A short-term immediate plan for growth.

[Disgustipated]

I thought he was just blurting out like some kind of Rain-man.

He was, obviously. See below, he did it again.

This is the internet so no one is talking to anyone....get it you fucking half wit?


Look I understand KK hurt you feelings by not meeting you. I understand that the only way to make yourself feel better about this is to imagine it is because she is a dude...

But the fact is no one on this board other than you, LJ, RDS, and your little army of 100 post Alts believe she has a penis or believe I am her. Stop embarrassing yourself chump, stop sweating my nuts, I am not her. I am not the one that hurt you. Go troll her until your heart heals, but trolling me does nothing.

 

[VaticanAssassin]

He was, obviously. See below, he did it again.

I will buy you a hooker it it helps you get over your obsession with KK? Even I have had girls reject me and I know it hurts...of course I did not stalk them on a porn board, accuse them of being a man, or accuse anyone I did not know of being them..... But I am normal.

Stop trying to recruit people to your side........it is only you, LJ, RDS and your Alts and everyone else knows you are full of shit punk.

 

[Disgustipated]

What?

http://www.trade2win.com/boards/attachments/foyer/19816d1148031574-vomit-thread-vomit.jpg

 

[VaticanAssassin]

http://www.trade2win.com/boards/attachments/foyer/19816d1148031574-vomit-thread-vomit.jpg

Is that the equivalent of "I am taking my ball and going home"? Hell you may as well tell me to go stick my head in dodo you mental midget. Seriously...How do you even make it in this world?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I said it on another board. Cubans make $20 per month. When we normalize relations with Cuba lotsa American jobs are gonna go to Cuba, its only 90 miles from Florida.

 

[Sonny Limatina]

Dodo?

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Puerto Rico currently receives federal benefits, but pays no federal taxes, because of its Commonwealth status.

Not according to Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rico):

The U.S. Government classifies Puerto Rico as an independent taxation authority by Federal Law codified on the Title 48 of the United States Code as 48 U.S.C. § 734. Puerto Rico residents are required to pay U.S. federal taxes, import/export taxes, federal commodity taxes, social security taxes etc. Individuals working with the Federal Government pay federal income taxes while the rest of the residents are required to pay federal payroll taxes (Social Security and Medicare), as well as Commonwealth of Puerto Rico income taxes. All federal employees, plus those who do business with the federal government, in addition to Puerto Rico-based corporations that intend to send funds to the U.S., and some others also pay federal income taxes. In 2009, Puerto Rico paid $3.742 billion into the US Treasury.

And then there's this:

Because residents of Puerto Rico pay into Social Security, they are eligible for Social Security benefits upon retirement, but are excluded from the Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and the island actually receives less than 15% of the Medicaid funding it would normally receive if it were a U.S. state. Yet Medicare providers receive less-than-full state-like reimbursements for services rendered to beneficiaries in Puerto Rico, even though the latter paid fully into the system.

Nothing like an additional drain on Medicaid to further hasten its demise.

It may be time to cite your source and throw it under the bus, because continuing to pretend these are your original ideas is making you look significantly dumber than you might want to admit to.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Dodo?

Let me know if he finds one to stick his head in. Those things are supposed to be extinct.

http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/willow/dodo-info0.gif

 

[Sean Renaud]

Let me know if he finds one to stick his head in. Those things are supposed to be extinct.

http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/willow/dodo-info0.gif

They aren't extinct. Several of them post on lit. They've just gone into hiding but just you wait they'll be out in force in about twelve months.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Look, I offered ideas. If you have better ideas, present them. I was looking for constructive discussion, back and forth, not bitter, knee-jerk reactions. Obviously, none of you are willing to argue anything but the same assumptions, bad sources, and stupid talking points.

No, not of these ideas are original to me. I even said so on a couple of ideas. But I happen to think that, on balance, they would be a good starting point.

No, I wasn't advocating secession, but I think that it is Constitutional, if some state wants to try it. That's a hypothetical scenario.

Again, if you have useful ideas that are better than mine, write them down and expose them to the light of day. Give me a chance to critique them. Otherwise, shut up and stop pretending that your sources, ideas, and assumptions are better than mine. Quoting left-wing think tanks, organizations, and newspapers doesn't make you smarter than me. It just makes you trapped in the same radical rut that those moronic protesters on Wall Street are.

No, I am not an alt. But I am guessing that most of you are. Probably including KRC.

All but a few of your attacks are based on the same myths and flawed premises that the left favors so much instead of reality. Excuse me, I will now stop confusing you with facts.

The fact that all of you have resorted to personal attacks shows me that you have already lost your argument.

 

[Sonny Limatina]

Great. I always get the seat next to the crying baby.

