Credibility 101

[Big Muddy rancher]

I see why Haymaker calls him "Big Dummy" now. :???: :roll: :lol:

Gee watch them divert. What the law say OT? It;s not required unger 21 months?

Say OT how long were you sheriff? 20 years? 30 years? 3 years?

Obviously you did practice law long enough cause you don't seem to right yet.

Whos' diverting? I am the one that posted the rules!

It was changed in Sept, 2005 to allow US beef imports.

If they want to continue testing, that's their business. Not yours nor mine.

But it sure tells you about their mindset doesn't it?

Hint, they don't trust beef and especially ours![/quote


Mike what was the title of thet thread you started? Was it not "Japan's testing laws" ? So what is the law in Japan? Do they require testing of under 21 months? NO
Are they still testing? it looks like some if not most is still tested. But wait what is the LAW. It;s not required on cattle under 21 moths.

 

[Mike]

Mike what was the title of thet thread you started? Was it not "Japan's testing laws" ? So what is the law in Japan? Do they require testing of under 21 months? NO
Are they still testing? it looks like some if not most is still tested. But wait what is the LAW. It;s not required on cattle under 21 moths.

I really don't understand what you are getting at, even with all your redundancy.

No. It's NOT law. It was changed in Sept, 2005.
Why? To allow US beef.
Do they still test? Yes, ALL cattle are tested at slaughter.
Why? Because they are going to extremes to build consumer confidence.


If you have a point please make it. :???: :???:

 

[TSR]

Econ, since you're a little slow sometimes and I'm always having to explain stuff to you, let me give you a little heads-up...

The following post of your's that I'm quoting came from HAY MAKER's "Bull Sheist" thread. Since you wanted to bring up the subject of credibility again, and since I didn't want to keep hijacking his thread, I thought this would be a better place for it. That's why I moved it over here. Is that pretty clear or do I need to go slower for you? :lol:

:lol2: You're the one that doesn't like it when somebody disagrees with you, Econ. You're the ultimate hypocrite and there are volumes of posts to prove it. :lol:

The boards are full of your insulting posts directed at people just because they don't share your goofball views. What grade are you in, anyway? :lol:

Texan, you know as well as I that this started on the political board. I don't have a problem arguing on different levels, with different language and combatting in kind. Do you want me to tie my hands behind my back just so you can win an argument? I didn't negotiate your handicap. Just because I disagreed and wanted to argue a little over there, you followed me here, wrote up a credibility topic, and failed miserably at it due to your lack of reading comprehension and propensity to draw conclusions not stated by other people.

X, or Texan, you are the one who has had more than one handle on these boards for whatever reason, credibility or whatever.

You are really one to talk about these issues.

Econ, the political board has nothing to do with this. This has to do with you. With you, your lack of credibility, and your arrogant, condescending, and frequently insulting posts. The argument that I followed you "here" is absurd and somewhat paranoid, don't you think?

In case you didn't notice, I was posting on Ranchers way before you came along. How do you figure that I followed you? Maybe you think that Bull Session is your personal 'turf' just because you don't have anything better to do than to try to dominate it by posting all day, every day? You're just like the little ghetto gang-banger that doesn't like it when somebody crowds him on his own turf, aren't you? Well, let me tell you, Econ...I am sure scared of you. Can't you tell? LMAO.

I didn't follow you, Econ. Get over it. I bet you spend a lot of time looking over your shoulder, don't you? :lol:

X, or Texan, you are the one who has had more than one handle on these boards for whatever reason, credibility or whatever.

You are really one to talk about these issues.

You're correct about that, Econ. I posted on Political Bull with another username and everybody knows why. They also know that I never used one name to back up the position that I had taken with the other. Never.

Everybody also knows that I am the one that divulged my identity - because I had agreed to do it if somebody else would. I said that I would do it, so I did it. So yeah, you're right...that does give me plenty of right to talk about the issue of credibility.

But since you're concerned about my credibility (when you should be worried about your own), let me give you some tips to look out for. If you ever catch me posting any statements like these, you will know that my credibility should be in question:

Okay, someone has hacked into my identity.

I did not post this post

I did check on the IP address from Macon the post came from and it was from my home.

My wife did it.

I guess you could say I got hacked by my wife.

Well...I guess it's not necessarily my credibility that you should question if I post stuff like that. You might just ask yourself if I'm still the man of the house, or if my wife has taken over. Maybe check to see if I've been banded. :lol:

I'm glad you brought up Political Bull, though. That reminds me of another one of the liberal/socialist positions you take. Your position of supporting the federal Death Tax. Just because you're jealous of those that have more than you. I'll have to admit that your support of that government-sponsored theft took me by surprise. Especially given the fact that you claim to support farmers and ranchers.

