Articles
   
       
       
Pics/Video
   
       
       
Shop
Search
 
 
 
 
 
Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
WAKE WORLD HOME
Email Password
Go Back   WakeWorld > Non-Wakeboarding Discussion

Share 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old    SamIngram            03-09-2010, 2:55 PM Reply   
Obama: The Will Of The People Be Damned - I’LL Decide Who Can Go Fishing

I know this old news, but has anyone actually read all this crap?? This includes the banning of boats on certain inland lakes...
Old    Manzo (zo1)      Join Date: Aug 2002       03-09-2010, 4:17 PM Reply   
That's it, I am going to go stock up on guns, ammo, fishing rods, worms, boats... What else do i need to stockpile?
Old    Ron T (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       03-09-2010, 9:42 PM Reply   
Turn that negative energy into something positive and check out a Tea Party event and write your state representatives. Lets get this bunch voted out!!!
Old    Brian White (eustace)      Join Date: Nov 2002       03-10-2010, 5:01 AM Reply   
A related article from ESPN,,, yes this was written as an opinion piece.

http://sports.espn.go.com/outdoors/s...ory?id=4975762
Old    Nick Tomsyck (sidekicknicholas)      Join Date: Mar 2007       03-10-2010, 5:19 AM Reply   
The last thing I want to do is be around Tea-baggers because of my fishing rights.
Bahaha.
Old    Paul (psudy)      Join Date: Dec 2003       03-10-2010, 7:35 AM Reply   
It won't be long until these groups start crying about rec. boating and how exhaust is harming fish.
Old    Ron T (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       03-10-2010, 8:01 AM Reply   
Nick, too bad you feel that way. You might learn something.
Old    Adam Fullmer (adam4x4)      Join Date: Jan 2009       03-10-2010, 8:08 AM Reply   
They are all ready banning 2 stroke motors here in Cali. on most lakes.
Old    Manzo (zo1)      Join Date: Aug 2002       03-10-2010, 8:21 AM Reply   
Quote:
They are all ready banning 2 stroke motors here in Cali. on most lakes.
1. Can anyone even consider this a bad thing?
2. Does it really matter?
3. This is in no way a precursor to restrictions on recreational boating.

Sorry, but this is more fear mongering. It is understandable, but to buy into it is foolish IMO. No different than the gun fear mongering.
Old    Brian White (eustace)      Join Date: Nov 2002       03-10-2010, 9:59 AM Reply   
Quote:
It won't be long until these groups start crying about rec. boating and how exhaust is harming fish.
Exactly!
Old    Nick Tomsyck (sidekicknicholas)      Join Date: Mar 2007       03-10-2010, 10:19 AM Reply   
Quote:
Nick, too bad you feel that way. You might learn something.
Yeah, from a group of people started because of tax issues know nothing of tax issues.

a poll of tea-baggers showed that:
90% thought taxes had either gone up or stayed the same under Obama. Only two percent thought they went down. But the reality is taxes have gone down for ninety five percent of working families taxes went down.

Think about that. Only two percent of the people in a “movement” about taxes named after a tax revolt have the slightest idea what’s going on…with taxes.

I could learn something... I could learn how to rant and rave and be angry for a problem that doesn't exist
Old    Paul (psudy)      Join Date: Dec 2003       03-10-2010, 10:24 AM Reply   
Well, the inheritance tax exemption dropped from 3.5mm to 1mm. Anything over 1mm, you get taxed at 55%. So you work hard all your life and create a solid net worth(that you have already paid taxes on the income earned!) Die and try and leave something to your kids and the Government is going to tax you again and take OVER HALF of it.
Old    Nick Tomsyck (sidekicknicholas)      Join Date: Mar 2007       03-10-2010, 10:26 AM Reply   
thats why you hide that ****.
Old    Manzo (zo1)      Join Date: Aug 2002       03-10-2010, 10:28 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by psudy View Post
Well, the inheritance tax exemption dropped from 3.5mm to 1mm. Anything over 1mm, you get taxed at 55%. So you work hard all your life and create a solid net worth(that you have already paid taxes on the income earned!) Die and try and leave something to your kids and the Government is going to tax you again and take OVER HALF of it.
1000% true, BUT, it is so easy to avoid... That puts it so far down the list of priorities IMO.
Old    Trace (trace)      Join Date: Feb 2002       03-10-2010, 11:19 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by zo1 View Post
3. This is in no way a precursor to restrictions on recreational boating.
It's another foot in the door. You sound like a mountain biker railing against dirtbikes in "his" riding area. Guess who's next after they get rid of the dirtbikes?