 

[KRCummings]

Look, I offered ideas. If you have better ideas, present them. I was looking for constructive discussion, back and forth, not bitter, knee-jerk reactions. Obviously, none of you are willing to argue anything but the same assumptions, bad sources, and stupid talking points.

No, not of these ideas are original to me. I even said so on a couple of ideas. But I happen to think that, on balance, they would be a good starting point.

No, I wasn't advocating secession, but I think that it is Constitutional, if some state wants to try it. That's a hypothetical scenario.

Again, if you have useful ideas that are better than mine, write them down and expose them to the light of day. Give me a chance to critique them. Otherwise, shut up and stop pretending that your sources, ideas, and assumptions are better than mine. Quoting left-wing think tanks, organizations, and newspapers doesn't make you smarter than me. It just makes you trapped in the same radical rut that those moronic protesters on Wall Street are.

No, I am not an alt. But I am guessing that most of you are. Probably including KRC.

All but a few of your attacks are based on the same myths and flawed premises that the left favors so much instead of reality. Excuse me, I will now stop confusing you with facts.

The fact that all of you have resorted to personal attacks shows me that you have already lost your argument.

I don't need to quote anyone to know I'm smarter than you. That is abundantly clear. I call people stupid but it is not often that I directly say I'm smarter than another person but dude, I'm way the fuck smarter than you. You are epically stupid. You make Garbage Can look smart.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Look, I offered ideas. If you have better ideas, present them. I was looking for constructive discussion, back and forth, not bitter, knee-jerk reactions. Obviously, none of you are willing to argue anything but the same assumptions, bad sources, and stupid talking points.

No, not of these ideas are original to me. I even said so on a couple of ideas. But I happen to think that, on balance, they would be a good starting point.

No, I wasn't advocating secession, but I think that it is Constitutional, if some state wants to try it. That's a hypothetical scenario.

Again, if you have useful ideas that are better than mine, write them down and expose them to the light of day. Give me a chance to critique them. Otherwise, shut up and stop pretending that your sources, ideas, and assumptions are better than mine. Quoting left-wing think tanks, organizations, and newspapers doesn't make you smarter than me. It just makes you trapped in the same radical rut that those moronic protesters on Wall Street are.

No, I am not an alt. But I am guessing that most of you are. Probably including KRC.

All but a few of your attacks are based on the same myths and flawed premises that the left favors so much instead of reality. Excuse me, I will now stop confusing you with facts.

The fact that all of you have resorted to personal attacks shows me that you have already lost your argument.

Stop whining. Your stupid list, wherever you got it, made an erroneous assumption regarding the effect of admitting Puerto Rico as the 51st state. You followed that up with a blatantly incorrect statement about the federal tax revenue Puerto Rico contributes to the federal treasury.

When someone corrects errors of fact in an argument, that IS constructive discussion. You only diminish your credibility when you characterize that contribution as "bitter, knee jerk reactions." Nobody owes you a "better idea" simply because they discovered other facts that proved yours wrong.

Secondly, you and the author of the list are apparently oblivious to its internal contradictions. You and he cite a federal regulatory hiring freeze and the fallacious economic benefits of Puerto Rico statehood as having a deficit reduction impact, and turn right around and have the federal government increase government spending through block grants to the states while simultaneously throttling federal revenues by "slashing" the capital gains tax, inheritance tax and gasoline tax. Boasting of a deficit reduction impact from one program is meaningless if it is negated by the deficit increasing consequences of another.

Do the math and then get back to us.

The same goes for all these vague suggestions about free trade negotiations. A fine idea, and many of those negotiations are ongoing. It remains to be seen how much they will contribute to our economic growth if (and after) they're signed and ratified.

At best, you found a simplistically vague and contradictory list of policies, some of which are flat out wrong in their current assumptions and fundamental facts.

If solving our nation's woes was a easy as making a list of favorite policies out of context and blind to the potential of unforeseen consequences through our insistence of looking the other way, then we'd all have a list or two of our own.

That's probably why you're not seeing all these better ideas. They are in short supply and most come at a cost that many of us are unwilling to pay.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Stop whining. Your stupid list, wherever you got it, made an erroneous assumption regarding the effect of admitting Puerto Rico as the 51st state. You followed that up with a blatantly incorrect statement about the federal tax revenue Puerto Rico contributes to the federal treasury.

When someone corrects errors of fact in an argument, that IS constructive discussion. You only diminish your credibility when you characterize that contribution as "bitter, knee jerk reactions." Nobody owes you a "better idea" simply because they discovered other facts that proved yours wrong.

Secondly, you and the author of the list are apparently oblivious to its internal contradictions. You and he cite a federal regulatory hiring freeze and the fallacious economic benefits of Puerto Rico statehood as having a deficit reduction impact, and turn right around and have the federal government increase government spending through block grants to the states while simultaneously throttling federal revenues by "slashing" the capital gains tax, inheritance tax and gasoline tax. Boasting of a deficit reduction impact from one program is meaningless if it is negated by the deficit increasing consequences of another.

