Part of the solution would be to put someone else

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

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.

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.

You came across this article. You read it. You believed it and posted it because:

b) we (liberals) must believe it too because it is from a Democrat who is against the war.

Did you not question the validity of the statement? It came from an opposer, so it must be true? Do you believe everything you read simply because it says what you want to hear?

If the article had stated his specific reasons for believing so, I would have been more inclined to believe to be true. But again, it was a blanket article that says very little except his opinion. I think the article is short sighted and your posting it most refutable.

All that it did was convince me further that all your postings do is to try and take the very complex issue of Iraq and over simplify it to justify your war position. Not unlike what the Bush administration has done from day one in regards to dealing with it.

No one with half a brain believes that the progresses being made in Iraq is soley due to the troop surge, and there is plenty of documentation out there to disprove this theory.

Wasn't that the intent of your posting? Try to convince others that the surge is working? It didn't work. We are not that gullible.

I am most happy and pleased about the small gains that are being made, and I recognize them for what they are. But I am also realistic enough to know that those gains can disappear tomorrow regardless of the increased forces because there is no real stability established in the country. Our military is not the one who is going to create that stability. It is just a superficial band-aid at best. It is going to remain a hostile territory until the Iraqi people decide for it not to be and that has to come from reconciliation on the three parties involved. It won't make any difference how many troops we have there.

I like to go to Huff and read the stuff, most it makes me laugh, the blogs; but ya gotta take it all with a grain of salt. Thanks for geting my point about the whole post, it being about Fox news and not about McCain or Obama.

I feel that with all of the side stuff, both sides are like little kids bickering, we are forgetting about everything that is important. I am so tired of both sides bashing the other, it is a waste of time and money.

however, from what I heard of the tapes I don't think this teacher was just throwing his opinions out there. He was teaching them as fact. I think even if he was transferred to a political science class then he would still need to tone down his rhetoric several notches. You can teach any class from an objective point of view with very little effort. Yes, everyone is entitled to their opinion, however, I think teachers need to be very careful about much of their own opinion they teach to students.

I just read a bunch of posts below and am not disturbed, but maybe dismayed is a better word. Whether you trust Obama or not because of his policies, voting record, political life, or whatever is your perogative (sp?), but to incorrectly be making statements not based on anything but milicious rumors spread around leads readers to believe the writer is a biggot and just does not want a black man (which I should state once more 1/2 black, 1/2 white) in the white house. I have no doubt if more of the white race came out and he looked more white than black a lot of this would not be surfacing.

First - Obama is NOT muslim. You can think all you want and hope it to be true but what part of the facts don't you understand. How many times does he have to repeat he is a Christian. Always has been. Raised in a Christian home, white grandparents, white mother, went to catholic school, attended a Baptist church, married in a church (not Moslim), children baptised in a church. To say he is a muslim is like saying McCain belongs to KKK after all he's a white dude. Pullease. Sure, his father was a muslim when he married Obama's mother but that's where it stops. Obama never studied the muslim religon or went to muslim services. My parents are catholics but I was not raised catholic and am not catholic. His mother later remarried someone from Indonesia and Obama attended a catholic school. Get your facts straight. He never went to a muslim school or studied muslim studies and he is not muslim. So what if the muslims like him, so do the Christians, Jews, Mormoms, Baptists, and many other religions!

Second of all on the flag thing. Obama's plane has the American flag on it, are you upset because the flag is not so huge it covers the plane from one end to the next? There's a flag there! Also, just because he doesn't have an american flag plastered all over the place on everything does not mean he is not "American". Have you seen him pledge to a flag of another country? No, he pledges to the American flag! As for the picture that he is standing not with his hand over his heart. I can't tell you how many times I've said the pledge of allegience and I didn't have my hand over my heart every time. Doesn't mean I'm not American. He's not trying to get rid of the American flag, but for pete's sake it doesn't need to be plastered in every square inch of empty space.

The poster who is not well informed about Obama's religion and trying to scare people into believing he's muslim when he's not is just plain wrong. It doesn't "ruffle any feathers" because you are just wrong. You may not want to "sugar coat any facts" but first you need to get the facts straight. People don't "hate" republicans, and certainly not enough that they would want "anything" in there. You could always put that statement on the other foot "People just hate the democrats so much they'll elect an old senile person to fill the position just as long as a democrat doesn't get in there". That excuse just doesn't sit well.

I'm no "Obama-lover" and I won't be voting for him but not because of malicious rumors on the internet or false statements made by the republican side. I'm basing my decision on his voting records and other issues that I don't agree with him on, certainly not from anything I get off the internet. You know there are people on both sides who hate the other candidate so much they are posting fall information, but for anyone to spread this...all I can say is "shame on you".