Last edited by trace; 03-10-2010 at 11:22 AM.
Old    Manzo (zo1)      Join Date: Aug 2002       03-10-2010, 11:48 AM Reply   
Could it be seen as that? Sure. Does it really mean anything, no.

So the path is to then fight proposed policy simply because of what someone assumes the policy might at some time lead to? Wouldn't that force us to fight any and every policy from ever taking place?

BTW, I read up as much as I had time to on this initiative and could not find anything outside of the opinion articles that had any mention of recreational boating, fishing or inland waterways (aside from the great lakes)
Old    Paul (psudy)      Join Date: Dec 2003       03-10-2010, 11:54 AM Reply   
Point is, you shouldn't have too.
Old    Jonathan Bay (john211)      Join Date: Aug 2008       03-10-2010, 12:28 PM Reply   
Germany's cyring her eyes out for this immediate and present threat to our boating freedoms. Cable park stocks should be attractive now.
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       03-10-2010, 12:49 PM Reply   
Don't tell me they won't do it (kick boats of lakes). Uh...hate to tell you but in California they have banned boating on many lakes in the name of water quality. They do not allow boat traffic on a new lake they built near me and If I remember correctly, they closed a lake in southern cali a few years ago. If they did not do it, they sure put up a fight to keep it open.
Old    Manzo (zo1)      Join Date: Aug 2002       03-10-2010, 3:02 PM Reply   
Can we not agree that there are cases in which banning an activity at a particular location might well be called for?

That is an entirely different animal than trying to spin this as "better get your boating in now cause the complete ban is on the horizon"
Old    Akadirtbikingdad (wakeboardingdad)      Join Date: Aug 2008       03-10-2010, 3:52 PM Reply   
Geez, where does this end? I'm not sure if all of the "screw-ups" that are being pushed through - who cares what the public wants - can be corrected after November. It'll be difficult for a group, because some of the originals will still be in office, to reverse some of the moronic decisions which are being made today. Just today, on the way home, they were talking about the Florida healthcare debacle where US citizens are on a waiting list because beds are full with illegals. Nice.

Manzo, are you serious about stocking up? I started last year, but I got a long way to go!
Old    Nick Tomsyck (sidekicknicholas)      Join Date: Mar 2007       03-10-2010, 4:23 PM Reply   
Quote:
Can we not agree that there are cases in which banning an activity at a particular location might well be called for?
Its about time for some logic, thank you.
Old    Peter_C (peter_c)      Join Date: Sep 2001       03-10-2010, 5:16 PM Reply   
HOAX As others have stated it is an opinion piece and worded to scare people. Much of it is driven by the commercial fisherman who are going to loose much of their fisheries in the next year, due to over fishing.

There are lots of bans and restrictions coming about. The main one that prompted the article is the ban on Blue Fin Tuna.
http://news.spreadit.org/obama-fishing-ban/

Obama Fishing Ban:To Ban Sport Fishing? – Obama fishing ban hoax is spreading like wild fire on the internet.Earlier today few media outlets including ESPN decided to report a false story that claimed Obama was planing to ban fishing as a sport.The truth of the matter is that the administration has decided to back a worldwide ban on fishing or trade in Bluefin Tuna in hope to preserve the stocks that remain.The New York Times has more on the story:

“There is no doubt that the species is in desperate trouble. Stocks of Atlantic and Mediterranean bluefin declined by more than 70 percent between 1957 and 2007, and by more than 60 percent in the last decade alone. Stocks in the Western Atlantic, including the United States, have stabilized but at a very low level. The decline has been driven by a growing global appetite for tuna, and by the rapid mechanization of industrial fishing, chiefly purse-seining operations that allow for the capture of entire schools of tuna at once.”

Here is one for you Whale War lovers.

"Japan has already said it would ignore a ban and leave its markets open to continued imports — even if the tuna are granted endangered species status."

We need to some serious pressure on Japan to follow the WORLDS RULES!



http://www.safmc.net/Portals/6/Libra...17Asummary.pdf

This is about the Red Snapper ban that is going to take place again being reactive instead of proactive. If we would have slowed fishing down long ago we wouldn't be in this predicament. BTW notice it does not say all fish in the Atlantic just the Red Snapper.



