Israel solution

Move the state of Israel to Virginia, Jerry Fallwell and Pat Robertson can fight over the honor, and see how much y'all love Israel then.

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

This was an article from the St. Petersburg Times Newspaper on Sunday. The Business Section asked readers for ideas on "How Would You Fix the Economy?" I thought this was the BEST idea....I think this guy nailed it!

Dear Mr. President,

Patriotic retirement:

There are about 40 million people over 50 in the work force - pay them $1 million apiece severance - no tax - with the following stipulations that they must do:

1) They must leave their jobs...... Forty million job openings - Unemployment fixed.

2) They must buy NEW American cars....... Forty million cars ordered -Auto Industry fixed.

3) They must either buy a house/pay off their mortgage ..... - Housing Crisis fixed.

Can't get any easier than that! Way cheaper than the cost of what's going on now!

With Recession Looming, Bush Tells America To �Go Shopping More�

Today, President Bush held a news conference where he discussed the �way forward� for the economy in 2007. Renowned Morgan Stanley economist Steven Roach says the the �odds of the U.S. economy tipping into recession are about 40 to 45 per cent.� New York Times columnist Paul Krugman notes that �the odds are very good � maybe 2 to 1,� that the U.S. will teeter toward a recession in 2007. Bush�s solution? �Go shopping more.�

SUGGESTED SOLUTION TO CARMAKER'S CRISIS, AS WELL AS SOME ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

Maybe I've gone off the deep end - but I'm so sick of hearing about the big 3 bailout requests I've come up with a serious suggestion to help them.

I think its environmentally, morally, and financially irresponsible for the government to give tax breaks to those who buy NEW cars (much less bail out the manufacturers). The majority can't afford them anyway (or can't guarantee they'll have a job to make payments on them tomorrow), and we already have enough cars! Backyards and junk yards are full of cars because we can't get parts for them! How many economy cars that were good on gas are sitting in junkyards - because we don't have the parts to keep 'em on the road?

Why can't we get parts? The greedy corporate suits in Detroit figured if we couldn't get them, we'd be forced to buy new cars whether we wanted to or not! So they won't make them. I guess their plan didn't work, because when we bought new cars, we bought them from someone else.

I believe replacement parts manufacturing can be profitable - as the few little companies that make replacement parts for classic cars can prove. It might not restore the bonus of every deprived CEO in Detroit, but it could save quite a few line jobs. There is no longer a big market for new cars - but there's a constantly growing market for replacement parts. Its better than continuing the denial that Detroit has been in for the last decade - clinging stubbornly to the myth that we LIKE what they make, that we WANT it, and that we can AFFORD it, and that every one of us pines away for shiny new giant gas-guzzler in our driveway. We like what they USED to make, the muscle cars, the economy cars, the cars that were our sentimental favorites back in the day, when cars didn't cost the price of a house, and lasted longer than the 5 year warranty! They still have the blueprints to make the parts for those models, as well as parts for later-model cars past their warranty. That's what we want, what we can afford - and the sheer volume of parts purchased would make them a profit as well as helping the little guy with bad credit survive. Not everyone can get a loan for a new car - or even a used one - but those that can't could probably come up with the price of a needed part

I propose we reduce the production of new cars drastically. Instead we revamp a large number of our factories to manufacture parts for the cars that already exist (if we really MUST bail out the big 3, let's insist they put the money toward this). Alternatively, we insist that for every new car they manufacture - they must manufacture a certain number of essential repair parts for their discontinued models (which, according to recent news - will be most of them). This creates jobs, renews the jobs at some of the small non-union subcontracting plants that had to close when told to stop making the parts, or at least saves the jobs of UAW workers who were making unwanted new cars. Let them close their dealerships - but keep the dealer repair shops open. We then give tax credits for anybody who takes classes on repair - this creates jobs, as more people would rather fix it versus junk it (and can certainly afford the part easier than a whole new car). We give tax credits to anyone who gets a non-running vehicle operational again, we give tax credits for anyone who opens a repair/refurbishment shop, we give tax credits to junk yards that reduce their scrap heaps. Much better than a tax credit encouraging people to take on even more debt for a new car!

