Yes, she eventually did. But not before it became a laughing-stock in Congress. Go back and do some homework. She was very much supportive of the "bridge" back in October of 2006. She didn't kill off funds for the project until nearly a year later in September of 2007. "Ketchikan desires a better way to reach the airport, but the $398 million bridge is not the answer," said Governor Palin. "Despite the work of our congressional delegation, we are about $329 million short of full funding for the bridge project, and it's clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island," Governor Palin added. "Much of the public's attitude toward Alaska bridges is based on inaccurate portrayals of the projects here. But we need to focus on what we can do, rather than fight over what has happened."
Jayford, I am absolutely no supporter of taxes, and always thought of Anguilla as the dream country - just like Vince Cate, although he had to renounce his US citizenship to break free from US taxes. I know the US has some very strict tax rules for private persons, which are very difficult to avoid. The struggle of Vince Cate made this very clear. The US economy is roughly 80% consumer spending, and roughly 2/3 of GDP is from consumer spending. That's the highest in the world with Japan second with an economy of roughly 67% consumer spending. In the US there are several underlying problems today. One is the huge credit crisis, which has folded with people's greatest asset - their home - depreciating in value. Another is how huge subsidies of e.g agriculture (subsidies that are larger than most countries' agricultural sector of their economies), and strict regulation e.g of the energy market - where the US is far behind other comparable nations. Then there is the private health services and retirement model, which is going to cost a lot to improve after all the mishaps where retirement funds were completely drained after scandals and mismanagement. Then there is also the fiscal budget where costs are ramping up every year with more military and defence spending, slashing other badly needy sectors like healthcare and especially education. The last few years have seen a lot of band-aid solutions like the recent package to consumers where they could spend "the latest federal gift check", but that seems to have fizzled out now. We see increasingly protectionist measures being adopted, and when the US was faulted in the WTO a couple of years ago by European companies because of unfair tax-cuts to specific export sectors in the US, the Bush administration response was "ok, then we need to find another way to give these advantages to our exporters". In stead of having a responsible monetary policy, the US administrations have just been "printing greenbacks" ever since they stopped the gold pegging because of the Vietnam war. Now the latest US administration has antagonized the whole world, and undercut decades of effort in international commerce and corporation. Instead the Bush administration have been dealing out tax breaks and subsidies like some third world socialist loonies. Foreign corporations in the US pay a 30% withholding tax, while domestic corporations pay 35% of income above 18mn (with variable rates up to 39% on lower incomes) - alternatively 20% flat tax rate. However, in many countries there are special social contribution taxes (sometimes well over 10% of employee salary) for employers, and special revenue taxes (sometimes in excess of 50%) - or other product taxes - like in Brazil where a single product may have more than 40 different taxes (second only to Thailand in number of different taxes on products). Therefore, the base tax rate is not always comparable. We can say that large US corporations have at least 20% (flat) tax rate as a rule, but there are many different tax breaks and other competitive measures - like I mentioned as an example for certain exporters etc. I went to Dubai with a friend of mine who do tanker broking from there, and I got to say that partying there is very good. The UAE is still heavily dependent on energy as a source for income, but of course is a booming centre for foreign investment because of the favourable conditions. I think increasing the tax burden on most US citizens is detrimental to the economy which is so heavily driven by consumption, but the taxation burden on some of the richer incomes and on many corporations is something that is absolutely necessary, if the US federal government is to get out of the spending crisis with huge deficits - as well as being able to finance the reforms that are absolutely necessary for upholding US infrastructure, education and health service levels. If these concerns are not addressed, consumers will be the ones suffering and ultimately the economy itself, heavily dependent on consumers. If you say - consumers/the population should fend for themselves - you would ultimately see increased spending because of crime, health issues, social problems leading to less productive society and so on... Benign and responsible/smart capitalism is enabling consumers being a strong participant of the economy - and not just a small upper portion of them - but as many and varied consumers as possible, to withstand the varying conjunctures. Here in Brazil, wages are kept incredibly low - and real income is dropping while the divide between rich and poor is quickly increasing. Consumers play a small role of the overall economy, and crime is rampant - they see no positive future for themselves or their kids. Taking care of the future healthy conditions of a society is key. Therefore, a stepwise increase in taxation to address the most pressing concerns - is the responsible way to react - as long as federal government and regulation already is part of US society.
Well, that was impressive. After your previous post, I believed you had no clue. Well done! But still, my point is the same. The problem in the US is over spending. We are actually receiving record revenues, in excess of GDP increases, every year with the current tax system. And, overall, the US does have the highest corporate tax rate in the world. Go ahead and kill some loopholes, but DO NOT raise the tax rate. This will just drive more investment overseas. Not quite sure what you meant by consumers fending for themselves. Raising corporate taxes certainly isn't going to help consumers any. They won't see any of the cash. They need steady jobs, and usually not much else. Raising corporate taxes actually hurts the job market. And as for the whole credit crisis, that had nothing to do with corporations. It was the FED keeping rates too low for too long PLUS idiotic people buying WAY more house than they could afford at temporary rates. It was like some sort of national insanity. I personally couldn't believe people could be that stupid, and yet saw it happen all the time. IMO, people losing their homes, deserve it. You don't go out and buy a 600,000 home when you are making 60,000 unless that 2% loan is fixed! None of these low rates were fixed of course.