The Death Tax is an important issue to most of us here. We're dead set against it in any form, because we want our kids to have what we work for, instead of the government taking it. On the other hand, guys like you think we should cash in our ranches to pay more taxes to keep you and your welfare classes from having to pay your share. In that way you've got a lot in common with Jesse Jackson.

The position you take supporting the Death Tax is reprehensible on a ranchers site where you claim to be interested in helping ranchers. What a crock! Did you not notice that the Death Tax issue is another issue where your cheerleaders leave you standing all alone?

And yeah, I remember that you have in mind an exemption, blah, blah, blah. Just like every other special interest group has an exemption in mind. Let's face it - you're a typical liberal and you like the Death Tax because it will let you get even with people that have more than you.

Econ, let's go ahead and get down to the nut cuttin' about Political Bull since it's still an unresolved issue for you. When we were talking about the Death Tax over there, you just didn't like me comparing you to Jesse Jackson on that issue. Did you, Jesse? :lol:

Texan, I can assure you that the majority of middle class working men and women will NOT want the very small minority of people who will have to pay the estate tax to be free of having to do such. Why, its a no brainer, THEY will be the ones who will have to make up the loss via higher taxes on their paychecks. I can assure jealousy doesn't play a role in my view on this subject. I just don't want the wealthy transferring their taxes to the middle class. Enough of that happens already.

 

[aplusmnt]

Texan, I can assure you that the majority of middle class working men and women will NOT want the very small minority of people who will have to pay the estate tax to be free of having to do such. Why, its a no brainer,

THEY will be the ones who will have to make up the loss via higher taxes on their paychecks. I can assure jealousy doesn't play a role in my view on this subject. I just don't want the wealthy transferring their taxes to the middle class. Enough of that happens already.

Lets say they do away with the Death Tax and there is a financial whole left that has to be made up.

What makes you think it will be made up by the middle class? History does not prove this! The Upper income 10% pay 33% of taxes, the upper 50% pay 98% of the taxes.

History shows that when more tax money is needed or wanted in this country they government gets it from the Wealthier people not the poor people.

History shows that when Government needs the money it is not the Middle Class or Poor people that are doing the paying.

Just the Liberals like to say that were it is going to come from. Because it makes for some Dem Votes.

Do not worry the U.S. will continue to be financed primarily on the backs of the Higher income people always been that way and probably always will be.

Ps. My quotes on %'s were to the best of my recollection from the previous threads. The have a + - accuracy error of 10% due to my deteriorating memory.

 

[Econ101]

Texan, I can assure you that the majority of middle class working men and women will NOT want the very small minority of people who will have to pay the estate tax to be free of having to do such. Why, its a no brainer,

THEY will be the ones who will have to make up the loss via higher taxes on their paychecks. I can assure jealousy doesn't play a role in my view on this subject. I just don't want the wealthy transferring their taxes to the middle class. Enough of that happens already.

Lets say they do away with the Death Tax and there is a financial whole left that has to be made up.

What makes you think it will be made up by the middle class? History does not prove this! The Upper income 10% pay 33% of taxes, the upper 50% pay 98% of the taxes.

History shows that when more tax money is needed or wanted in this country they government gets it from the Wealthier people not the poor people.

History shows that when Government needs the money it is not the Middle Class or Poor people that are doing the paying.

Just the Liberals like to say that were it is going to come from. Because it makes for some Dem Votes.

Do not worry the U.S. will continue to be financed primarily on the backs of the Higher income people always been that way and probably always will be.

Ps. My quotes on %'s were to the best of my recollection from the previous threads. The have a + - accuracy error of 10% due to my deteriorating memory.

Aplus, you are only talking about income taxes. You have to talk about ALL taxes. Besides that, all the income from capital gains is charged at a lower rate. Do you not know these things or do you just want to omit them for your argument?

 

[aplusmnt]

Texan, I can assure you that the majority of middle class working men and women will NOT want the very small minority of people who will have to pay the estate tax to be free of having to do such. Why, its a no brainer,

THEY will be the ones who will have to make up the loss via higher taxes on their paychecks. I can assure jealousy doesn't play a role in my view on this subject. I just don't want the wealthy transferring their taxes to the middle class. Enough of that happens already.

