle corporations and innovation. |
Perhaps, but corporate taxes are different from individual income taxes.
In regards to tax shelters, that is a why flat-tax should be introduced, or at least the tax code should be simplified. I think that would have more benefit than any tax increase. |
You can simplify the tax code and keep it tiered. A flat tax would be grossly inequitable and would threaten the very existence of an American middle-class. |
1. Yes, I I know. Sorry, I meant that as two different ideas there (either flat tax or just simplify the present system).
2. Threaten the very existence of the middle class? Well we'll see what happens in Eastern Europe. I haven't heard of any dramatic increases in their income inequalities since they switched over. Still probably too early to tell though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pluto
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 8:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The_Conservative wrote: |
| Czarjorge wrote: |
| . I hope Obama does some bold things as president, my main hope is some redistribution of wealth from the rich to the not so rich. If that's done via tax burden that's fine by me. |
Higher taxes tend to fall more heavily on the "not so rich" as opposed to the rich. Higher taxes encourage the rich to find all kinds of ways (via their high-paid accountants) to hide their money.
Currently the top 1% of wealthy people in America pay 35% of the total tax burden. If it were hiked to 40% or more, what makes you think they won't be trying even harder to shelter money?
Plus high taxes tend to stifle corporations and innovation. |
Higher taxes also stifle growth and job creation. They also result in lower salaries and benefits. Let's also not forget that we want consumers to be spending more money in order to grow the economy. It's hard to spend more money when their being robbed by Uncle Sam. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 10:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yo conservatives have 2 choices in November McCain or Hilary.
How many will vote for Hilary? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 12:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pluto wrote: |
| The_Conservative wrote: |
| Czarjorge wrote: |
| . I hope Obama does some bold things as president, my main hope is some redistribution of wealth from the rich to the not so rich. If that's done via tax burden that's fine by me. |
Higher taxes tend to fall more heavily on the "not so rich" as opposed to the rich. Higher taxes encourage the rich to find all kinds of ways (via their high-paid accountants) to hide their money.
Currently the top 1% of wealthy people in America pay 35% of the total tax burden. If it were hiked to 40% or more, what makes you think they won't be trying even harder to shelter money?
Plus high taxes tend to stifle corporations and innovation. |
Higher taxes also stifle growth and job creation. They also result in lower salaries and benefits. Let's also not forget that we want consumers to be spending more money in order to grow the economy. It's hard to spend more money when their being robbed by Uncle Sam. |
I agree with all of this. A McCain Presidency wouldn't be so bad, as long as he doesn't veto a health care plan (which I doubt he would, although he might hold it hostage for increased military spending). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 3:02 pm Post subject: ... |
|
|
Yeah. There is a certain sigh that I breathe.
My greatest hopes were for Romney or Giuliani.
Why? Because a pro-gay or pro-choice candidate would torpedo the GOP as we know it.
In McCain, the Republicans have essentially picked the corn out of their feces.
On the other hand, the concept McCain is the wildest candidate they can float is more spin than substance. The guy debated Bush in 2000 about who was the real conservative.
McCain is a conservative through and through. His single strong point is that he wants to cripple campaign financing. Fat chance you'll hear him talking much about that atm. And the president really can't do diddly about campaign financing.
Immigration? Non-issue for me. It would be nice if our economy functioned legally, but the Mexicans aren't working for a bunch of hippies.
Our current president supports normalizing immigration. He's not a liberal. If the liberals reform immigration, it's not because they're liberals.
Ron Paul had a great many good things to say. He was also insane.
Ralph Nader was a far better candidate than Ron Paul.
My sigh is that 3rd parties are not properly viable in our system, as they conversely are in states with a parliamentary system.
This hinges on two aspects of our government.
One is the electoral college.
One is that the size of the House of Representatives is frozen.
But but but, before we'll ever see change there, we go where the public has found time for change: Primaries.
They're not covered by the Constitution, but a RETARDED amount of attention was spent on Iowa and New Hampshire. These states are not superior to any other state, and their stranglehold on primary status must end.
Sigh for that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 3:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I agree that Ralph Nader has at least some attractive qualities as a potential, albiet unlikely, president.
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| ...this is a radical board. |
There is no question about it. Sighs, indeed. Radicals have been sighing and asking the "why-is-there-no-Socialism-in-the-United-States?" question in their own way -- that is, "why Goddamit!!! is there no Socialism in the United States?" with increasing frequency since the 1960s.
Let me clue them in. There is no capitalist conspiracy to thwart socialist reform or dupe organized labor via trade-unionism, etc.
Rather, there is no grass-roots support for such radicalism in the United States. There never has been. Not for the radical left; not for the radical right. Note Ron Paul never shows higher than nine percent or so.
Take FDR and the New Deal. At one point he attempted to pack the Supreme Court to get his non-emergency New Deal social reforms off the ground. A bipartisan conservative coalition in Congress (Southern Democrats and national Republicans) blocked him and backed the Court as it was. Later FDR attempted to purge these conservative Southern Democrats and remake the Democratic Party into a purely progressive, reformist party. Failed. Then the war came and all of it fell into the background (for the time being; Truman, JFK, and esp. LBJ picked it up again and made additional gains in civil rights, etc.)
In any case, why did FDR fail here? The answer is obvious: where was the radical grass-roots support in the electorate that should have backed him by electing his kind of Democrats to Congress? He intervened in state and local elections and asked the American people, who largely supported him, to do just that. Why did they decline to follow him here...?
America is not a radical place, then, Michael Moore and co. notwithstanding. And why do you think Michael Moore and co. get so frustrated and worked up, calling Americans "the stupidest people on the planet?"
"Are we losing the battle?" Maybe you have been living in a dreamworld of radical potentialities and are just now waking up to reality...? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 3:57 pm Post subject: ... |
|
|
Wow. This is ripe. Let me save a place so we know whether you subsequently edit yourself to say something else:
I agree that Ralph Nader has at least some attractive qualities as a potential, albiet unlikely, president.
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:
...this is a radical board.
There is no question about it. Sighs, indeed. Radicals have been sighing and asking the "why-is-there-no-Socialism-in-the-United-States?" question in their own way -- that is, "why Goddamit!!! is there no Socialism in the United States?" with increasing frequency since the 1960s.
Let me clue them in. There is no capitalist conspiracy to thwart socialist reform or dupe organized labor via trade-unionism, etc.
Rather, there is no grass-roots support for such radicalism in the United States. There never has been. Not for the radical left; not for the radical right. Note Ron Paul never shows higher than nine percent or so.
Take FDR and the New Deal. At one point he attempted to pack the Supreme Court to get his non-emergency New Deal social reforms off the ground. A bipartisan conservative coalition in Congress (Southern Democrats and national Republicans) blocked him and backed the Court as it was. Later FDR attempted to purge these conservative Southern Democrats and remake the Democratic Party into a purely progressive, reformist party. Failed. Then the war came and all of it fell into the background (for the time being; Truman, JFK, and esp. LBJ picked it up again and made additional gains in civil rights, etc.)
In any case, why did FDR fail here? The answer is obvious: where was the radical grass-roots support in the electorate that should have backed him by electing his kind of Democrats to Congress? He intervened in state and local elections and asked the American people, who largely supported him, to do just that. Why did they decline to follow him here...?
America is not a radical place, then, Michael Moore and co. notwithstanding. And why do you think Michael Moore and co. get so frustrated and worked up, calling Americans "the stupidest people on the planet?"
"Are we losing the battle?" Maybe you have been living in a dreamworld of radical potentialities and are just now waking up to reality...? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
