Trump 2016

"So Obamas comment while letter correct, in fact it is not the case since it is paid for by the business owner in one form or another. So it was a divisive self serving comment."

It was only divisive because people choose to make it so. The infrastructure is built before people use it and is great deal in terms of benefit for cost. All those taxes and fees are nothing more than a reasonable contribution, or rent, for benefits. Just because you rent a house doesn't mean you built it. People live in this country, get the benefit of it and deny the advantages they've gotten as a way of trying to avoid having to pay it forward.

Robert
 
WhyteWizard said:
"So Obamas comment while letter correct, in fact it is not the case since it is paid for by the business owner in one form or another. So it was a divisive self serving comment."

It was only divisive because people choose to make it so. The infrastructure is built before people use it and is great deal in terms of benefit for cost. All those taxes and fees are nothing more than a reasonable contribution, or rent, for benefits. Just because you rent a house doesn't mean you built it. People live in this country, get the benefit of it and deny the advantages they've gotten as a way of trying to avoid having to pay it forward.

Robert
Click to expand...

Wow. Just WOW

The "advantage" is Opportunity
As far as "paying it forward"........... It is done daily, it's paid so far forward, that our grandkids children will be paying for it

And yes infrastructure is built before use, but it is paid for, before and during
 
Ronkh said:
Wow. Just WOW

The "advantage" is Opportunity
As far as "paying it forward"........... It is done daily, it's paid so far forward, that our grandkids children will be paying for it

And yes infrastructure is built before use, but it is paid for, before and during
Click to expand...

That advantage, or opportunity, the infrastructure, didn't make itself. The people who came before us invested in it and paid the taxes because they knew the benefit would come down to us and because they loved this country and wanted it to be the best it could.

One of the neoconservative ideas is that if you make any contribution at all, no matter how small the percentage, you're entitled to the whole thing without any further responsibility. Like I said, taxes at this point, user fees, etc. don't begin to pay for what's provided, in fact, at this point there's not even enough being collected pay for maintenance. And, btw, it's not because you're not paying enough, it's because others who should be paying more aren't and haven't since Reagan.

Finally, did you deliberately misunderstand "paying it forward"? Because you seem to have confused it with charging it forward.

Robert
 
WhyteWizard said:
That advantage, or opportunity, the infrastructure, didn't make itself. The people who came before us invested in it and paid the taxes because they knew the benefit would come down to us and because they loved this country and wanted it to be the best it could.

One of the neoconservative ideas is that if you make any contribution at all, no matter how small the percentage, you're entitled to the whole thing without any further responsibility. Like I said, taxes at this point, user fees, etc. don't begin to pay for what's provided, in fact, at this point there's not even enough being collected pay for maintenance. And, btw, it's not because you're not paying enough, it's because others who should be paying more aren't and haven't since Reagan.

Finally, did you deliberately misunderstand "paying it forward"? Because you seem to have confused it with charging it forward.

Robert
Click to expand...


Sorry, you are confused. Yes some of it was built before, but it was only partially invested then, it is continually invested in with "fees". You may be correct that "fees" may not cover it all, but those who "can afford" it actually pay for what they use. Take for example the new subway in San Francisco. It will run for approx. 2 miles. It will NEVER cover up keep, much less original construction. Ridership will be negligible. The most expensive piece of railway. It has done nothing so far (it hasn't been finished) but COST PEOPLE JOBS due to the fact that it has just about brought union square to a virtual standstill. Especially when they had buses that got people from point a to point b quicker. And as you said, the fees aren't enough to cover anything about it. The tax payer (business and citizen) will be paying for it for many lifetimes.

Who should be paying more and why, and how much more?


May I ask what you do/did for work?
 
You didn't address the difference between paying it forward and charging it forward so let me clear it up for you.