Here in CA we have the MPA's coming into effect April 1st. Long term the MPA's have been shown to benefit fisherman. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/pdfs/nccm...re_highres.pdf

The video below will give you an idea of just how much Ying and Yang is true.

Old    Akadirtbikingdad (wakeboardingdad)      Join Date: Aug 2008       03-10-2010, 6:38 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by sidekicknicholas View Post
Its about time for some logic, thank you.
Unfortunately, that is not usually the case with anything like this. I've been an offroader for years and we continually lose riding areas. It is getting worse and worse because the same number of folks want to ride, they just all converge on the last remaining areas that are still open. Ultimately they become over-ridden and erosion does the rest. That doesn't include "the element".

It seems logical to me that they:
A. charge people to ride - that thins them out.
B. ticket the abusers - that would really make the unsafe, littering folks stay home or maybe trespass on land where they might get actually prosecuted.
C. close the areas during extremely wet conditions - that would limit the damage due to mud bogging.

I know this kind of hi-jacked this thread, but that has been my experience with "the guvment" trying to maintain or argue for the proper control of public lands. It's just easier to close all of it and that's whats ultimately going to happen to waterways. If not due to huge wakes, then to loud music. If not to loud music, then loud exhaust. If not loud exhaust, then petroleum products which leak or are "belched" into the water system. Some people simply cannot stand to sit on the shore and watch a family laugh and have fun, so they have to make up some reason to make it stop. Heck, I didn't even mention the corporations, large land owners, or politcal wheels that can benefit monetarily for the government securing and giving them the land to develop it as they see fit.

Maybe it's my age, and I try to be more awake now, or maybe it's the fact that people are a lot more blatant about their agenda today. Maybe it's the availability of news services or even boards like this that allow information to be shared and collaborated so much easier. It just appears to me that none of the politicians, or government entities, choose to support anything or bow down to anyone other than the all mighty dollar or what their influence can do to help themselves.

Did I mention the sky was falling?
Old    Ron T (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       03-10-2010, 7:56 PM Reply   
Nick, my liberal friend, why so hostile? The Tea Party started with Rick Santella's rant about the mortgage bailouts not taxes. I was listening on CNBC that day. No, the extreme liberals give us Tea Baggers a bad name because we stand for less government and accountability for spending. It's comparable to when one's parents tell a child that he.she has had enough candy. As far as this issue goes, the majority appear to be sitting back content that nothing will come of this while PETA is fighting for the rights of the fish. I've always heard that the squeaky wheels gets greased first. What happens if the so-called fear spreaders say nothing? Silence is only agreeing.
Old    Caleb Rountree (dlwsrider)      Join Date: Apr 2007       03-10-2010, 9:24 PM Reply   
I think the tea-baggers get a bad name because their movement is spearheaded by Sarah Palin, in addition to being called the "Tea-Baggers." Even Carl Rove spoke out against them, saying they have the potential to hurt the party.
Old    Ron T (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       03-11-2010, 6:40 AM Reply   
Karl Rove could be right because from my understanding of the Tea Party, it's not about being Democrat or Republican, it's about accountability. There is too much "free" money floating around to people and businesses who are just riding the system. I dare say that the majority of people work too hard to see their money squandered away by unaccountable politicians. Sarah Palin made some mistakes but her heart is good and she does listen to the working public, so I think she'll be a good representative as she matures as a national figure. As far as this issue goes, we had something similar occur when the Federal government wanted to close some of out local camping areas, which are a huge economic boost for the local-areas' economies. Fortunately, a law requires an open meeting. At the local meeting, some excellent input was made and our local congressman got busy and the camping sites remained opened and the program remained in the black. I doubt if fishing will be banned for the average citizen, but when any politician doesn't at least consider the opposing view our system is no longer a democracy. For example, I only have so much money to live on so I budget accordingly, I don't see why our Federal government cannot do the same thing and asking me to pay for people who cannot budget their money is unfair. The opposing side doesn't see it that way. so in my opinion, we need representatives who govern within a set budget, not just tax.and spend.
Old    Skubz (bflat53212)      Join Date: Mar 2003       03-11-2010, 7:40 AM Reply   
Wow! This thread is all over the place. It always amuses me that the right is called "fear-mongers", but the left is not even with their constant claims that the sky is falling (literally).