Lets say they do away with the Death Tax and there is a financial whole left that has to be made up.

What makes you think it will be made up by the middle class? History does not prove this! The Upper income 10% pay 33% of taxes, the upper 50% pay 98% of the taxes.

History shows that when more tax money is needed or wanted in this country they government gets it from the Wealthier people not the poor people.

History shows that when Government needs the money it is not the Middle Class or Poor people that are doing the paying.

Just the Liberals like to say that were it is going to come from. Because it makes for some Dem Votes.

Do not worry the U.S. will continue to be financed primarily on the backs of the Higher income people always been that way and probably always will be.

Ps. My quotes on %'s were to the best of my recollection from the previous threads. The have a + - accuracy error of 10% due to my deteriorating memory.

Aplus, you are only talking about income taxes. You have to talk about ALL taxes. Besides that, all the income from capital gains is charged at a lower rate. Do you not know these things or do you just want to omit them for your argument?

Only point I am making is middle class does is not automatically the ones that make up any financial shortages. Dem's would have us to believe that every time someone gets a tax break or a tax restructuring it is is the Wealthy that benefit and the Poor are left to pay the bill.

Lets say the Gov gets 1 billion in revenue from the Death tax. And they do away with it. Either the Gov has to learn to live with out that 1 billion (my choice for them) or they have to replace it somehow to continue as they have been.

I do not think that they will be making the lower income people pay this. History shows that in the end the Higher incomes pay the bills in the Gov and the U.S. in general. And most likely it will continue that way.

Maybe there will be an income tax increase, maybe a sales tax increase I do not know how they will get it, but I am certain it will not all be on the backs of the poor. History does not support that theory. Only the Dem's support this theory.

 

[TSR]

Lets say they do away with the Death Tax and there is a financial whole left that has to be made up.

What makes you think it will be made up by the middle class? History does not prove this! The Upper income 10% pay 33% of taxes, the upper 50% pay 98% of the taxes.

History shows that when more tax money is needed or wanted in this country they government gets it from the Wealthier people not the poor people.

History shows that when Government needs the money it is not the Middle Class or Poor people that are doing the paying.

Just the Liberals like to say that were it is going to come from. Because it makes for some Dem Votes.

Do not worry the U.S. will continue to be financed primarily on the backs of the Higher income people always been that way and probably always will be.

Ps. My quotes on %'s were to the best of my recollection from the previous threads. The have a + - accuracy error of 10% due to my deteriorating memory.

Aplus, you are only talking about income taxes. You have to talk about ALL taxes. Besides that, all the income from capital gains is charged at a lower rate. Do you not know these things or do you just want to omit them for your argument?

Only point I am making is middle class does is not automatically the ones that make up any financial shortages. Dem's would have us to believe that every time someone gets a tax break or a tax restructuring it is is the Wealthy that benefit and the Poor are left to pay the bill.

Lets say the Gov gets 1 billion in revenue from the Death tax. And they do away with it. Either the Gov has to learn to live with out that 1 billion (my choice for them) or they have to replace it somehow to continue as they have been.

I do not think that they will be making the lower income people pay this. History shows that in the end the Higher incomes pay the bills in the Gov and the U.S. in general. And most likely it will continue that way.

Maybe there will be an income tax increase, maybe a sales tax increase I do not know how they will get it, but I am certain it will not all be on the backs of the poor. History does not support that theory. Only the Dem's support this theory.

I didn't say the poor will pay anything. I said the middle class will make up the difference. I believe history does show this.

 

[Econ101]

Hey, I am all for tax breaks when they come from a budget that has been trimmed and balanced. There was an article on Gov. Blanco from Louisiana who was offering 300 million in tax breaks for a German company to set up shop in Louisiana.

Now that 300 million probably comes from federal dollars which are financed off the backs of our kids. Why should the feds give 300 million to a private company? They shouldn't even loan that kind of money to a private or a public company.

When we have a budget deficit, we should not give tax breaks unless they are recouped in that business cycle (things are paid off when the economy picks up).

These legislators want to spend, spend, spend, and debt finance that spending. It is like putting it on the nation's credit card. You can make the economy look like it is doing good, but it is only because we borrowed the money from the Chinese who will get it from taxing our children.

Aplusmnt, I am definitely for tax breaks, but it must come from lower spending, not just shifting the tax burden.

 

[aplusmnt]

I didn't say the poor will pay anything. I said the middle class will make up the difference. I believe history does show this.