The United States went into debt to pay for WWII, then, paid it off and built the interstate highway system, did huge power projects, took care of Vets with the GI bill, etc., with the tax rates they had in the 1950s. They paid for those things in real time, not in debt they handed down. Maybe we should go back to the tax rates they had then. When you look at those rates, adjust for inflation, otherwise you'll need a drink.

You say the subway project has cost jobs by shutting down Union Square. What's your source for that? I was there a few months ago and this is what saw. Also, you seem to be ignoring the jobs created by project and the jobs created when people on that project spend their paychecks.

One more thing: WWII didn't end the great depression. The jobs programs and infrastructure builds of the 1930s did that, and gave us the industrial base we used to make the weapons that won WWII. If we hadn't done that infrastructure build including all the private industry - industry, steel mills, for example that were built to supply the demand brought about by, again for example, building the Oakland Bay Bridge, we would have been dead in the water until it could be built. As it was, it was a relatively simple shift from consumer goods to arms.

Our grandparents paid off WWII, who's going to pay off Iraq? Which war was necessary? Who was in charge?




Robert
 
WhyteWizard said:
You didn't address the difference between paying it forward and charging it forward so let me clear it up for you.

The United States went into debt to pay for WWII, then, paid it off and built the interstate highway system, did huge power projects, took care of Vets with the GI bill, etc., with the tax rates they had in the 1950s. They paid for those things in real time, not in debt they handed down. Maybe we should go back to the tax rates they had then. When you look at those rates, adjust for inflation, otherwise you'll need a drink.

You say the subway project has cost jobs by shutting down Union Square. What's your source for that? I was there a few months ago and this is what saw. Also, you seem to be ignoring the jobs created by project and the jobs created when people on that project spend their paychecks.

One more thing: WWII didn't end the great depression. The jobs programs and infrastructure builds of the 1930s did that, and gave us the industrial base we used to make the weapons that won WWII. If we hadn't done that infrastructure build including all the private industry - industry, steel mills, for example that were built to supply the demand brought about by, again for example, building the Oakland Bay Bridge, we would have been dead in the water until it could be built. As it was, it was a relatively simple shift from consumer goods to arms.

Our grandparents paid off WWII, who's going to pay off Iraq? Which war was necessary? Who was in charge?




Robert
Click to expand...


What is my fair share in taxes? What is yours?

As far as union SQ, you pic was a tourist pic ????? This is not reality, this is the tourism picture.

May I suggest you get some new glasses, since this IS UNION SQUARE (and will be for "a few more years"


20150624_121943_zpsg0vapj6k.jpg



20150624_121842_zpsjnfijewi.jpg



20150624_121729_zpswcbugjtf.jpg
 
That's not what it looked like when I was there in person and even with the construction those business' are still open. In the long run, the subway will be good for the area. This is a picture from 4 days ago. Google union square san francisco and limit the search to the last week.

attachment.php








Did you look up what the tax rates were in the 50s?

Robert
 

Attachments

  • a-super-nice-jw-right.jpg
    a-super-nice-jw-right.jpg
    33.8 KB · Views: 149
WhyteWizard said:
That's not what it looked like when I was there in person and even with the construction those business' are still open. In the long run, the subway will be good for the area. This is a picture from 4 days ago. Google union square san francisco and limit the search to the last week.

attachment.php





Did you look up what the tax rates were in the 50s?

Robert
Click to expand...



Fantasy. Go walk down Stockton St and see how many are open and doing business, how many have closed since the construction. What makes you say that subway will be good for the area?

I'm well aware of the rates in the 50's, apples/oranges since the tax code has changed. Sorta like the employment/unemployment index.

So you never did tell me what you do/did for work.
 
There are hundreds of pictures of Union Square available. Business' open and close all the time and while I'm sure the construction adds stress, in the long run having a good transportation system that helps people get around quickly and easily is a public good. And again, you've ignored the jobs created by the project and the business' that have done better because those people have money to spend.