It also amuzes me that Palin is considered a leader of the tea-party because she spoke at some of the events. There wouldn't be any political spin to this view, would there???
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       03-11-2010, 8:21 AM Reply   
"but when any politician doesn't at least consider the opposing view our system is no longer a democracy."

Our system is NOT a democracy. The US is a republic. You know the Pledge of Allegiance? "to the Republic, for which it stands" ring a bell?

Do any of the teabaggers know anything about US history and how the government works?
Old    Manzo (zo1)      Join Date: Aug 2002       03-11-2010, 8:52 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by bflat53212 View Post
It always amuses me that the right is called "fear-mongers", but the left is not even with their constant claims that the sky is falling (literally).
Who ever said the left were not fear mongers as well? Everyone in this area are fear mongers. That is what sells, that is what raises money.
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       03-11-2010, 10:25 AM Reply   
Actually Jeremy while you spewing your hateful tone and using that word teabagger again (I don't think many people of the tea party movement are dipping their private parts in your mouth), the united states is a rebulic that is more of a representative democracy. The Constitution was drawn up as a gaurd against pure democracy it basically became a representative democracy. Democracy means rule of the people. Every adult citizen is allowed to vote.
Old    Brian White (eustace)      Join Date: Nov 2002       03-11-2010, 2:29 PM Reply   
If your not in favor of Lower Taxes, Smaller Government, and Real Government accountability.. What are you if favor of?

I’m not part of Tea Party movement, but I’m on board with those issues!

I guess if you’ve never really contributed to the tax base you really wouldn’t have a good understanding the issues surrounding us.
Old    Peter_C (peter_c)      Join Date: Sep 2001       03-11-2010, 3:08 PM Reply   
ESPN editor Steve Bowman has issued an apology and has relabeled the piece an opinion piece, rather than an article.
Here is an excerpt from it:

Regrettably, we made several errors in the editing and presentation of this installment. Though our series has included numerous news stories on the topic, this was not one of them -- it was an opinion piece, and should have been clearly labeled as commentary.

And while our series overall has examined several sides of the topic, this particular column was not properly balanced and failed to represent contrary points of view. We have reached out to people on every side of the issue and reported their points of view -- if they chose to respond -- throughout the series, but failed to do so in this specific column.

And a link:

http://sports.espn.go.com/outdoors/s...eve&id=4982359
Old    Ron T (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       03-11-2010, 6:14 PM Reply   
Well said Someone Else. I also read this started out to protect the endangered Blue Tuna and some other fish that are close to extinction. However, I am now beginning to understand how the extreme left thinks. Brings back bad memories of properly defining terms.
Old    M-Dizzle (liquidmx)      Join Date: Jun 2005       03-11-2010, 9:43 PM Reply   
Someone Else...I believe the term you are alluding to is "aristocracy". Hence the house, senate, primaries, electorals, etc. What is happening (IMHO) is the slow corruption of the aristocracy into a Oligarchy (rule of the small elite segment) which will eventually fall into the Monarchy as greed begets greed and only one will be left as everyone eats everyone in politics. Right now the question begs...do the people have the constitution to do what needs to be done before there is enough power in a small enough group of people for them to control the population through quick decisive decisions (not muddled down by arguing in politics)?
Old    Chris (rio_sanger)      Join Date: Apr 2007       03-11-2010, 10:23 PM Reply   
"I guess if you’ve never really contributed to the tax base you really wouldn’t have a good understanding the issues surrounding us."

Amen~
Old    Ron T (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       03-12-2010, 6:05 AM Reply   
Well said, M-Dizzle, and with a mix of apathy, especially by the shrinking middle-class, you'll have the perfect storm.
Old    Ron T (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       03-12-2010, 7:04 AM Reply   
Well, Jeremy, I know how the system works. My money is taken, given away, and used against me..For example, I am having to watch my property value plummet because of a bill that the Carter administration passed in the 70's, so yes I know how the system works--kinda like a modern day pick pocket. Also, this reminds me of a debate I had in college. My opponent kept saying that Russia was not a communist country."It's a socialist country," he used to say, a common tactic used to avoid the issue at hand and invoke an emotional response. However, now that I'm having to deal with liberals, I find it interesting how quickly they start name calling--kinda like a spoiled child who doesn't get his way, Oh well, I guess a trillion dollar debt is not that bad.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       03-12-2010, 10:07 AM Reply   
Yeah, RonT, a trillion dollars is a big debt. But where were you and the rest of the tea partiers when Bush sent us into a trillion dollar war with Iraq? Where was this strong sense of patriotism when Reagan was blowing money on the Star Wars program? Our economy was on the verge of tanking long before Obama took office, where were you guys then?