I see obama expanding the war in Afghan. To the point that in 5 years from now we will have 4000 killed soliders. Over 5 years in a guerilla war it is a smallish number. Afghhan will be even harder to set up Goverment institutions because they have no recent history of it. At least we learned a lot about fighting an insurgent war from Iraq, A learning experience that is simular to the rough education we leaened the first 2 years of WW2. In the longer term we got much better at fighting
Jayford, well, I agree that the corporate tax rate itself doesn't need raising since it is high enough and well above average internationally. There are however methods to increase taxes in cases where taxation is, as you say, full of loopholes and there should also be some review of special tax breaks. E.g oil companies have had record revenues because of the price hike, and you need to decide if taxation on national natural resources is adequate. If the US is now going to become more energy independent, there is also another thing that needs to be realized - energy costs a lot more than USA and it's population have been paying for it traditionally. This means a lot for the average consumer in the US, since transportation is largely based on petrol-based vehicles, but there is no way around having higher gas prices. E.g Venezuela is certainly not letting the old regime of corruption and cheaply exported oil get back on their land. Nigeria could easily explode into demanding a more fair taxation and share of the revenue for the population from their natural resources. Few countries have a fair distribution of wealth from natural resources. Brazil is currently shaping their oil industry to include exports. The change in Bolivia - with the world's largest discovered natural gas reservoirs - is also indicative of a more shared revenue model. I think special revenue tax is getting higher all over the world, as it has proven to be the most effective measure when it comes to national natural resources. All of this of course means that transportation is going be significantly more expensive in real terms for the US economy. There is no way around it - because the whole world is changing, albeit sometimes slowly, from the former exploiting model with dominant corruption into a more fair model where the population/government get more back natural resources. Alternative energy resources is a good way for the US economy to offset this rather abrupt change and influence - like electric engines, compressed air engines and so on. That means that e.g more nuclear plants can become very worthwhile. Currently only 5% of the uranium fuel is being used, because the fission process contaminates the whole rod during the process, leaves residues from the whole periodic table and makes it very dangerous. This is now "radioactive waste", although 95% of the uranium is still there - but contaminated. There is currently a strong effort to clean up this spent fuel, so that the fission process overall becomes more efficient. There is a laboratory facility in the US with a French-sounding name which is at forefront, but I forgot the name just now, as well as several universities - like Idaho - involved in improving recycling and efficiency of nuclear fuel. Also, radioactive gases provide a much higher fuel efficiency, so there are a lot of potential for improvement through further energy research. When I mentioned the consumer/population fending for themselves - I thought of letting consumers have the burden of financing all needed reforms of infrastructure, health services and education themselves - private financing, instead of federal/state funding. With the current federal government and taxation model in place in the US, that is simply not feasible. Spending is rampant in USA, and the military/defence spending is a large part - currently eclipsing all the rest of the world together. If diplomacy and uniting allies is used a little more cleverly, this particular spending does not need to be so high. There are a lot of other high-profile projects that need more attention - e.g a permanent structure on the moon is planned in little more than a decade. There might be a lot of benefit from further exploration, and potential industrial revenue in the future - although it's a long way to go still. However, technologically and economically - it is a shared international burden, as the costs are truly "astronomical".
Mercor, true - the Afhgan war is truly a project resembling a headless chicken. What exactly is the purpose there again? The longer they stay, the more civilians are getting killed and antagonizing the population. If it's the Taliban they want to annihilate, they will necessarily need to kill a large part of the population. If it's Al-Q'aeda they want to rid away, then a concerted effort is needed to do so quickly and not keep dragging their feet about it. I don't see this happening before the US is out of Iraq, and even then it will be a real strain on the military of USA. After "it is all over", there need to be some sort of good will towards the population and Afghan nation so that the invasion does not just breed several new generations of US-hating potential terrorists. The problem is that the longer we all stay there, the population is getting increasingly hostile under the occupation and killing of civilians. That will ultimately strain the support in the rest of the NATO members home countries as well. Therefore - swift action is needed, and the Iraq invasion with hopes for more cheap energy was a total disaster. Furthermore, it should be a warning for USA that religious extremism and fundamentalism is something that polarizes the world very much, whether it's in the middle east or in USA itself. The US would do wisely to try and lessen the mix of religion and politics, since they see the polarizing effect - which is inherently a integral part of abrahamic religions. John Ashcroft and GWB are examples of politicians who are not exactly secular in their thinking. Afghanistan has a potential for mining, but education is something that is a real struggle over there - although they badly need it. If they have some revenue and economy based on more exploration of potential natural resources, maybe they can transform into a more modern society. That would be the best way to avoid another potential conflict in the future. If foreign investment is sufficiently safe and lucrative without seeking to exploit too much extraction and export of resources, then they just might have a shot at a stable future. They need some special revenue taxation that they can gradually increase in the future, and fund their development. They need to plan together with interested parties, who are not entirely hostile towards their national interests, but a little more responsible and smart capitalists instead of "evil/cynical" conservative capitalists.