Personally I do not think Middle Class pay the bulk of the Taxes. I you figure that the top 50% of Americans pay around 97% of our Taxes. Now the Middle Class would be in that 50% I grant you.

But the top 25% income bracket which I do not consider Middle Class America pays around 89% of all Taxes.

So if you do the math and subtract the 89% from the 97% that leaves middle class and upper middle class people only paying around 8% of all Tax money.

I do not consider paying 8% of the bills of America enough to claim Middle Class is the ones that are footing the bills. I grant you it is better than the 3% part that those in the Lower 50% income wise are paying but it is still a long ways from being the group that is carrying America on their backs financially speaking!

 

[Econ101]

If there was one man who made almost all the money in the world and everyone else earned ten dollars each, who should pay all the taxes?

The Lowest Deep

And in the lowest deep a lower deep...
Tuesday, April 26, 2005
Who Pays What in Taxes?
The WSJ today announced "Even the most ardent class warriors have no choice but to concede that the U.S. income tax code is steeply progressive -- that is, that it soaks the rich."

The richest 1% of all Americans pay 33.7% of all federal income taxes, even after the Bush tax cuts, while the bottom 50% of earners pay a mere 3.6% share.

But...what about the payroll tax?...An IRS study shows that, even after including Social Security taxes, the overall tax burden grew more progressive from 1979 to 1999. The [study finds] that over the course of 20 years the richest 0.1% of all taxpayers saw their overall tax share double -- to 11.05%, from 5.06%. The top 20% of all earners also saw their tax share increase sharply to more than two-thirds of all taxes paid. Meanwhile, the bottom 20% of earners paid only a tiny share in 1979 but saw even that share cut in half 20 years later -- including payroll taxes.


[The original IRS paper is here.]

The rich pay more in taxes today than they did in 1979. But that isn't because the tax system is more progressive (in fact, the opposite is true) it's because the rich now make more money than they did in 1979: In 1979, the top 1% earned 9.58 percent of all income while in 2000 they earned 21.55 percent. [The top .1% saw their income share rise from 3.28 to 10.49.] [To give you some perspective,to make the top .1% you needed $1,278,479 in 2002.]

While the share of taxes paid by the very rich grew 118 percent between 1979 and 1999, their share of income grew by 320 percent. This means their average tax rates fell! If you read the paper (and not just cherry-pick the numbers that suit your cause) you see this is in fact the case:

Average tax rates (the proper and most commonly used measure of progressivity) among the richest .1% (including SS and income taxes) fell from 31.92 percent in 1979 to 22.57 percent in 1999 (under JGTRRA law).

Even more astounding to me is that the tax system became regressive at higher levels of income because of the Bush tax cuts: In 1979 the top .1% paid 31.92 of their income in taxes while the 5% between the 90th and 95th percentiles paid 22.59 percent. In 1999 (after JGTRRA) the top .1% faced an average tax rate of 22.57 percent while those between the 90th and 95th percentiles paid 25.48 percent. Ouch!

See Figure F in the paper, it says it all:


Figure F Posted by Hello

[/code]

 

[aplusmnt]

If there was one man who made almost all the money in the world and everyone else earned ten dollars each, who should pay all the taxes?

The Lowest Deep

And in the lowest deep a lower deep...
Tuesday, April 26, 2005
Who Pays What in Taxes?
The WSJ today announced "Even the most ardent class warriors have no choice but to concede that the U.S. income tax code is steeply progressive -- that is, that it soaks the rich."

The richest 1% of all Americans pay 33.7% of all federal income taxes, even after the Bush tax cuts, while the bottom 50% of earners pay a mere 3.6% share.

But...what about the payroll tax?...An IRS study shows that, even after including Social Security taxes, the overall tax burden grew more progressive from 1979 to 1999. The [study finds] that over the course of 20 years the richest 0.1% of all taxpayers saw their overall tax share double -- to 11.05%, from 5.06%. The top 20% of all earners also saw their tax share increase sharply to more than two-thirds of all taxes paid. Meanwhile, the bottom 20% of earners paid only a tiny share in 1979 but saw even that share cut in half 20 years later -- including payroll taxes.


[The original IRS paper is here.]

The rich pay more in taxes today than they did in 1979. But that isn't because the tax system is more progressive (in fact, the opposite is true) it's because the rich now make more money than they did in 1979: In 1979, the top 1% earned 9.58 percent of all income while in 2000 they earned 21.55 percent. [The top .1% saw their income share rise from 3.28 to 10.49.] [To give you some perspective,to make the top .1% you needed $1,278,479 in 2002.]

