patrick.net

I heard yesterday that Englands P.M. Gordon Brown suggested that the solution to the worlds economic problem is...A WORLD TAX. I'm not kidding!

More bizzare news...its now ILLEGAL to walk on a public beach between the hours of 2am and 5 am in Laguna Beach California. Not to have a beach fire, not to have a beach party, not to make noise or be drinking on the beach...but to WALK on the beach.

BEAM ME UP SCOTTY...THERE'S NO INTELLEGENT LIFE HERE!

@Abe--

Did the CRA cause Llyods issue as well? lol

The Savior was expected due to the words of the prophets. Jesus fullfilled the prophet's words EXACTLY. Only throuble was, the Jews in charge did not like what Jesus was telling them, so they still are waiting for their Savior ... Jews belive EXACTLY what The Bible tells us about a coming Savior, they just do not think He came yet.

Arabs are angry because they do not want to be the bastard son, so they are bitter. God has given the Arab's all of the gifts that go to the first born son ... except for the Holly Land, and the Jews are still the chosen ones of God. Abraham made this issue.

In closing, Jesus was not just a man.

ok, continue worshipping blindly.

If you sell crack to a liberal, he smokes it in a alley.

If you sell crack to a conservative, he smokes it in his trailer.

Liberals don't suggest their candidate, they want to dictate who you should vote for.
Conservatives are grateful for all of the business Liberals send them.

GO Palin, Obama still sucks Donkey sticks.

Bap33 says

In closing, Jesus was not just a man.

Neither was Rock Hudson.

Tenouncetrout says

Liberals don’t suggest their candidate, they want to dictate who you should vote for.
Conservatives are grateful for all of the business Liberals send them.
GO Palin, Obama still sucks Donkey sticks.

your an arse....but a very funny one.

elvis says

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were originally created to help make housing more affordable. Now their function is to help maintain high housing prices. This is a typical result of government interference of the free market. The government has no business being in the loan business. Economically strapped families should not be forced to support any failing enterprise. Fannie Mae acts contrary to free market principals in attempting to prop up and inflate prices which is exactly the opposite intention of what it was created to do in the first place. As a result prices are higher than they should be, courtesy of the U. S. Government. Thank you very much.

WTF does this have to do with cranky conservatives and wimpy liberals?

“When you come here, all of a sudden you appreciate the world you live in,” he said.

The man has 12 pissers in a Villa, and he thinks he has perspective?

I own that house. I wish I sold it about purchased gold. Oh well, I have to say I feel like a slave in my own country. I can never retire, I can’t afford health care, I can’t move. I think this is common

Liberty for a conservative means doing what he wants with his labor and money. Liberty for a liberal means the taking from others their labor and money and using it as they see fit (takeing liberty).

For the former, liberty means freedom. The ability to do as he wishes within the boundry of the law. For the latter liberty means taking advantage of others. In other words the manipulation of others for their own uses.

Honest Abe says

Liberty for a conservative means doing what he wants with his labor and money. Liberty for a liberal means the taking from others their labor and money and using it as they see fit (takeing liberty).
For the former, liberty means freedom. The ability to do as he wishes within the boundry of the law. For the latter liberty means taking advantage of others. In other words the manipulation of others for their own uses.

I disagree, we all want the same thing in terms of public services the only difference is that the political parties use a lot of rhetoric to divide and conquer the people. Politics is about convincing the parties supporters that the other side is a "socialist" or "anti-abortion" ....when in reality both parties are not much different.

Your dirty little secret is that you like AM talk radio? That's it? Borrrrrrrrrrrrrring!

But you're right about people quoting what they've heard as gospel. It's dangerous.

Kind of like watching a "true crime story" on Lifetime Movie Network (I lovingly call LMN the "ladie's man-hating network). Man bad, Woman good. Woman is always the victim, wins against insurmountable odds and overcomes the adversity created by a lying, horrible evil man. It always ends with a crescendo of inspirational music, the woman stronger for the experience and the man left crushed & devastated in her wake. People buy into that shit, and that's what it is, pure crap.

We're left wanting drama in life. There's always a hero and something to fight for & against. It's entertainment designed to tug at emotions, and it works for some. That's AM talk radio for you. That's Faux News. And MSNBC programming too. It's called the entertainment industry for a reason. Every one of the anchors/hosts is in it for the ratings. They're spouting their opinions, and we all know that opinions aren't fact.

Intelligent people with the ability to reason should make up their own minds. It's okay to quote a sound bite, but not to trust it as gospel.

My dirty little secret? I like reading Nomo's posts. I usually do it in a comfy pair of sweats, and often have a glass of wine. I think that if I met Nomo, I would spend a fair chunk of the time laughing at his acerbic wit.