As far as what I do and have done for a living - it's not material to this discussion - so I consider the question rude.

Robert
 
WhyteWizard said:
There are hundreds of pictures of Union Square available. Business' open and close all the time and while I'm sure the construction adds stress, in the long run having a good transportation system that helps people get around quickly and easily is a public good. And again, you've ignored the jobs created by the project and the business' that have done better because those people have money to spend.

As far as what I do and have done for a living - it's not material to this discussion - so I consider the question rude.

Robert
Click to expand...


Temporary jobs created. and they have already stated that the bus system was faster for that route than the muni will be.

And as far as rude goes.................. Consider it what you will, but it might have added to why you feel the way you do.

Anyway, it was fun.

As I did not start this thread, and really have NO intention on voting for Trump, and have more to lose from this conversation, I'm outta here.

Adios
 
It will be interesting on how the Republican primaries go. Of course, many candidates are just looking for some air time, get a book deal, and possible make money as a talking head. Trump can be a spoiler like Ron Paul who was able to go after anyone.
 
How is it rude to ask guy what he does for a living???? I'm mean, it's RUDE to ask how much $$$ you make - but what you do for a living?? Don't see it.
 
WhyteWizard said:
Swanicyouth said:
How is it rude to ask guy what he does for a living???? I'm mean, it's RUDE to ask how much $$$ you make - but what you do for a living?? Don't see it.[/QUOTE


Because personal boundaries should be respected.

Robert
Click to expand...

The Internet has crazy rules. I dunno. One of the first things people usually do when they meet someone and engage in a conversation is ask about what they do for a living.

I don't get how someone posting on an Internet forum is crossing a boundary. In fact, most forums have at least one thread about what people do for a living.

Now maybe if someone doesn't want someone to know what they do for a living for some reason, perhaps I could understand that???
Click to expand...
 
Swanicyouth said:
How is it rude to ask guy what he does for a living???? I'm mean, it's RUDE to ask how much $$$ you make - but what you do for a living?? Don't see it.
Click to expand...


WhyteWizard said:
Because personal boundaries should be respected.

Robert
Click to expand...

Yeah, not sure I understand that one. Unless a guy is doing something illegal, immoral or something of which he's ashamed. I can't imagine why asking someone about their employment would be in poor taste. If what you're doing falls into one of those category's perhaps a change is in order. It's like asking someone about the weather. Doesn't matter whether your a Dr. or Sanitation Worker, if you do your best at your job you should be proud of it and no one should ever tell you differently. There are certainlly those that will but their opinion is worthless all the same. Just my 2 cents.
 
If someone's opinion of what you do is worthless, why share it? On the other hand, if someone tells you they don't want to share personal information isn't it rude to keep asking?

Robert
 
I do not think it is rude to ask but the person does not need to answer plus there should be no negative connotations when not responding. It was pretty clear the question in this case was going to be used judge or criticize the opinion.
 
Bunky said:
I do not think it is rude to ask but the person does not need to answer plus there should be no negative connotations when not responding. It was pretty clear the question in this case was going to be used judge or criticize the opinion.
Click to expand...

Have been trying to avoid this thread since.........

Al (one of my favorite liberals :) )
It really wasn't to "judge or criticize", and I think you know me better. It was to gain some sort of perspective on the replies he was making.

I would presume his replies are related to his experiences in life, so that would maybe make sense on what and how he was saying.

He seems relatively educated and articulate, so it was curiosity and trying to understand. Nothing more, nothing less.

But since I have made use of the ignore function, I will have to agree with GearHead.
 
WhyteWizard said:
If someone's opinion of what you do is worthless, why share it? On the other hand, if someone tells you they don't want to share personal information isn't it rude to keep asking?

Robert
Click to expand...

Well perhaps, that said it seems a shame to assume the collective all views people the same way. I further hope that you don't consider my comment as asking you again. I wasn't and I couldn't see where the question has been repeated following your response.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top