If some of elderly vehicles are unsafe by today's standards, we could manufacture parts that make them safer and update them, depending on the needs of each model. Surely the powers that be could run a scan for every VIN and get the statistics for how many models of each are currently still on the road (just like they do when there's a safety recall), and decide from there on whatever issues need addressed.

We should also consider legislation that insurance companies stop totalling vehicles without proof that their repair will be more expensive than a new car. "What a car is worth" needs to be restructured - what is the environmental/financial impact of junking it worth - the cost of a new one? If an old paid-off car ran perfectly fine before the wreck - should it be totalled because the damages came to a couple bucks more than the Blue Book value? I really don't think so! In this economy, having a paid-off vehicle with the option of keeping minimal insurance on it is nearly priceless!

We found out during the last couple years that we really can't afford a brand new McMansion, and we don't actually need one either, and we're much better off with less house than our budget can stretch to cover. Many of us know the same thing about the brand new car, but we don't have a choice because we can't fix the old one, and can't trust that the used one we buy will have parts available for it when it breaks down. That needs to change. We need more cost-effective options and we WANT the choice of fixing what we already paid for, instead of being forced to buy ever-more expensive brand new ones again and again and stuffing the landfills indefinitely!

My solution also applies to large appliances. Our landfills are full of them! The manufacturers of refrigerators, washers/dryers, riding lawnmowers, etc. should be required to produce a set number of repair parts for their older models - instead of making commercials about a lady throwing her old one off a cliff simply because she's tired of it!

Do we really want to be a nation of salesmen and consumers? I think we'd have more pride, strength and better ability to make it through these hard times if we replaced our salesmen with repairmen, blind consuming with sensible choices, and learn to one-up the Joneses with how much we saved from the landfill instead of how much we spent. Let's stop planned obsolescence and let the companies that refuse to give up the practice go belly up! They deserve it - they are trashing the environment as well as ripping off their customers - deliberately manufacturing products to break down in a couple years is just morally wrong. Lets make if fashionable to preserve and restore instead of consume and discard! I hope I'm not the only one that's tired of this - so is anybody with me on this? If you're in favor spread the idea! Discuss this with everybody!

Peter Peterson. (Photo: Reuters)

Peter Peterson is coming to get your Social Security and Medicare. Peterson was the commerce secretary in the Nixon administration. He then went on to make billions of dollars as one of the top executives at the Blackstone Group, a private equity fund. Mr. Peterson is known as one of the top beneficiaries of the fund managers' tax break, through which he personally pocketed tens of millions of dollars.

Mr. Peterson has been using his Wall Street wealth to attack these social insurance programs for decades, but he recently stepped up his efforts. Last year, he spent $1 billion to endow the Peter G. Peterson Foundation to further his efforts.

In politics, it's not easy to counter the impact of $1 billion. In addition to its money, the Peterson crew enjoys the support of many important news outlets, most importantly The Washington Post, which pushes his line on both its editorial and news pages.

In fact, The Post even went so far as to identify Peterson's foundation by its boilerplate, an organization that "advocates for federal fiscal responsibility," instead of telling readers of its political leanings, the normal mode of identification for such organizations. (The Center for Economic and Policy Research was established "to promote democratic debate on the most important economic and social issues that affect people's lives.")

While the Peterson crew may have the money and the support of the media, the rest of us can rely on logic and ridicule to counter the attack. In this spirit, we have the Peter G. Peterson Intergenerational Fairness Tax Credit. (Mr. Peterson is apparently fond of having things named after him. In addition to his new Peter G. Peterson Foundation, he also has a think tank named after him, the Peter G. Peterson Institute for International Economics.)

The Peterson tax credit would essentially take the Peterson crew at their word. They claim that they are worried that huge tax burdens will leave future generations worse off than the generations that preceded them.

This isn't true. There is no plausible scenario, short of war or environmental disaster, that would leave future generations worse off than their parents or grandparents. But we don't have to argue with the billionaire; let's just give future generations the option to trade places with their parents or grandparents who made out so well.

