State of the Union, 2003

[TXCAP4228]

And carbon is the 8th most abundant. but it still ain't free. What do you think oil is made of?

I'd like to see H2 powered cars and such...how much does it cost to refine a gallon (I know, volume isn't measured in gallons...)?

You are right about carbon/oil, but the way I understand it Hydrogen doesn't need to be refined in the way that petroleum products do.

It will be interesting to see what technology does with this.

I'll bet we could make it work.

 

[FastPilot]

:And I'll tell you this: I value human life a whole lot more than a hardcore right-wing Republican who's willing to kill nurses and doctors to stop abortions!

Killing innocent children in the womb because you refuse to take responsibility for your actions is respecting life? And supporting people who do this respects life? I've always been amazed at the lefts BRAVE stance that you can literally tear children apart limb from limb in the womb (AND THEY ARE CAPABLE OF FEELING PAIN AT THIS STAGE), giving a pass to another mass murderer (Sadam), and arguing that ax wielding child murderers should not only never get the death penalty, but should live out a comfy existence in prison, with privacy, drugs, conjugal visits, cable, internet access, and the ability to file unlimited frivolous lawsuits. I've been in the position more than once of drawing down on someone and being wholly prepared to take their life (once in the defense of myself and my family, and another to protect two innocent people who were being attacked). It was not easy or fun, or motivating, just necessary. How in the world can people get fired up and excited about delivering an eight month baby (except for the head), flipping it over, splitting open the back of its head with a medical instrument, and suctioning out the baby's brain with a vacuum cleaner. Yea, that's respecting life.

Steve

 

[Salty Dog]

The only real problem in realizing widespread fuel cell use is distribution. When you compare it to our current super-efficient gasoline refining and distribution system that took a 100 years to evolve, everything else is going to look sporadic at best. Start in the cities, develop from there, as the free market allows.

With respect us being enablers to our greatest global export - the principle of freedom - look at past progress. In 1900 there were maybe a dozen free countries. Now there's over 100. Freedom promotes stability and limits the power of despots. If you can't control food, water, land, and other precious resources, it's really hard to oppress people. That's a good thing.

Finally, the dividend tax exemption is an enabler to make individually owned retirement accounts more productive. Social Security has one giant flaw - when you die, the money you saved reverts to Gov't ownership. If you OWN the money (individual ownership - one of the great freedoms being our right to own our own property) you can pass it on to your heirs to spend, invest, or blow as they see fit. Why just take 14% of your pay to enrich the government instead of your progeny. Chile figured this out, so can we!

 

[TXCAP4228]

Social Security has one giant flaw - when you die, the money you saved reverts to Gov't ownership. If you OWN the money (individual ownership - one of the great freedoms being our right to own our own property) you can pass it on to your heirs to spend, invest, or blow as they see fit. Why just take 14% of your pay to enrich the government instead of your progeny. Chile figured this out, so can we!

If you think about it, social secuirty in its current form takes money from the contributors today in order to fund the receivers of this money today.

Its almost like a giant ponzi scheme.

Personally, unless this privatization occurs, I will never count on having social security for my retirement.

 

[JuJu]

Lastly, the hell with the French. Having read an abundance of WWII material, their legacy of being wimps goes far past capitulating in three weeks time to a horse driven army! Tough horse driven army though.

I gotta weigh in here with some support for the French, which I don't usually do. After you finish the abundance of WWII material, read through some of the WWI material and see how many French (large % of young male population, indeed some entire villages on the front) were lost during that war. Knowing what the French went through with WWI makes it a little easier to understand why they threw open the cafes for WWII. Also, I have to say I have noticed a distinct difference in the way the French act towards Americans since Germany reunified. It's much better. If you get to Normandy, there is still profound respect there for the invasion and those that perished.

 

[Timebuilder]

I'll try and keep this short.

For a man who has never presented himself as a master of public speaking, he did a commendable job.

Hydrogen car: the major hurdle is finding a method of stabilizing hydrogen for safe transport and handling, as was mentioned above. This is a great idea, and our space experience will be very valuable in this quest. Some of you might remember that I suggested that it would be the oil companies, those with both much to lose AND much to gain, who would be the "energy companies" that will power our future. Let's use oil while we need to, and not use it when we no loger need to. How about a hydrogen aircraft?