Similarly, Mark Levin is another east coast Jew who entered the entertainment world to make his fortune. In order to conceal his Jewish background (which wouldn’t set well with conservative Christians), he pronounces his name with a French sounding accent (Le Vin), apparently in the hope that people will think of a fine Bordeaux rather than a cheap bottle of Manischewitz concord grape wine.

Conservative christians are to Christianity as extremist mulims are to Islam. They hate everyone based on the fact that you dont look and sound like them. There is nothing wrong with AM radio like there is nothing wrong with attend a religious ceremony. The issue occurs when we blindly follow everything cited as the gospel of a prophet.

Your right, AM radio hosts are men/women who are attempting to sell advertising anyway possible.

I hate NPR, the Diane Rehm show especially.

I listen to it when WDNA the Public radio Jazz station, has some lame neo crap musical wanking on passing it off as legitimate Jazz. WDNA is NPR news with out the pontificating douches, instead they play Jazz until the next news update. Which I must say most of their news segments are good, as long as it isn't some liberal glad-handing journalist making the piece a political affiliation issue.

Their editorials and shows hosts are more skewed than Fox news on steroids IMHO.

An example Fox business news had a CEO from a solar panel mfg the other day. The girl I forget her name the chick on Happy Hour, was asking the CEO some tough questions and not the typical Rightwing BS talking point questions. This CEO told her that stimulus for his industry is crutial to develop this new technology. The lady interupted him and remided him that it is not new, it's been around since she was a kid in the 70's because her dad installed solar panels on their roof growing up. They've had well over 30-40 years to do so. What is different now.

This guy then retorted that "THEY" keep taking their funds away for 40 years...

Now right there, right or wrong. This is where "ALL" Americans whining and waiting for government incentives and credits to develop technologies that the rest of the world is just doing. This is why weren't going to end up sucking hind tit on Battery technology and solar as well, if it hinges on the Pork barrels from Washington to innovate.

But this guy thinks the tax payers are responsible to produce energy to scale on our dime.

NPR has guys like this on almost hourly and all they do is suck his shtick.
Never once have they asked the questions that I'm shouting at the radio mounted in my dashboard.

Wait a minute. You think Americans are smart enough to spend their money on the things they want and need? Don't we NEED the long arm the the law to force us at gunpoint (er.. I mean guide us lovingly with the threat of imprisonment for non-compliance) to misallocate resources properly?

Just drink the KOOLADE man, we need government programs (the more, the bigger the better). We need taxes for roads and schools and condoms. We NEED these things and Government is the MOST efficient way to get them to everyone who didn't earn them themselves.

What. Has Helicopter Ben Bernanke's printing presses been put out-of-action? Has the military taken over the executive branch?

Don't YOU GET IT? As long as the Asians et. al (the World) continue to support our Finance porn, this goes on indefinitely. You have a fascist dictator in power, the elites run the country, and they will change the qualifications at their pleasure. We really never liked you anyway.... is their attitude.

The GAME IS RIGGED. Think Bilderburg, CFR Council on Foreign Relations, TARP, Congress, etc.

Be Grateful you have shelter and the electricity is still on. The water may be drugged but....

I read Gunther is studying Politics. He needs to crack open a dayum Economics book and raise the interest rates, and turn off the nanny hose.

We've seen over the last 8 years that there is very little relation between what the government spends and what it takes in, so what makes you think if they took in less money that they'd spend less money?

http://www.ksfo.com

KSFO 560 AM here in the San Francisco Bay area is great! A breath of fresh air on the Left Coast.

You failed to include the need for a military which costs us 1 trillion dollars....are you willing to do without a military?

Heck no, we shouldn't be without a military. I have read, however, that the USA spends more than the next 16 largest military budgets of other countries combined. I think we could drastically reduce military spending and still have the strongest defensive military in the world.

Its pretty clear that reckless, irresponsible spending has put us on the brink of financial collapse. Thats not prosperity as I see things, thats servitude. Something our kids and grandkids will be paying the price for. To me thats irresponsible and morally bankrupt. Wouldn't you agree?

It seems to me, we're not supposed to do any thing with out a UN sanction anyhow.

So what in the hell do we or any country need an army for?

I think all countries should have just enough military personnel to contribute to the UN peace keepers.

And the UN soldiers collectively from all countries should be the strongest military in the world. If not only one allowed to police other countries.

I hope Banco Magnifico doesn't fall.

Tenouncetrout says

It seems to me, we’re not supposed to do any thing with out a UN sanction anyhow.
So what in the hell do we or any country need an army for?
I think all countries should have just enough military personnel to contribute to the UN peace keepers.
And the UN soldiers collectively from all countries should be the strongest military in the world. If not only one allowed to police other countries.