While the share of taxes paid by the very rich grew 118 percent between 1979 and 1999, their share of income grew by 320 percent. This means their average tax rates fell! If you read the paper (and not just cherry-pick the numbers that suit your cause) you see this is in fact the case:

Average tax rates (the proper and most commonly used measure of progressivity) among the richest .1% (including SS and income taxes) fell from 31.92 percent in 1979 to 22.57 percent in 1999 (under JGTRRA law).

Even more astounding to me is that the tax system became regressive at higher levels of income because of the Bush tax cuts: In 1979 the top .1% paid 31.92 of their income in taxes while the 5% between the 90th and 95th percentiles paid 22.59 percent. In 1999 (after JGTRRA) the top .1% faced an average tax rate of 22.57 percent while those between the 90th and 95th percentiles paid 25.48 percent. Ouch!

See Figure F in the paper, it says it all:


Figure F Posted by Hello

[/code]

I am not arguing who should pay the taxes I am saying do not give me all this crap like the Liberal Media that Middle Class will be the ones that pay for it. Middle Class only pays 5% more than those on Welfare do.

One way or another the money will come from those that have the most of it. Always been that way always will be.

 

[Econ101]

If there was one man who made almost all the money in the world and everyone else earned ten dollars each, who should pay all the taxes?

The Lowest Deep

And in the lowest deep a lower deep...
Tuesday, April 26, 2005
Who Pays What in Taxes?
The WSJ today announced "Even the most ardent class warriors have no choice but to concede that the U.S. income tax code is steeply progressive -- that is, that it soaks the rich."

The richest 1% of all Americans pay 33.7% of all federal income taxes, even after the Bush tax cuts, while the bottom 50% of earners pay a mere 3.6% share.

But...what about the payroll tax?...An IRS study shows that, even after including Social Security taxes, the overall tax burden grew more progressive from 1979 to 1999. The [study finds] that over the course of 20 years the richest 0.1% of all taxpayers saw their overall tax share double -- to 11.05%, from 5.06%. The top 20% of all earners also saw their tax share increase sharply to more than two-thirds of all taxes paid. Meanwhile, the bottom 20% of earners paid only a tiny share in 1979 but saw even that share cut in half 20 years later -- including payroll taxes.


[The original IRS paper is here.]

The rich pay more in taxes today than they did in 1979. But that isn't because the tax system is more progressive (in fact, the opposite is true) it's because the rich now make more money than they did in 1979: In 1979, the top 1% earned 9.58 percent of all income while in 2000 they earned 21.55 percent. [The top .1% saw their income share rise from 3.28 to 10.49.] [To give you some perspective,to make the top .1% you needed $1,278,479 in 2002.]

While the share of taxes paid by the very rich grew 118 percent between 1979 and 1999, their share of income grew by 320 percent. This means their average tax rates fell! If you read the paper (and not just cherry-pick the numbers that suit your cause) you see this is in fact the case:

Average tax rates (the proper and most commonly used measure of progressivity) among the richest .1% (including SS and income taxes) fell from 31.92 percent in 1979 to 22.57 percent in 1999 (under JGTRRA law).

Even more astounding to me is that the tax system became regressive at higher levels of income because of the Bush tax cuts: In 1979 the top .1% paid 31.92 of their income in taxes while the 5% between the 90th and 95th percentiles paid 22.59 percent. In 1999 (after JGTRRA) the top .1% faced an average tax rate of 22.57 percent while those between the 90th and 95th percentiles paid 25.48 percent. Ouch!

See Figure F in the paper, it says it all:


Figure F Posted by Hello

[/code]

I am not arguing who should pay the taxes I am saying do not give me all this crap like the Liberal Media that Middle Class will be the ones that pay for it. Middle Class only pays 5% more than those on Welfare do.

One way or another the money will come from those that have the most of it. Always been that way always will be.

.....If you only look at income taxes. As a percent, the SS tax is regressive. Those making under about 90 thousand pay much more as a percent than those making over that amount.

The marginal income tax for those earning 85 thousand per year is more than those making 20 million when the 20 million is investment income based on capital gains rate.

If you want to pick and chose taxes, you can make any argument you want.

They key is to get govt. to stop spending as much money. Then stop asking for more money from us. Period.


On that I think we can both agree.

 

[aplusmnt]

If there was one man who made almost all the money in the world and everyone else earned ten dollars each, who should pay all the taxes?