That is why the tea party is a joke in my eyes.
Old    Paul (psudy)      Join Date: Dec 2003       03-12-2010, 10:15 AM Reply   
As a candidate for president, Barack Obama decried the financial toll that the Iraq war was taking on the economy, but Obama’s proposed spending on welfare through 2010 will eclipse Bush’s war spending by more than $260 billion.

“Because of the Bush-McCain policies, our debt has ballooned,” then-Sen. Barack Obama told a Charleston, W.V., crowd in March 2008. “This is creating problems in our fragile economy. And that kind of debt also places an unfair burden on our children and grandchildren, who will have to repay it.”

During the entire administration of George W. Bush, the Iraq war cost a total of $622 billion, according to the Congressional Research Service.

President Obama’s welfare spending will reach $888 billion in a single fiscal year--2010--more than the Bush administration spent on war in Iraq from the first “shock and awe” attack in 2003 until Bush left office in January.

Obama’s spending proposals call for the largest increases in welfare benefits in U.S. history, according to a report by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. This will lead to a spending total of $10.3 trillion over the next decade on various welfare programs. These include cash payments, food, housing, Medicaid and various social services for low-income Americans and those at 200 percent of the poverty level, or $44,000 for a family of four. Among that total, $7.5 trillion will be federal money and $2.8 trillion will be federally mandated state expenditures.

In that same West Virginia speech last year, Obama said, “When Iraq is costing each household about $100 a month, you’re paying a price for this war.”

The Heritage study says, “Applying that same standard to means-tested welfare spending reveals that welfare will cost each household $560 per month in 2009 and $638 per month in 2010.”

The welfare reform package of 1996 only targeted one program, which was Aid for Families with Dependent Children, pushing work requirements for recipients to encourage them to get off the rolls. There are still 70 different welfare programs spread across 14 different federal agencies, said Robert Rector, senior research fellow in domestic policy studies at the Heritage Foundation, who co-wrote the study.

“The average person says I thought we ended welfare. Well, it’s a good thing we ended it, otherwise we’d be spending some real money,” Rector joked while speaking about the report on Tuesday. “Reform was grossly oversold by Clinton and the Republicans. It reformed one program out of 70. Medicaid, public housing, the Earned Income Tax Credit were not reformed.”

According to his White House budget proposal, President Barack Obama will increase annual federal welfare spending by one-third, from $522.4 billion to $697 billion in his first fiscal year. Adjusted for inflation, the combined two-year increase of $263 billion is greater than any increase in welfare spending in history.

By 2014, annual spending on welfare programs will reach $1 trillion for the fiscal year.

“One in seven in total federal and state dollars now goes to welfare. But this is a completely unknown story,” Rector said. “This is not being reported. No one knows Obama is spending $10 trillion on welfare.”

Welfare spending has taken its toll on the federal debt. Since the beginning of the “war on poverty,” $15.9 trillion has been spent on welfare programs. The total cost of every war in American history, starting with the American Revolution, is $6.4 trillion when adjusted for inflation.

Welfare has been the fastest growing part of the federal government’s spending, increasing by 292 percent from 1989 to 2008. That’s compared to Social Security and Medicare, which grew 213 percent, the study says.

Adjusted for inflation, welfare is 5 percent of the gross domestic product today. It was only 1.2 percent of GDP in 1965, the report says. Also, over the next decade, $1.5 trillion in welfare benefits will be paid to low-skilled immigrants.

Still, high levels of poverty are reflected by the U.S. Census Bureau because the bureau counts only 4 percent of the total welfare spending as income when it calculates poverty. Thus, most discussions on poverty begin on the virtual premise that welfare does not exist, the study says.

“None of the $800 billion being spent is counted as income, so the Census comes back and they say, ‘Oh my goodness, we have 40 million poor people. We need to spend more money,’” Rector explained. “That is a game the taxpayer can never win.”

