punked
-
Posts
11,943 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by punked
-
-
I'm sure you have plenty of reasons that are none of my business, but the 'fact' is that you have divorced yourself (legally or illegally) from U.S. taxes, all while opining about the budgets and spending to be financed on the backs of real American taxpayers.
I could come up with all kinds of crazy opinions about taxes and budgets in Canada if I didn't have to pay them.
I file my US taxes every year. How the US choses to administer those taxes is up to them.
-
The vote you made with your feet has more significance than the one you write down on a piece of paper every few years,
Can you not tell me why I live where I live. This is even worse then you rewriting history, now you are trying to tell what my motivations for my behavior is? Seriously?
-
That's great if it was true, but the main point is that you would be on a tax flight, and certainly escaping any California (state) taxes, just like those millionaires. Opinion does not equal relevance to the "Ryan Budget", or any other U.S. budget.
I choose to live in Canada for plenty of reasons none of them have to do with taxes. Please don't try to speak of my motivations.
-
But you said that Republicans....oh....nevermind. It was a silly notion to begin with.
Two Elected Presidents made those decisions not some guy in a backroom who had no authority to be making the deals he was making.
-
Then why did Kennedy / LBJ put over 500,000 of them in Vietnam ?
It was a bad decision then I agree.
-
Iran was an Israel level buddy of the US. Not some failed Russian republic with few ties to America other than allowing road access. Iran was tossed under the bus...as the saying goes.
Yah it was such a great buddy supporting that oil embargo and causing energy prices to go through the roof and all. For someone who was there and thus knows everything you are making some pretty shaky claims.
Putting Americans troops on the ground is a big deal and shouldn't be done lightly sorry.
-
No, you are missing the larger point irrespective of alleged citizenship....YOU CHOOSE TO LIVE IN CANADA.
No you are missing the point. The Government of the US and its people GAVE ME A VOTE AND A SAY. If you don't want me to have a say pass a law good luck.
-
I do not believe this so the point is moot. You live in Canada by choice.
I sure do. Yet the people of our country decided even though I lived in Canada I get a right to say how the US is governed so your usual "Well your not an American so I don't actually have to have a point" argument is done for.
-
I don't care about hair colour in Canada, nor do I take any strident position for the domestic tax policy in another nation or province.
Not addressing my point. Your argument of I don't live there so I don't get a say is wrong because I get to fill out my ballot every election so I do very much get a say.
-
If you earn $300 million dollars, I think it's immoral for you the government to take more than half from you.
I know what you think. It is arbitrary.
-
US intervention would have certainly saved the Shah's...errrr...bacon. But, all Carter managed was a half-baked rescue effort that got good folks killed. No Entebbe for him. The world...as you can see...is a much different place. Did you know that Israel and Iran were allies during that time? Now wouldn't that be a switch today?
Not sending American troops into a country does not make the President at Fault for what happens in that country. Do I get to Blame Bush for election Fraud in former Soviet Republics now because he didn't send in troops? Come on.
-
Oh he did. He knew what he was doing, in his benign way. It was purposely done. The North Korea situation however, I think he was just fooled. Used as a kind of useful idiot for the despotic regime.
Thats funny because the leading researcher on this subject Kurzman who wrote The Unthinkable Revolution in Iran (maybe you should read it) says Carter supported the Shah and even urged the Iranian military to stage a "last-resort coup d'etat" to keep him in power. Stop talking about things you know nothing about Shady it is getting tiring correcting you made up history.
-
It's not an arbitrary number. When you keep less than half of what you earn, you're essentially working for the government.
When you keep less then a tenth of what you earn then you are essentially working for the government.
Is that true? Nope! is it arbitrary? Yep!
-
Thank you...I live in the reality....you only get to read about it. It's not fair.
I think you living in reality has to be debated because you haven't made one citation about this reality. I could tell you in Canada everyone has green hair, just because I live here doesn't make that true. You would want proof, which I should give to you, I can't of course give you that proof because i said is a lie even though I live here.
-
The issue goes beyond tax flights. I think it's immoral for the government to take more than half of your income. At that point, you cease working for yourself, or your family.
Yah we know all about the sliding goal posts Shady. This is what you would be saying if the tax rate was 11%
The issue goes beyond tax flights. I think it's immoral for the government to take more than a tenth of your income. At that point, you cease working for yourself, or your family.[./quote]
That doesn't mean anything you are just picking an arbitrary number. If I make 300 million a year and the government takes half of that is my family going to suffer?
