Obama Announces Re-election Bid

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Jill

But yet I did. (Hint: there's a scroll bar on the code box. Try using it next time before making unfounded accusations.)

Yet, it is quite obvious that the public got ripped off. Considering the amount of money spent and the number of jobs produced. Or the Millions spent on single projects and no jobs were produced. Maybe you believe this to be a good use of taxpayer dollars. I do not.

Yes, really. Although "rescinded" was the wrong word to use. I should have said "restricted".

"President Barack Obama will announce today that he’s imposing a cap of $500,000 on the compensation of top executives at companies that receive significant federal assistance in the future, responding to a public outcry over Wall Street excess.

Again the government has no business imposing caps on any private business, that smacks of a socialist view of government control. I can't support that. This has become ripe within this Demoncratically controlled government.

Any additional compensation will be in restricted stock that won’t vest until taxpayers have been paid back. . ."

Why do you refuse to acknowledge that this investment in our economy was critical to avoid a complete collapse into a full on Depression?

It was dire, but to use the boogeyman of a "Depression" was not a completely agreed notion.

Were you this angry when Ronald Reagan bailed out the failed Savings and Loans in the '80s that ultimately cost the taxpayers over $124 BILLION that was never repaid by the banks (or weren't you alive to remember that bloody fiasco?)

No, I didn't give a shit back then. Different time of my life. I was in the middle of an active duty career in the military and after we finally got ride of the crap of a President Carter, Reagan was a breath of fresh air.

I see that as you find yourself losing ground in a debate, you resort to anger and personal attacks. Trust me, you'll never get anywhere with me with that tack.

Were you insulted by something I said to you?

You fail to understand how debate works. You make a claim, it is incumbent upon you to back it up. Your debate partner is not responsible for refuting your claims.

Oh contare, if someone disagrees with something I stated and make counter claims against it, I am perfectly within my right to ask them to prove me wrong. Who made you some overlord of how one may debate? UT? Did he give you some special disposition? I am not impressed.

But I'll tell you what; I'll humor you just this once on behalf of friend Fair&Balanced.

There is part of your problem.

[indent]IMF and Romania tackle flat tax failure

[i]"Yet more evidence that flat taxes do not deliver. The government of Romania, which adopted the idea of flat taxes in 2005, has called in the International Monetary Fund to provide a €20 billion rescue package to stem a massive deficit in its public finances. The government is now in discussion with IMF officials and others to consider radical tax reform. Amongst the measures under discussion is abandoning flat tax and restoring progressive taxes on personal income and corporate profits."

Now let me get this straight. Romania's flat tax system required bailout but our progressive system did not? Ours doesn't work either. How is this an argument against a flat tax when maybe all that needs to happen is that it needs to be administered differently? Our current system is certainly a failure or we would not be discussing it.

I trust this meets satisfactorily with your demands.

Well no, not really. I asked someone else to do it, apparently he could not.

http://www.fairtax.org/site/News2?pa...rticle&id=9321