Changing how the money is spent could go a long way in achieving better results, the study says.

“Annual means tested welfare spending is more than sufficient to eliminate poverty in the United States,” the study reports. “If welfare spending were converted into case benefits, the sum would be nearly four times the amount needed to raise the income of all poor families above the official poverty line."
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       03-12-2010, 11:16 AM Reply   
I think it is funny how the cheapest war in history is the reason we are in debt. Absolutely laughable. The current war's are less than 4% of our GNP. They also have a finite shelf life. Government programs do not have a shelf life and once started are extremely hard to put back on the shelf.

Again facts don't make it into the discussion. The democrats voted to go to war too. I guess I am wrong on that since their voting record tells the tale and the fact that we are still in the war.

On Reagan, if you are under the age 40 you were not even born or not even allowed to vote so it is a moot point. Regardless of how I could have effected the process, I think his investment in technology has been very fruitful. Our economy was in the complete dumps prior to Reagan and in a down time the governments job is to invest in the economy. When times are good the government takes back from the economy. That is how it is supposed to work. Problem is, the politicians love the poll numbers too much to stop the party when things are going good.
Old    Manzo (zo1)      Join Date: Aug 2002       03-12-2010, 11:29 AM Reply   
Quote:
I think it is funny how the cheapest war in history is the reason we are in debt. Absolutely laughable. The current war's are less than 4% of our GNP.
I agree, but I also agree with the fact that if one is going to whine about taxation and the size of government then one cannot argue that the wars are viable and that we need to have the size of military that we do.
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       03-12-2010, 11:53 AM Reply   
I can agree with that manzo but I have not argued either way. I just point out that people keep going to the tired old lies that Bush got us in a war (like the democrats had not part in it) and that the war in Iraq is the reason we are up to our necks in debt. If I looked correctly 33% of the federal government is military and the rest is social spending at around 50% or so and then the rest is debt. Point is, we can not afford more programs especially when the people who want them have zero idea of why they cost so much. The other point is military and war spending can be stopped on a dime. Federal entitlement programs never die regardless of how horrible they may be. I just do not like the complete disregard for truthful arguments.
Old    Manzo (zo1)      Join Date: Aug 2002       03-12-2010, 11:58 AM Reply   
I'm with you there delta, (actually changed my last post so it read less like I was posting directly to you, if that was possible since I put a comment from you in as a quote...)
Old    Ron T (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       03-12-2010, 6:44 PM Reply   
Jeremy, I supported the war in Iraq. I support going into Afghanistan.Hopefully, some of my tax money went there. They bombed us first. What if the US had this heartfelt compassion when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor? Unfortunately, sometimes war is necessary.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       03-12-2010, 6:58 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laker1234 View Post
Well, Jeremy, I know how the system works. My money is taken, given away, and used against me..For example, I am having to watch my property value plummet because of a bill that the Carter administration passed in the 70's, so yes I know how the system works--kinda like a modern day pick pocket.
I think your property value skyrocketed because of a bill that the Carter administration passed in the 70's. It plummeted because reality set in.
Old    Ron T (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       03-12-2010, 7:11 PM Reply   
No, it's because of a mixing of public and private funding and greed not because of the crash. Where I live, our community has not overbuilt.
Old    Skubz (bflat53212)      Join Date: Mar 2003       03-13-2010, 2:08 PM Reply   
Quote:
Our economy was on the verge of tanking long before Obama took office, where were you guys then?

That is why the tea party is a joke in my eyes.
Totally agree, but have different opinions I guess, in what the Federal governments role in my life should be. I think it has been stated very clearly, the level of debt that is going to be incurred by this administration is ridiculous and no doubt the next administration will be even worse.

I know how things are being spun, but I really think the tea party is meant to be a non-partisan (don't want to use the term bi-partisan) effort. It's really giving voice to individuals to vent their frustrations. Yes Nick can rip on the 90% of the 1% of tea party participants who were actually polled and believed their taxes were raised, however does it matter? Whether taxes were raised or not, spending is being increased, which is the real issue.

The level of taxation that will be required to remove us from this level debt will be insane. It really is time to change the current tax code, because it really is just inefficient. Time to collect from everyone who calls the US their home, regardless of current immigration status, everyone who visits the country as a guest or anyone doing any kind of commerece in this country.