Iraq: Bush could not have been more clear as to why we need to hold this dictator to the agreement that ended the Persian Gulf War, and UN resolution 1441. Saddam is clearly in non-compliance, and poses a grave danger to the free world.

Imagine for a moment that it's the spring of 2001. Bush is on TV telling us that we have to go to Afganistan and go after two groups we have never heard of: the Taliban and Al Queda. He says that they are planning a major attack on the US, and thousands of Americans will die. Can you hear the laughter and jeers from the left? Can you hear James Carville? Tom Daschle?

I can.

So let's go back to reality. Hillary Clinton says that Bush hasn't done enough. Others say that we knew about the attack, and did nothing. Many, such as some in this thread, think we have done too much, and given up too much of our freedom to monitoring, checking, and restricting. For Bush, this is a no-win situation. He's da**ed if he does and if he doesn't.

Intelligence and reports from two groups of UN waepons inspectors have noted that Saddam DEFINITELY had WMD, and that he cannot produce ANY documents to show what has happened to those WMD. This menas that we can make the mistake of ignoring these events, and the WMD, and wait for the smoking gun, like Ted Kennedy wants us to do. Or, we and our allays can act decisively, remove Saddam from power, free the people of Iraq from his cruel totalitarian state, and with the help of thousands of Iraquis we can find and destroy the WMD that remain in Iraq, and get a clue as to where the remainder has gone.

Someone mentioned the Constitution and asked whether or not the President can make a statement that reveals his religious faith. The answer is yes. He cannot, however, provide the power of his office to recommend to Congress that a law be passed in order to make any one religion the official religion of the USA.

One needs to remember that the decision of the Supreme Court that the establishment clause extends to restrain religious expression from public discourse was not the intent of the framers.

It is curious, indeed that David Westerfield will never die in a California jail for the murder of a child, yet thousands of California women murder their children every week with the approval of the same government. It is the ultimate act of the powerful over the powerless.

So, my view is that our continued pressure and ultimate disarming of Iraq is a matter of responsibility of the US, and not a matter of ego, attempts to kill GB senior, unlimited oil supplies, or general warmongering. We made a mistake, under public and UN pressure, to let the Gulf War end as it did, and now we have a mess to clean up because we decided to allow Saddam a diplomatic "out". Maybe Saddam will wise up and take off for Sweden.

Of course, to leave would be smart and reasonable. Something that Saddam has shown that he isn't.

 

[Salty Dog]

Really on a tangent here, but an interesting topic nonetheless. As a FINC major, I once added up my dad's Soc Sec contributions as if they were put into a fund earning the (then) historical stock market average rate of return, then assumed an 8% pay-out from the nest egg in perpetuity. Believe it or not, Soc Sec was a better deal, but not by much.

Considering he went from $54 his first year as an Airman Recruit (1957) all the way to his retirement as an AA DC-10 CA he obviously had some serious dough "in" the plan at the end.

Soc Sec pays him back as if he had done that very thing, only it is actually done, as you say, with current money - not his own that was literally sitting in an investment pile the whole time. The biggest difference is that the notional nest egg will not get split between my brother and me when he (and/or mom) croaks. That's "non-voluntary disenrollment" in Soc Sec terminology!

I just don't understand why more people don't raise a huge stink about this. Image generation after generation of your family amassing wealth in this pass-down manner. Lowly bottom feeders of the middle class like us would easily join the ranks of trust-fund babies like Ted Kennedy in just a few generations. Assuming our kids don't blow it all on cars and drugs before they reach 30... That's what happens when fear-driven senior citizens who vote upwards of 80% of the time are driving who writes the laws. The key is convincing those in the system that nobody wants to take it away while enabling those of us who don't believe they'll ever see a dime to implement a system that works.

Now that Aristotle Onassis' grandaughter just turned 18, though, I'll just use the great pilot pickup lines from that other thread to marry the billionairess! Hope she likes older guys!!!!