This is where the tax credit comes in. The tax credit would allow an individual to trade her after-tax income for the after-tax income that someone born 20 or 40 years sooner would have earned at the same age. For example, if someone born in 1990 believes in 2020 that their grandparents got a better deal, they would simply check off the year 1940, and they would have their taxes adjusted so that they would have the same after-tax income of a person born in 1940, when they were also age 30.

Of course, the young ones would end up big losers in this story. Real wages, on average, will be more than 50 percent higher in 2020 than they were in 1970. Even if tax rates were, on average, 5 percentage points higher, workers in 2020 will still have after-tax wages that are more than 40 percent higher than their counterparts in 1970.

This means that anyone who chose to take advantage of the intergenerational equity tax credit would end up as a big loser. That is why it can help solve the deficit problem. If people check off the tax credit, they will pay more in taxes and, therefore, increase government revenue.

It might be hard to convince large numbers of people to voluntarily pay more in taxes. This is where the Peterson Foundation comes in. They are spending huge amounts of money trying to convince young people that they are being ripped off by their parents and grandparents. They are even promoting front groups of young people to advance this effort.

With his billion dollars, Peterson could convince a huge number of gullible young people to tax advantage of the intergenerational equity tax credit. Insofar as he is successful in this effort, he can help to generate billions of dollars that can be used for items like health care, preschool education, and other pressing needs.

So, let's join efforts with Mr. Peterson and encourage his followers to take advantage of the Peter G. Peterson Intergenerational Fairness Tax Credit. There is a word for taking money from willfully ignorant young people who would deny their parents and grandparents the Social Security and Medicare benefits they need to survive: justice.

No doubt this is a centrist Democrat. Being Republican, I didn't even know if any centrists were left now that they've been hijacked by moveon, who has openly bragged about owning the Dems.

Incidentally, the Dems had enough votes to pass this thing day one. They know better than to do that and end up being responsible. This is why we're subjected to this dog & pony show by them now.

And to think, they are not only working on a filibuster-proof election and an Obama presidency. Can y'all afford this tax ticket? I know I can't.

Why the Israeli attack helps the US by taking on Hamas now and why this time Israel may succeed in Gaza. A well-written perspective on Gaza, Israel, Hamas. This adds more to consider as we all discuss this war.

The Israeli assault on Hamas in Gaza is going to be a replay, we�re told, of the attempt to subdue Hezbollah in southern Lebanon in the summer of 2006. And the outcome, it�s asserted, will be the same: lots of death and destruction, no strategic victory for Israel and a setback for all who seek peace and progress in the Middle East.

Obviously, war is an unpredictable business, so I say this with some trepidation: I think the conventional wisdom will be proved wrong. Israel could well succeed in Gaza.

For one thing, southern Lebanon is a substantial and hilly area, bordered by northern Lebanon and Syria, through which Hezbollah could be re-supplied, both by Syria itself and by Iran. Gaza is a flat, narrow strip, bordered by Israel, as well as by the sea and by Egypt, no friend to Hamas. By cutting off the northern part of Gaza from the southern, Israel has basically surrounded northern Gaza, creating a military situation very different from that in Lebanon in 2006.

What�s more, the Israeli leadership seems aware of the mistakes � political, strategic and military � it made in Lebanon. That doesn�t mean it won�t make them all over again. The same prime minister, Ehud Olmert, is in charge, after all. But, today�s defense minister, Ehud Barak, is very different from his predecessor, the weak and unqualified Amir Peretz. So far as one can tell, the Gaza operation seems to have been well-planned and is being methodically executed, in sharp contrast to the Lebanon incursion. Barak has also warned that the operation could be long and difficult, lowering expectations by contrast with the Israeli rhetoric of July 2006.

In addition, in Lebanon, Israel proclaimed war goals that it couldn�t achieve � such as retrieving its two kidnapped soldiers and disarming Hezbollah. Now the Israeli government says that it seeks to weaken Hamas, lessen its ability to fire rockets from Gaza and secure new arrangements along the Egyptian-Gaza border to prevent Hamas from re-arming. These may well be achievable goals.