I think it was the Alloway Laboratory that I was remembering, doing innovative radioactive waste recycling by chemical processing. One to watch for the future, just like the Geron Corporation for their telomere research.
Hey... haven't we all wanted a MILF as the next VP of the USA. Sure that's what we need; a hockey mom who can play point guard covering our backs and assuring us that our enemies won't sneak up in the night and bomb us into obliteration! Anyone who votes for McCain without using their head to tell thmeslves that this MILF will be one heartbeat away from the most powerful position on earth is a fool and must not really care about themselves, their families or this Country's security in their zelousness and anger to defeat so-called liberals! Of course she is cute and sexy so maybe she can give a BBBJ to our enemies if all else fails! And of course McCain could live to be 76 years old. Or NOT! I did not intend to vote for Obama but after last night and today I am willing to give Obama a shot with my future! I am willing to trust him! Kennedy inspired a generation. We all know he was not the perfect angel he was made out to be at that time; but inspiration can go a long way in society. Most positive change has come about secondary to inspired and enlightened leaders who brought new ideas and new vision to the table. Witness Reagan the movie actor who, whether you liked him or not, was able to inspire and lead by charm, charisma and intelligence.... not experience! I just volunteered to work for Obama after planning on voting for McCain who I respect ! However I will not put the future of this Country into the (possible) hands of a nice cute woman from AK who can shoot a rifle. Sorry! If anyone reading this is a true American and patriotic then you owe it to the Country to either not vote or not vote for McCain unless you have no qualms about Sarah becoming your next commander-in-chief after being mayor of a town in Alaska with 8000 people a few short years ago when skirt lengths were shorter! AND NOW it turns out she is a lying sack of crap (apparently) OR >at minimum< she has already showed she has trouble with the whole truth regarding that Bridge and regarding a trooper who was her f-king brother-in-law. More alleged abuse of power in the name of nepotism!!! Just what the hell we need from a vice president. Republicans have lost my respect these last 8-9 years. They claim to love the Country so much but apparently they HATE half the people living here! Tell me I am wrong? Now back to this former beauty queen sans bikini. I am not trying to be rude to women but guys let's get real. This is not a dress rehearsal for women. I want a qualified woman. This is the REAL DEAL! There are security issues involved that cannot be solved on a snow mobile and that is apparently what she know most about! This is all our lives! Get it ??!! Have some independencee and vote for the lesser of two evilsl! Give the Dems a chance!
(this should be in another thread Gring) I agree with most of that last post. Just a few points however. - The oil companies do not set oil prices. The global market does. It is true they are making massive profits, but they are also paying incredible taxes. Exxon alone paid 27 BILLION in taxes. An additional withholding tax would be counter productive. It has been tried before and it was a disaster. Takes away incentive to explore for more oil which is a risky venture. - Alternative fuels. The entire country is getting charged up (pun intended) about this, and huge amounts of cash are flowing into everything from solar power plants to fuel cell cars. Will take a decade or so to see anything major however, and in the mean time, it will be ugly. - Military spending. I agree, completely out of control, but not nearly as costly as entitlement programs. We also need to get Europe to spend MORE on defense. They have been using the US as their defense since WW II, and do not spend nearly enough. I personally would like to see all US troops pulled from Europe and Japan. They have enough money to defend themselves. I also agree that more diplomacy is better, but it is ridiculously naive to think that would work with belligerent nations like Iran. In the entire history of the UN, sanctions have worked exactly ZERO times. The sanctioned country just ignores them even if economically tough on its populace. I think they enjoy the attention actually. - Socialism. That is what you are proposing if you have the State pay for education, etc. You need to study the history of the US a little. Most people prefer that the national government not have too much power (too late), and certainly not raise taxes so high that you kill off work incentive just so that the State can pay for some kid's college. We prefer the kid pay for it himself, as I did. EVERY person, except for the rich, qualifies for a guaranteed government student loan. Why should the public pay for individuals to go fuck around in university as half of them do? Education is an investment in oneself. Pay for it yourself and you take it much more seriously. No, socialistic ideas do not work well in America. That is a European thing, which is why over the long run they average about half the GDP growth of the USA. Boy we are OFF TOPIC. yeah, a hottie in the White House!!!
McBush's advisers made the pick, John had other things on his mind... <img src=http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/attachment.php?s=&postid=2047039> <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/0nqtL-P8kzo&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/0nqtL-P8kzo&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>