Why, to maintain our dominance. There has never been a country in the history of this planet that hasnt maintained the #1 military. How long do you think it would be before Russia or China decided to invade after we abolished our military?...I thnk 3 weeks. Just enough time to figure out how they will divide the country into colonies.

Honest Abe says

Heck no, we shouldn’t be without a military. I have read, however, that the USA spends more than the next 16 largest military budgets of other countries combined. I think we could drastically reduce military spending and still have the strongest defensive military in the world.
Its pretty clear that reckless, irresponsible spending has put us on the brink of financial collapse. Thats not prosperity as I see things, thats servitude. Something our kids and grandkids will be paying the price for. To me thats irresponsible and morally bankrupt. Wouldn’t you agree?

I read that too, but I am hoping that most of the money is going on innovation and maintaining our dominance in oil bearing territories.

Did anyone bet on three? Let's start a league.

I think the income tax should be eliminated if we can have a single tax on land values.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism

No one made land, so why should some people get the benefit from it while others don't?
It's impossible to hide land, so tax evasion becomes impossible.
The tax should be a fixed % of market value for the land.
Farmers will not pay any more, unless they have really valuable land.

Seems like it fixes all sort of problems, and it is totally fair, and it doesn't discourage work or sales, like income and sales taxes do.

Patrick, first of all I want to say "thank you" for your site, and the ability for all to share their opinions. I'm happy to see you agree that the income tax should be eliminated.

I'm not so sure about a land tax. People who own land should get the benefit from it because they own it. They bought it by exchanging their money (their labor) for it. Its no different than if someone bought a car by exchanging their money (labor) for it and expected EXCLUSIVE USE of their car because they own it.

I have read that a low flat tax in other countries actually netted more revenue to "the state" and at the same time lowered the burden, and resulted in higher compliance (fewer tax cheats).

The solution, I'm afraid, will never come from a two party political system (meet the new boss - same as the old boss). Somehow we need to get a third choice which, in my opinion, will force the other two parties to become "competitive" to the needs of THE PEOPLE. not to the needs of the corperations, cronnies, unions, lawyers, and lobbies. Thats my two cents for today.

I'm all for cutting income taxes. But Patrick? You need to come off that doofus land tax theory already. We should tax value, and our society gets great value from technology, information and services. I suspect that you're enamored with a land tax simply because you're a techie who would then get a free ride. The land of George's era more closely approximates different productive assets today.

4X says

Tenouncetrout says

It seems to me, we’re not supposed to do any thing with out a UN sanction anyhow.

So what in the hell do we or any country need an army for?

I think all countries should have just enough military personnel to contribute to the UN peace keepers.

And the UN soldiers collectively from all countries should be the strongest military in the world. If not only one allowed to police other countries.

Why, to maintain our dominance. There has never been a country in the history of this planet that hasnt maintained the #1 military. How long do you think it would be before Russia or China decided to invade after we abolished our military?…I thnk 3 weeks. Just enough time to figure out how they will divide the country into colonies.

Nice satire. At least I hope it was satire. Hell Russia can barely invade Georgia and China still hasn't figured out how get 110 miles across the Formosa Strait to invade Taiwan.

Depending on whose numbers you care to believe the US military budget is 60-70% of the total military budget for the entire world. I am not convinced that is necessary. Especially since so much of US military spending is for high tech gee whiz weapons systems with the huge logistical tail these systems require (for example I seem to remember that the F14 required 50 hours of maintenance for every hour of flight time) and so little money is spent on maintaining adequate numbers of basic line doggie grunt infantrymen. We need boots on the ground for chasing guys with 40 year AK 47's hiding in caves, not nuclear submarines.

If you include all the US military spending that is hidden in dark nooks and crannies of the federal budget the military spending is somewhere between 60-65% of the total federal budget. This means that making any significant cut in federal spending without cutting military spending is at best a neocon wet dream. It also means that balancing the budget without cutting military spending will involve eliminating the entire rest of the federal government. Not a bad idea in the case of congress , but it would make air travel pretty dicey.

It's tough to compare "modern" countries without theories. Jets, satellites and missiles really changed the face of warfare in the present era. That said, I find it preposterous that we could maintain our society without an incredibly powerful military. There are a lot of bad guys in the world, and you never know when another Hitler is going to crop up. Present European nations gain tremendous protection from NATO and other alliances, so even if you're switzerland, it's impossible to separate out that effect.

I say this as a libertarian, btw. Our present military spending can be wasteful and mismatched with our low tech adversaries, but a porcupine needs its needles.

"There are a lot of bad guys in the world, and you never know when another Hitler is going to crop up. "

Ask Iraqi and Afghan civilians who the bad guys are. I mean if you were Mongolian in the 1200's then in your mind you were on the side of right. at Even though the rest of that world, thought, Genghis Khan and the Mongols were monsters.