Do the math and then get back to us.

The same goes for all these vague suggestions about free trade negotiations. A fine idea, and many of those negotiations are ongoing. It remains to be seen how much they will contribute to our economic growth if (and after) they're signed and ratified.

At best, you found a simplistically vague and contradictory list of policies, some of which are flat out wrong in their current assumptions and fundamental facts.

If solving our nation's woes was a easy as making a list of favorite policies out of context and blind to the potential of unforeseen consequences through our insistence of looking the other way, then we'd all have a list or two of our own.

That's probably why you're not seeing all these better ideas. They are in short supply and most come at a cost that many of us are unwilling to pay.

You're assuming that your "facts" are valid. I seriously doubt that. As for the states, it would be simply be returning money to a level closer to the people, and thus making it less likely that they will be misused, as with Solyndra. I happen to think my pot excise alone will help balance the budget, in any case. You're ASSUMING that Puerto Rico is still a basket case, when its new administration and legislature are doing wonders these days. It's not the Third World welfare state it used to be.

I believe that the free trade agreements will add a great deal of revenue, through greater access to foreign markets than we currently have. Energy independence will also improve our deficit shortfall and strengthen this country. The gas tax cut will encourage travel and give our economy a shot in the arm, making a real difference in the everyday budgets of ordinary taxpayers. The gasoline tax is a tax that proves the hypocrisy of those leftists who complain about "regressive" taxes, since it hurts the wallets of the middle class and poor a lot more than the rich.

Those Wall Street protesters should stop and think about that. They should also be aware of the Laffer Curve, which shows that once taxes get too high, they actually decrease revenue by having a prohibitive effect on the items taxed.

In the long run, ending the war on drugs and freezing federal hiring (and eventually, abolishing entire government agencies) will dramatically reduce our national debt. Ending the wars will also have a positive impact, on a double score: National Guardsmen and reservists can return to their better-paying civilian jobs and the Federal Government will no longer have to pay to keep them constantly in uniform.

Improving the immigration laws will make them more efficient, thus supplying this country with more of the right kind of immigrant: those who respect our laws, pay taxes, and produce more.

Simply because you're caught in a box of conventional wisdom and wrong assumptions that prevent you from thinking of useful solutions, doesn't mean that my ideas (and those of any other contributors) are wrong. It just means that you ASSUME, based upon those elites and wrong-headed think tanks that you cite, that they won't work. That's your problem, not mine.

Improving the lot of Native Americans will certainly help this country move forward, and that can only happen by getting the Great White Fathers off their necks and scrapping the BIA, which is assuming the role of colonial governor in this present system. Let the states and tribes deal without any involvement from the BIA. You only need Congress and the Department of Commerce, at the most.

Enterprise zones can revitalize our hollow cities and rebuild our manufacturing sector (which CAN be rebuilt, if we can just get away from our busybody involvement in the private sector).

End sugar quotas, ethanol subsidies, and minimum wages. Get the government out of the business of wage and price controls, which often have the opposite effect of what is intended. Contrary to the myths that we have a "free market" that "caused" our problems, we actually have far too much corporate welfare, too much regulation, too much spending, and too high taxes. That doesn't constitute a "free market"- quite the opposite, in fact. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are just prime examples of this, since they dance when Uncle Sam pipes.

But you, no doubt, as that imbecile KRC does, will consider your "facts" superior to mine, and dismiss me as stupid. That is your First Amendment right, just as it is mine to call you on your bullshit. Goodbye, idiots.

 

[JohnnySavage]

I'm not sure I would say you are stupid, woefully misinformed perhaps, but probably not stupid. Here's the problem: On an annual basis, we spend $1.5 TRILLION more than we take in. Your solutions are a mere drop in the bucket, even accepting your assumptions.

Our tax receipts are 15% of GDP and our Federal spending is 24%. Federal spending, as a percentage of GDP is at a historical high, and receipts are at a historical low. That's the problem, plain and simple. Making PR a State won't change that, and there's not enough dope in the world to tax and receive $1.5 trillion.

When you say things like "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are just prime examples of this, since they dance when Uncle Sam pipes" people are going to think you stupid. That statement implies that you don't know that Fannie and Freddie are Government Sponsored Entities. They have no choice but to dance when Uncle Sam pipes.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

I'm not sure I would say you are stupid, woefully misinformed perhaps, but probably not stupid. Here's the problem: On an annual basis, we spend $1.5 TRILLION more than we take in. Your solutions are a mere drop in the bucket, even accepting your assumptions.

Our tax receipts are 15% of GDP and our Federal spending is 24%. Federal spending, as a percentage of GDP is at a historical high, and receipts are at a historical low. That's the problem, plain and simple. Making PR a State won't change that, and there's not enough dope in the world to tax and receive $1.5 trillion.