I've said it before. Do an incremental change. First remove income taxes and insitute a federal sales tax. After life has adjusted to the changes and tweaks have been made to make it efficient, then due away with payroll taxes and increase the Federal Sales tax. By eliminating both income and payroll taxes and instituting a Federal Sales tax, you collect from everyone. Rich and poor, US citizens, illegal immigrants and tourists. You still have the wealthy paying the larger amount of tax, since they usually spend more money. You also eliminate all the loopholes for individuals to hide their wealth.

Just my thoughts, but to me, it's most efficient and you could collect a much smaller percentage of tax from each individual, because your tax base with increase by an astronomical amount.
Old    Ron T (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       03-13-2010, 8:03 PM Reply   
A flat tax used to scare me to death. However, it may be a better taxing system because everyone would pay the same amount. If everyone was paying the same amount of taxes, more attention would be focused on where their money is going.
Old    Ron T (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       03-13-2010, 10:28 PM Reply   
Hey, Jeremy, I hope this disturbs you a little. It concerns me a lot.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/China-...&asset=&ccode=
Old    Akadirtbikingdad (wakeboardingdad)      Join Date: Aug 2008       03-14-2010, 6:35 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laker1234 View Post
Hey, Jeremy, I hope this disturbs you a little. It concerns me a lot.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/China-...&asset=&ccode=
It was stories like that, and me knowing that this country is broke and cannot afford this healthcare bill that is proposed, which caused me to write my senator and voice my concerns. While it may seem harsh, I asked him to stop the wholesale spending and GIVING away of my money, mainly for social projects. For basically the first time ever, I was unhappy with the taxes I paid. Seriously, I only made $1K more, but paid $2K more in taxes, than in '08.. Nothing else really changed in my deductions or status. Anyway, I mainly targeted the way we support the illegals in this country and their offspring, anchor babies.

I'll admit that I do not follow everything to the "T" and may hear "fear mongering" which has been mentioned several times in this thread. However, when a non-citizen is allowed to vote for anything in this country, and you can even push this to someone who does not or ever has paid taxes, (in other words, someone who has always been "enjoying"our social programs) nothing more is happening than the buying of votes. Let me ask: If you are on the lifelong train of government hand-outs, or came to this country never planning to work, but plan to enjoy this "American dream" of free money, wouldn't you vote for the one that is planning to give you the most? Isn't that, essentially, buying votes? Here's the problem with this: Big business and the poor are the only ones represented in our government today and it seems that it is only going to get worse.

If I am wrong, please tell me I am. I need to be able to look at my kids and believe that this country is NOT on the verge of a financial meltdown, that is only being perpetuated by the current leader(s) of this country today.
Old    Ron T (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       03-14-2010, 10:11 PM Reply   
I'm glad that you've taken the time to write your senator, Wakeboardingdad. We can only blame ourselves for a lot of these problems because most of us are too busy working to voice our political concerns. Also, to me, you have expressed why I became a "teabagger." You should get involved locally because the Tea Party is mostly comprised of people like you. We owe it the good politicians out there fighting for our rights.
Old    Akadirtbikingdad (wakeboardingdad)      Join Date: Aug 2008       03-15-2010, 10:52 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laker1234 View Post
You should get involved locally because the Tea Party is mostly comprised of people like you. We owe it the good politicians out there fighting for our rights.
That is the one thing, besides writing all of my representatives, that I haven't done. I need to take this much more seriously and be visible, as well as, heard. I feel I am the average Joe, with 2 kids, who goes to work every day to pay the bills and hopefully have enough left over for some extras and some security. The last two things are dwindling and it seems it will get worse unless I do take this more seriously and get outside my usual comfort zone.
Old    Ron T (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       03-15-2010, 7:42 PM Reply   
I recommend giving it a try. A friend took me to my first meeting and I've been active ever since. I don't feel as tough I can be a fence sitter any longer.
Old    WakePowell Chris (epic1)      Join Date: Oct 2006       03-16-2010, 9:51 PM Reply   
FORMER PRESIDENT BUSH, that still fells GREAT TO SAY, got me active in govt. Thanks bush! I could no longer be a fence sitter.

Reply
Share 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:29 AM.

Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
Wake World Home

 

© 2012 eWake, Inc.    
Advertise    |    Contact    |    Terms of Use    |    Privacy Policy    |    Report Abuse    |    Conduct    |    About Us