 

[Mr. Irrelevant]

Juju,


I'm not against the French, in fact one of my closest friends was born, grew up in Nantes and lived here in the U.S. for 10 years. Regardless, their Vichy government in WWII is/was a disgrace. They turned over untold numbers of Jews to the Germans in order to improve their own living conditions. Really pathetic. My friend and his wife, in the one discussion I had with them about this were clearly ashamed of what had gone on at that time. I never brought the subject up again as I could see it was painful for them. On the other hand, I'd agree that there was a tremendous amount done by the French underground to assist the allies in preparing for D-Day. I can't recall the exact amount of railroad tracks they blew up in the months/years prior to the invasion but it was a staggering number (at least to me). Today though, they unfortunately put their own interests in front of the worlds. Not a suprise to me.

Salty Dog mentioned the effects on individuals retirement accounts. Although I agree, this is not going to give our economy the BIG shot in the arm it needs. I would agree in theory that the double taxation is wrong but wiping it out would so clearly, only initially benefit a small number of very wealthy people in this country. Bush really seems to either believe very strongly in supply-side economics (or upside-down economics as Gov. Locke called it) or simply his conviction on the double-taxation issue was so strong he wanted the div tax-cut. I do recall it was part of his campaign to get rid of it. Again, I agree in theory but I make over 50k per year and this isn't going to help me or any of my friends.

It should be D.O.A. Even most republican lawmakers are against it. And it is half of his plan. What the heck!!

Good thread so far. Lots of arguments and ideas w/o the name calling. At least it hasn't been hijacked into an RJDC thread.


Mr. I.

 

[chawbein]

Mr. I,

Do you have any investments? If not, then it won't help you, if you do, then it helps you. There are tons of people in this country who own stock that pays dividends whether directly in the form of shares or indirectly in the form of a company-sponsored retirement plan or 401k. The real benefit of the tax cut is the whole package that let's EVERYBODY WHO PAYS TAXES keep some more of their money. Some may say that keeping an extra $300 a year doesn't mean didly squat, but take that $300 and mulitply it by 120,000,000 taxpayers and you get a phenominal amount of money pushed back into the economy.

For those who say the tax is slanted towards the rich (outside of the dividend tax), you are nuts. If you make a household income of 50k or better, you are in the top 25% of the "richest" people in the country. Oh, by the way, the top 50% of the "richest" in the country pay 96% of the taxes. The top 10% that keeps getting tossed around pays 67% of the taxes in this country. You have to have a household income of 92k to be in the top 10%. Why don't those people deserve a tax cut? Why, because all those have-nots might have to miss a FREE CHECK FROM THE GOVERNMENT.

 

[Andy Neill]

Could someone help me out here? I don't understand the double taxation of dividends point. It was my understanding that dividends paid out by a corporation were a business expense like employee salaries and such. Such payments would reduce corporate income and the tax liability. If that is not the case, then they must be paid after taxes and then the double taxation argument would make sense.

Does the payment of dividends affect the taxes a corporation pays or not?

 

[TXCAP4228]

Could someone help me out here? I don't understand the double taxation of dividends point. It was my understanding that dividends paid out by a corporation were a business expense like employee salaries and such. Such payments would reduce corporate income and the tax liability. If that is not the case, then they must be paid after taxes and then the double taxation argument would make sense.

Does the payment of dividends affect the taxes a corporation pays or not?

Before you define dividend you have to understand what "stock" is. I appologize if this is too elementary but this is to answer you as well as other people who don't know but have the same question.

"Stock" represents a small ownership stake in a company. Public companies (where anyone is eligible to own stock) have a fixed number of shares issued, and then each share represents some small fraction of the total ownership of the company.

Now, "corporate profits." A corporation that makes a profit at the end of the year pays taxes on that income. Once that income tax has been paid, the corporation may decide to RETAIN those earnings (stick them under the matress or invest them or whatever) or they may decide to pay a "divedend" to the owners of the company - all the stockholders. So a divedend is just those "corporate profits" being distributed to the owners of the company.