When you say things like "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are just prime examples of this, since they dance when Uncle Sam pipes" people are going to think you stupid. That statement implies that you don't know that Fannie and Freddie are Government Sponsored Entities. They have no choice but to dance when Uncle Sam pipes.

Yes, they are GSE's, but there is some presumption that since they are technically private companies, they would have some autonomy. Obviously, events have shown otherwise. But the banks, who should be independent lenders, have in many cases been as bullied and manipulated in some cases into these subprime mortgages.

And you're right that by themselves, these solutions won't be enough. They are simply a start. At the risk of quoting our President, "We have to start somewhere." The mere fact that no one solution will be sufficient by itself is no reason to take no action whatsoever.

My point is that we should DO something. Now. Not next year, as an election-year gimmick, not 2013 when Barry leaves the White House (I hope). We don't have the time to wait for these things. We need to act now. There's no time to waste. People are suffering. The debt is mounting, and our children are inheriting a crushing burden that they don't deserve. Remember, as Jefferson said, the earth belongs to the living, not the dead. We shouldn't mortgage it and leave our children no inheritance but bankruptcy.

 

[Sonny Limatina]

I'm not sure I would say you are stupid, woefully misinformed perhaps, but probably not stupid. Here's the problem: On an annual basis, we spend $1.5 TRILLION more than we take in. Your solutions are a mere drop in the bucket, even accepting your assumptions.

Our tax receipts are 15% of GDP and our Federal spending is 24%. Federal spending, as a percentage of GDP is at a historical high, and receipts are at a historical low. That's the problem, plain and simple. Making PR a State won't change that, and there's not enough dope in the world to tax and receive $1.5 trillion.

When you say things like "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are just prime examples of this, since they dance when Uncle Sam pipes" people are going to think you stupid. That statement implies that you don't know that Fannie and Freddie are Government Sponsored Entities. They have no choice but to dance when Uncle Sam pipes.

I have a stupid question: what would be the downside to allowing the US government to operate a for-profit line of goods and services that compete equally in the marketplace alongside private companies? You can buy Nikes or Govtreads, your choice completely, but the profit from every Govtread that's sold goes right into the US Treasury.

 

[JohnnySavage]

I have a stupid question: what would be the downside to allowing the US government to operate a for-profit line of goods and services that compete equally in the marketplace alongside private companies? You can buy Nikes or Govtreads, your choice completely, but the profit from every Govtread that's sold goes right into the US Treasury.

I recall reading a supreme court case years ago where the government did something like that and the ruling was that the government wasn't permitted to compete against private business. I believe it was one of the New Deal cases, but I can't recall the details.

If I recall correctly, that case was the basis for what Prison Industries, Inc. could produce.

 

[Sonny Limatina]

I recall reading a supreme court case years ago where the government did something like that and the ruling was that the government wasn't permitted to compete against private business. I believe it was one of the New Deal cases, but I can't recall the details.

If I recall correctly, that case was the basis for what Prison Industries, Inc. could produce.

If the price was the same, and the only difference is that the profits go into private pockets or the public coffers, I don't understand the Constitutional problem. I could see an issue if the government was undercutting the private companies in price, and therefore maintaining an unfair advantage in the marketplace. But if they were essentially the "No-Ad" of retailers--here's the product, here's a competitive price, buy it if you want, we won't invest in advertising it, but if you do buy it, the profits will get channeled directly back into the public sector"--that seems clean enough.

 

[JohnnySavage]

If the price was the same, and the only difference is that the profits go into private pockets or the public coffers, I don't understand the Constitutional problem. I could see an issue if the government was undercutting the private companies in price, and therefore maintaining an unfair advantage in the marketplace. But if they were essentially the "No-Ad" of retailers--here's the product, here's a competitive price, buy it if you want, we won't invest in advertising it, but if you do buy it, the profits will get channeled directly back into the public sector"--that seems clean enough.

I don't recall the details, and quite frankly, I'm too lazy to look it up. I should actually be outside doing the fall yard clean up, but I'm too lazy to do that as well.

 

[Sonny Limatina]

I don't recall the details, and quite frankly, I'm too lazy to look it up. I should actually be outside doing the fall yard clean up, but I'm too lazy to do that as well.

I remember Fall. That's the couple of weeks per year where you guys have the weather that we have all year round here, right?

 

[JohnnySavage]

I remember Fall. That's the couple of weeks per year where you guys have the weather that we have all year round here, right?

Fall is the three week period of the year when I'm ok with going outside. Not too hot, not too cold, no pollen, low humidity. Sadly, it's also the time of year when there's lots to do outside.

I'm thinking of selling the Savage Manse and moving into an apartment.