-
I think you meant 'Stanford'....see...I actually live in the United States. You don't.
Good argument. It really makes the points you are trying to make. You live in a country where you don't even know what is going on and don't. Perfect glad we could get here because you have nothing that supports your claims. Good job.
-
He purposely abanoned the Shah, and allowed him to fall.
So he didn't remove the Shah at all? That was just Shady rewriting History to be the History he wanted eh? Good job there little buddy.
-
Nor does it factor the South Vietnamese leaders had their own wants and desires. Thieu despised LBJ and felt his push for a 'Great Society' in SVN merely left him open for a coup by rivals; not to mention get in the way of his unfettered corruption.
Yah go figure LBJ the President of the US was doing what he thought was in the US best interest. How dare he, good thing that good guy Nixon flew in, killed the talks in a backroom away from the public and let the war take another 30,000 American lives. I am sure history will absolve him for sure though, I mean people love the Vietnam war now right?
-
The New York Times ran with the tax flight story last month and some 'millionaires' are in fact leaving. Texas is courting this demographic from California as well. It's an issue whether you want to believe it or not from cozy Canada.
Yet here we are. One of us has a study from Standford with citations and pages of actual information, has linked to it for the other to read and dissect and one of us is still repeating the same tired story with nothing to actually support it.
-
Why ? The NIxon campaign was trying to win an election and post Johnson Administration landscape. Shopping a better deal to South Vietnam was just smart politics. "Peace With Honor" meant lots more war.
Presidential Candidates should not being making backroom deals with other governments period. Know what that leads to? It leads to some republicans making a promise to some dictator that if they take Americans hostage for a year they will give them some missiles. That isn't good for America and thinking Republicans not only justify that but support it isn't going to win them any votes.
-
What untrue claim? The fact that Carter provided cover for the North Korean nuclear program? Or his removal of the Shah?
Yah how about you link to a citation about his "removal of the Shah" Shady. Love to read that article.
-
South Viet-Nam was certainly worth fighting for, It was more HOW the silly thing was fought that is more the issue. US commanders...with some notable exceptions...weren't really sure how to deal with such a complex enemy as the VC and NVA. Only Nixon, frankly, had the balls to try and do what was needed in that mess of a war. When he did...the 'peace movement' went nutso. OMFG...Nixon has INVADED 'peaceful' Laos & Cambodia. Should have struck north at the same time....
But, Nixon left politics and the war ground to an end...then 'peace' broke out and over 3 million died as a result. Good times for the ideologue left. The war was over...at least for them...as they patted themselves on the back while taking in hundreds of thousands of refugees.
None of that justifies what Nixon did as a candidate for President or Proves Shady's untrue claims about Carter. I want a debate based on facts thats all.
-
Use your American media powers to find all the citations pro and con that you wish...the point is that it is even up for discussion and consideration by "millionaires" in California. It doesn't take much to be a millionaire for a California homeowner in certain markets.
I am not going searching for a point I already know isn't true. However look at me I'll support my point not with blind faith but with a scientific study. Have fun reading.
Overall, our results suggest that there seems to be little empirical reason why progressive
taxation should be the exclusive domain of the federal government (Feldstein and
Wrobel, 1998; Leigh, 2008). While in principle it is easier for tax avoiders to migrate
out of state than out of country, the reluctance of people to do so gives states signifi cant
room to tax top incomes. Indeed, we estimate that New Jersey’s new tax raises nearly
$1 billion per year and tangibly reduces income inequality, with little cost in terms of
tax flight.
http://www.stanford.edu/~cy10/public/Millionaire_Migration.pdf
-
...and many of those are leaving, fed up with the confiscatory taxes. The same reason many affluent Canadians move to the "states". It's not complicated.
And its also not true. So citation please.
New evidence Nixon did indeed sabotage peace talks in 68
in Federal Politics in the United States
Posted
There is also something to be said about the clarity of history and not being there isn't there? There is a built in bias from those "those who were there". Sometimes it takes time to look at an event for what it is and not what we remember it being at the time. Example there are still plenty of people around here that will tell you Iraq was about WMDs and "they get to say that because they were there". In terms of history it will be looked at much differently in just 2-3 generations.