The reason that the current system is "double taxation" is that the divedend is profit that has already been taxed as a "corporate profit". What justifictaion is there for txaing it AGAIN when you pay it out to the owners?

Now you ask about expense. No, a divedend payment is not an expense in the sense that it is incurred from the business operations of the company. A divedend is a decision by the company to disburse its profits to the owners (the stockholders).

I hope that helps.

 

[TXCAP4228]

I should also add that the company will pay the SAME income taxes whether it pays a divedend to its stockholders or not.

 

[Typhoon1244]

Originally posted by FastPilot
Killing innocent children in the womb because you refuse to take responsibility for your actions is respecting life?

I've been in the position more than once of drawing down on someone and being wholly prepared to take their life (once in the defense of myself and my family, and another to protect two innocent people who were being attacked). It was not easy or fun, or motivating, just necessary. How in the world can people get fired up and excited about delivering an eight month baby (except for the head), flipping it over, splitting open the back of its head with a medical instrument, and suctioning out the baby's brain with a vacuum cleaner. Yea, that's respecting life.

Steve, you're right. As I already said (which you didn't notice because you were too pissed to be able to read clearly) I'm not hot about the idea of any abortion. Having children does that to you, I guess.

So who's going to care for all the unwanted children that show up after abortion is made illegal? You? I hope not; you sound a little scary.

Look, I don't know what the solution is, but making abortion illegal is not going to stop teenagers (for example) from having sex. You can't legislate human nature. The harder you make it for kids to pursue abortion, the more you're going to end up with unsafe "back-room" abortions and abandoned babies.

I agree that we should strive to make people understand and accept the consequences of their actions. (My wife has said more than once that if she could travel to area middle and high schools and show the girls what it's like to be six months pregnant, this whole teen pregnancy thing would grind to a halt!) But that's not realistic in the short-term. Think about when you were a teenager. How easily were you told what to do?

I don't know anything about "partial-birth" abortion...but I'll bet it's not nearly as painful for an infant as slowly starving or freezing while wrapped in a wad of newspapers in a dumpster.

 

[Timebuilder]

The dividends a corporation pays come from the profits earned by the corporation, for which taxews were paid.

The argument is that the dividend money has already been taxed once, and to do so twice, the second time being when it becomes a part of your income, is unfair.

I am a great beliver that money should be taxed ONCE. For instance, you are building a family estate to leave to your children from money which has already been taxed when you file every April 15th. Currently, the government will tax that money AGAIN when you die.

I like the idea of a flat tax or a use tax, take your pick. Everyone pays the same proportion of their personal money. The ultimate fairness of such a system scares many people in Washington, since much or our current tax structure is based on social engineering and constituent favors, and none of that would be possible under a truly "fair" system.

 

[Timebuilder]

Look, I don't know what the solution is, but making abortion illegal is not going to stop teenagers (for example) from having sex. You can't legislate human nature. The harder you make it for kids to pursue abortion, the more you're going to end up with unsafe "back-room" abortions and abandoned babies.

Certainly, stopping abortion will not stop teens preganancies, in fact there will always be SOME teen pregnancies. The question is "what can we do as a society to REDUCE teen pregnancies to a managable level, making teen abortions uneccessary?"

The answer is cultural. It has to be seen as BAD, not cool, profitable, acceptable, supported by schools (daycare) and politicians (this twelve year old has reproductive and sexual rights!) in order for teen preganancies to be reduced. Stigma has gone down, government support programs have increased, and social accceptablity has increased. A girl has to feel ASHAMED at the thought of an out of wedlock preganancy, and this is far from the case in most social groups today.

We have removed all of the "suffering", that includes personal, emotional, and economic suffering from teen pregnancies. I doubt if shame can ever become politically correct.

 

[chawbein]

On a lighter note, Timebuilder, are you typing with gloves on? I don't think I've ever seen you fat finger so many posts!!