And, of course, not all military efforts against terror fail. Recall Israel�s incursion into the West Bank in the spring of 2002, when, under the leadership of Ariel Sharon, Israel succeeded in ripping up established terror networks and began the defeat of the second intifada. Israel also was able to avoid a long-term re-occupation, while retaining the ability to go back in on anti-terror missions. What�s more, the 2002 bloodshed didn�t seem to do lasting damage to hopes for progress or moderation on the West Bank. After all, it�s Gaza, from which Israel withdrew in 2005, not the West Bank, that became a Hamas stronghold.

An Israeli success in Gaza would be a victory in the war on terror � and in the broader struggle for the future of the Middle East. Hamas is only one manifestation of the rise, over the past few decades, of a terror-friendly and almost death-cult-like form of Islamic extremism. The combination of such terror movements with a terror-sponsoring and nuclear-weapons-seeking Iranian state (aided by its sidekick Syria) has produced a new kind of threat to Israel.

But not just to Israel. To everyone in the Middle East � very much including Muslims � who aren�t interested in living under the sway of extremist regimes. And to any nation, like the United States, that is a target of Islamic terror. So there are sound reasons why the United States � whether led by George W. Bush or Barack Obama � will stand with Israel as it fights.

But Israel � assuming it succeeds � is doing the United States a favor by taking on Hamas now.

The huge challenge for the Obama administration is going to be Iran. If Israel had yielded to Hamas and refrained from using force to stop terror attacks, it would have been a victory for Iran. If Israel were now to withdraw under pressure without accomplishing the objectives of severely weakening Hamas and preventing the reconstitution of a terror-exporting state in Gaza, it would be a triumph for Iran. In either case, the Iranian regime would be emboldened, and less susceptible to the pressure from the Obama administration to stop its nuclear program.

But a defeat of Hamas in Gaza � following on the heels of our success in Iraq � would be a real setback for Iran. It would make it easier to assemble regional and international coalitions to pressure Iran. It might positively affect the Iranian elections in June. It might make the Iranian regime more amenable to dealing.

With respect to Iran, Obama may well face � as the Israeli government did with Hamas � a moment when the use of force seems to be the only responsible option. But Israel�s willingness to fight makes it more possible that the United States may not have to.

the U.N. overstepped its bounds? And what about the United Kingdom that controlled the area in the early 1900s?

Like it or not nations are formed through civil war. There are winners and there are losers. It's really very simple. The process has not changed for centuries and it will never change. The strong prevail. The righteous prevail. The minute we take a liberal viewpoint, that's the exact minute we become weak.

Yep, they'll be back when all the Lebanese are dead, because all us conservatives are evil like that.

I have studied U.S./Israel relations extensively. I fully understand that the protestors do not share my point of view as well as you. From reading your copious posts I am very clear on where you stand. I will not be so presumptious as to think I know your biography, but you obviously believe everything wrong in the world has U.S. origins. I believe you are wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt, but I will not try to change your mind. Since liberals in general are so worried about how the rest of the world thinks about us I will bring to your attention that it becomes ever more clear by your stances and views as with those on the extreme left that you all side with terrorism. You can spin it any way you want, but you come off as supporting terrorists.

You Said: "And yes, I did bring Hitler into the conversation. He systematically tied to wipe out a group of people, which is exactly what Israel is doing right now."

That statement is exactly what makes you anti-Semitic. The fact that you can compare Israel to Nazi Germany is obscene and anti-Semitic. You are using something horrific done to the Jews (who make up 75% or more of the Israeli population) and using it to illustrate what you perceive is going on in the Gaza Strip. Can you not find some other means to make your point other than conjuring up prejudice perpetrated by Hitler? Could you have maybe made your comparison to Kosovo/Bosnia? Nope, you chose the holocaust to illustrate your point. You intent was to shock and to be controversial. You wanted to provoke a reaction.

What exactly did you think using the name "Hitler" would provoke? You argument in and of itself is anti-Semitic.

By the way, I am a messianic Jew. I know a little bit about anti-Semitism. So before you continue to insult both my intelligence and my homeland, choose your words wisely.