SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: zzpat who wrote (1033630)10/11/2017 5:18:15 PM
From: Behind Blue Eyes  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1574854
 
They won't be able to buy anything for themselves because everything they make will go to paying for the things we got free.

That is why YOU save your dough you save... and give them a down payment on a house ...



To: zzpat who wrote (1033630)10/11/2017 5:33:00 PM
From: Broken_Clock  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1574854
 
I never stated tax cuts would solve the problem.

I said you must lower spending unless you can increase income.

Increasing taxes doesn't work because more than half of Americans live pay check to paycheck. How are they supposed to pay anymore?

When Obamacare passed and my medicare payment jumped to $650 month all that did was mean I have to keep working until well past 70.

Obamacare is next to useless because it is crafted to increase profits for the "for profit" health care industry.

This isn't even debatable anymore.

Insurance is meaningless if the deductible it to high. That is Obummercare....it gutted $700B from medicare in order to pay subsidies to lower income people stat still can't see the doctor because their deductibles are too damn high.

It was a bait n switch drawn up by the corporate, wall st. loving Dem Party.

When Bernie tried to float medicare for all, you Dems threw him under the buss and allowed Hillary to manipulate the election process to screw him out of the nomination.

You've already admitted wall st. is great and you also think Clinton the war criminal and woman abuser was the greatest President ever.



To: zzpat who wrote (1033630)10/11/2017 5:40:05 PM
From: Broken_Clock  Respond to of 1574854
 
You sure went silent when I posted the truth about Madeline and Clinton's war crimes

Message 31300910

BTW, Ramsey Clark is a Democrat so it's going to be might hard for you to blame it on the Republicans.

en.wikipedia.org
William Ramsey Clark (born December 18, 1927) is an American lawyer, activist and former federal government official. A progressive, New Frontier liberal, [2] he occupied senior positions in the United States Department of Justice under Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson, notably serving as United States Attorney General from 1967 to 1969; previously he was Deputy Attorney General from 1965 to 1967 and Assistant Attorney General from 1961 to 1965.

As Attorney General he was known for his vigorous opposition to the death penalty, his aggressive support of civil liberties and civil rights, and his dedication in enforcing antitrust provisions. [3] Clark supervised the drafting of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and Civil Rights Act of 1968. Since leaving public office Clark has led many progressive activism campaigns, including opposition to the War on Terror, and he has offered legal defense to controversial figures such as Charles Taylor, Slobodan Miloševic, Saddam Hussein, and Lyndon LaRouche.



To: zzpat who wrote (1033630)10/11/2017 6:28:18 PM
From: Tenchusatsu1 Recommendation

Recommended By
locogringo

  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1574854
 
Zzpat,
We have two grocery stores in town. One says everything is free (ObamaCare) and we get free money every time we go into the store (welfare, universal income, Obamaphones).
Fixed.

Tenchusatsu



To: zzpat who wrote (1033630)10/12/2017 1:21:55 AM
From: Broken_Clock  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1574854
 
Lets look a t a real life example of Dem mismanagement and imposing massive tax increases
==

Soda Tax Fizzles In Chicago As Cook County Officials Cast Decisive 15-1 Repeal Vote




by Tyler Durden
Oct 11, 2017 6:40 PM




0
SHARES



In a shocking move that completely upends Chicago's endless pursuit of higher taxes and an overly-regulated nanny state, the Cook County Finance Committee took the unprecedented step of voting to actually repeal their unpopular 'soda tax' last night. The 15-1 vote followed an outcry from local residents and small business retailers who say their soda sales crashed 90% after the original ban was passed. Per ABC:




The vote to repeal the sweetened beverage tax was one spawned by revolt from people and business owners across the county, many who packed the board meeting Tuesday afternoon.



"I'm about 10 percent of where my soda sales used to be. It's really hurt me deeply in the pocket and my workers also. I'm very happy you are understanding this and going to repeal this tax," said Ken Blum, a blind vendor.



"I believe what we heard over the last ten and eleven months is that our residents are fed up, and they finally said enough. Tax fatigue has sunk in," said Cook County Board Commissioner Sean Morrison.



"I have heard from the people in my district overwhelmingly, the business owners, the retailers, as well union members in this building who are opposed to this tax," said Commissioner John Daley.



"Let me tell you I'm overjoyed and elated that this tax is going to go away. I mean the people in my district by an overwhelming majority don't want this tax," said Commissioner Richard Boykin.

The repeal of the tax still faces a vote from the full board which is expected later today. That said, the repeal will not take effect until December 1, which is when the new budget is set to go into effect.

Of course, not everyone was happy with the repeal vote as Public Defender Amy Campanelli, who depends on dipping in the taxpayer-funded trough for her livelihood, complained that tax cuts would require her to make some difficult decisions. Apparently Ms. Campanelli doesn't understand that that is kind of the point.




The calls for repeal were countered with concerns about the impact losing the projected $200 million in revenue will have on county services. Elected leaders made a last ditch effort to keep the tax at the meeting.



"To meet an 11 percent cut we would be subject to massive layoffs. My office in its present form would no longer exist. To meet the target number, we would have to eliminate approximately 134 positions from my 680 budgeted staff, or about 20 percent of my office. The effects would be nothing short of devastating," said Cook County Public Defender Amy Campanelli.

Meanwhile, a representative from the American Heart Association complained that she just can't see how "repealing this tax creates a healthier community."




"I don't see how this repealing this tax creates a healthier community. I think you're going to see -- I think this is a recipe for disaster," said Julie Mirostaw with the American Heart Association.

Sure, and while you're at it maybe just apply a massive tax to fast food, all restaurant dishes that are fried, bacon, cheese, candy, pizza, processed meats...pretty much everything that Americans eat on a daily basis. Perhaps when the nanny state of Illinois takes full control of every decision that its residents make then they will finally be able to mold the healthy population that Julie Mirostaw desires?

Then again, maybe local/state/federal government entities could just stop promoting poor health decisions by subsidizing junk food with taxpayer-funded entitlements like food stamps.

As we pointed out several months ago, a study released by the USDA offered a stunning look at just how much of the money spent on food stamps goes toward the purchase of soft drinks and other unnecessary junk foods. Per the study, nearly $360mm, or 5.4% of the $6.6BN of food expenditures made by SNAP recipients, is spent on soft drinks alone. In fact, soft drinks represent the single largest "commodity" purchased by SNAP participants with $100mm more spent on sodas than milk and $150mm more than beef.




Soft drinks were the top commodity bought by food stamp recipients shopping at outlets run by a single U.S. grocery retailer.



That is according to a new study released by the Food and Nutrition Service, the federal agency responsible for running the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), commonly known as the food stamp program.



By contrast, milk was the top commodity bought from the same retailer by customers not on food stamps.




In calendar year 2011, according to the study, food stamp recipients spent approximately $357,700,000 buying soft drinks from an enterprise the study reveals only as “a leading U.S. grocery retailer.”



That was more than they spent on any other “food” commodity—including milk ($253,700,000), ground beef ($201,000,000), “bag snacks” ($199,300,000) or “candy-packaged” ($96,200,000), which also ranked among the top purchases.



Even worse, when we added up all of the commodities that would typically be considered "junk food" (i.e. soft drinks, candy, cakes, energy drinks, etc.), we found that roughly $950mm, or just over 14% of the aggregate $6.6BN of food expenditures made by SNAP recipients, is spent on unnecessary, unhealthy products.



Of course, that kind of logic has no place in government.