Seriously,

There is no arguement for legal abortion. How does the risk associated with a "back-alley" abortion justify legalized abortion? How does the fact that some young women abandon their newborn infants justify legalized abortion? Let's jump back to the "back-alley" arguement. Let's make all drug use legal, there are people who do it anyways, and they are putting themselves at risk. That makes for a pretty gay arguement, and it makes no sense. The same goes for that "back-alley" abortion nonsense. Now for abandonment, that arguement doesn't hold water either. Women abandon their children now with legal and safe abortion, do you really think that the number of women who abandon newborns will go up if there is no legal abortion? Oh yeah, as for the who's gonna take care of these extra kids arguement.... There are millions of people in this country who want to adopt. I have family who adopted, but from out of the country, because there is the chance in this country that the biological mother can come back and say I want my child back. With so many people who are willing to adopt a child how can you ask who will take care of them. I wish I could argue this better, but there are limitations to typing.

 

[Timebuilder]

Is my typing that bad??

I often proof my posts after I put them up intially. It seems to me that it's easier to spot errors in the final font. Also, I know that I am attempting to type faster than I usually type, since I just got home for the first time in almost two weeks, and there is much to do.

(I'll try and do better)

 

[BoDEAN]

The speech was very strong in my opinion. Look's like we'll be at war by Mid March.

 

[abenaki]

Typhoon,
You were the one who brought your opinion into the fray about the State of the Union Address not being an appropriate forum for passionate references to faith in God......of course, you didn't say WHY.....and then you bailed out on answering any more comments about the one that you opened the door to.

And I ask, why not? This nation was founded by people with fervent Christian religious beliefs and the foundational principles upon which those people wrote the basis for our contry's government and its values are rooted in those beliefs and the founding fathers beliefs and faith in God.

I applaud the President for passionately stating his faith in God........Without that faith and that of the millions of Christians who were the majority in the conception and building of this country, we would not be where we are today.

And frankly, the decay of family values, the moral degredation of the country, and many other maladies that afflict our society today are, in my opinion, a result of not focusing our faith on God.

Good for you President Bush......

 

[Typhoon1244]

How does the risk associated with a "back-alley" abortion justify legalized abortion?

I didn't say it does...but it will happen. I guarantee it.

Now for abandonment, that arguement doesn't hold water either. Women abandon their children now with legal and safe abortion, do you really think that the number of women who abandon newborns will go up if there is no legal abortion?

Yes.

Oh yeah, as for the who's gonna take care of these extra kids arguement...there are millions of people in this country who want to adopt.

Maybe I should tell you something. My wife used to work for the state as a social worker. She worked with abused and abandoned children, and she assisted with adoptions. I've seen a lot of these things first-hand.

There are millions of Americans who want to adopt? Where are they? There sure as heck not in Texas, Arkansas, Arizona, and Oklahoma. Oh, if you're talking about families who want to adopt healthy white children, that's a different story. But the fact is that most of these unwanted children we're talking about are sick or black or both. Nobody's lining up to adopt them. They bounce from foster home to foster home until they're eighteen, and then they follow in their parents' footsteps.

Do you know how offensive, how maddening it was when my wife and I spent three years unable to have children of our own (not eligible for adoption due to my wife's employment) while women on crack waltzed into our downtown hospital, had babies, and then waltzed out without them, leaving it to the state to decide what to do with these children?

I have family who adopted, but from out of the country...

Well, good for them...but also shame on them. There are far too many children right here in the U.S. who need parents for people to go shopping overseas. And as for the biological parents returning, yes it can happen...but it doesn't happen that often. It's not a good reason to abandon American children.

With so many people who are willing to adopt a child how can you ask who will take care of them?

You gotta believe me, these alleged people who are willing to adopt just aren't out there. I wish they were! It would make this issue a lot easier to address.

Originally posted by Timebuilder
The answer is cultural. It has to be seen as BAD, not cool, profitable, acceptable, supported by schools (daycare) and politicians (this twelve year old has reproductive and sexual rights!) in order for teen preganancies to be reduced. Stigma has gone down, government support programs have increased, and social accceptablity has increased. A girl has to feel ASHAMED at the thought of an out of wedlock preganancy, and this is far from the case in most social groups today.

This is exactly the answer. We have to make societal changes before laws banning all abortions (and drugs, for that matter) will be enforceable.