[/code]

I am not arguing who should pay the taxes I am saying do not give me all this crap like the Liberal Media that Middle Class will be the ones that pay for it. Middle Class only pays 5% more than those on Welfare do.

One way or another the money will come from those that have the most of it. Always been that way always will be.

.....If you only look at income taxes. As a percent, the SS tax is regressive. Those making under about 90 thousand pay much more as a percent than those making over that amount.

The marginal income tax for those earning 85 thousand per year is more than those making 20 million when the 20 million is investment income based on capital gains rate.

If you want to pick and chose taxes, you can make any argument you want.

They key is to get govt. to stop spending as much money. Then stop asking for more money from us. Period.


On that I think we can both agree.

I am just looking at the bottom line, the per person gross amount of money paid to support the governments current life style. 25% of people pay 89% of America's bills and middle class is not part of that group.

And yes I do agree with you on the government spending. That is the foundation of everything I believe in Politically, Less Government, Less Spending. More Control for the citizens of their lives and Money.

 

[mrj]

Lets say they do away with the Death Tax and there is a financial whole left that has to be made up.

What makes you think it will be made up by the middle class? History does not prove this! The Upper income 10% pay 33% of taxes, the upper 50% pay 98% of the taxes.

History shows that when more tax money is needed or wanted in this country they government gets it from the Wealthier people not the poor people.

History shows that when Government needs the money it is not the Middle Class or Poor people that are doing the paying.

Just the Liberals like to say that were it is going to come from. Because it makes for some Dem Votes.

Do not worry the U.S. will continue to be financed primarily on the backs of the Higher income people always been that way and probably always will be.

Ps. My quotes on %'s were to the best of my recollection from the previous threads. The have a + - accuracy error of 10% due to my deteriorating memory.

Aplus, you are only talking about income taxes. You have to talk about ALL taxes. Besides that, all the income from capital gains is charged at a lower rate. Do you not know these things or do you just want to omit them for your argument?

Only point I am making is middle class does is not automatically the ones that make up any financial shortages. Dem's would have us to believe that every time someone gets a tax break or a tax restructuring it is is the Wealthy that benefit and the Poor are left to pay the bill.

Lets say the Gov gets 1 billion in revenue from the Death tax. And they do away with it. Either the Gov has to learn to live with out that 1 billion (my choice for them) or they have to replace it somehow to continue as they have been.

I do not think that they will be making the lower income people pay this. History shows that in the end the Higher incomes pay the bills in the Gov and the U.S. in general. And most likely it will continue that way.

Maybe there will be an income tax increase, maybe a sales tax increase I do not know how they will get it, but I am certain it will not all be on the backs of the poor. History does not support that theory. Only the Dem's support this theory.

You've made some good points, aplusment.

Don't forget a very large reason for getting rid of the Death Tax, maybe even above and beyond the injustice of the fact that the very wealthiest people do not pay it.....the working family businesses are hardest hit......but the worst feature of it is the fact that over 65% of the 'take' is eaten up by costs of administration and compliance.....leaving only about 35% of the money collected by the Death Tax available for government "needs".

MRJ

 

[redrobin]

RR, as I said before, the main winners of the last election were blue dogs. They filled the void of conservatism that the republicans vacated.

Read your own message on the bottom of your posts:

to quote Dr. Ken Hutcherson, 'When Republicans act like Democrats they lose, and when Democrats act like Republicans, they win.' And therein lies the lesson of '06.

Pelosi may be the "devil" you chose to target, but the democratic party has changed during this election, whether you want to admit it or not. The dems. have more conservative members than they have had in the past. It remains to be seen whether they will press their strength in the party or have to roll over like the incoming class of freshman republicans had to do.

I have no problem with you calling them dogs, it's the word conservative I'm concerned about. Your so called conservative dems that just got elected, don't wield any power as of yet and will just be yes boys to pelosi, wrangle, boxer,franks, etc. Not conservative.

Well- I'm not so sure that some of the Democrats that came in aren't much more "conservative" than a bunch of the Repubs that were in there/ or are in there- that helped sell out NAFTA, CAFTA, AFTA, whatever in long term never ending foreign agreements that tie up our kids and grandkids-- along with refusing to do anything with the immigration or border issue-- while sticking in $3 million dollar pork barrel bills for the richest Indian tribe in the US, so they can use their own money to further extend their gambling interests-- and approving the Communist Chinese to operate on US soil, operating sweatshops that used forced abortions, slave labor, and allowed sending products made there to be labeled "made in the USA" , all in return for Abrahms to give these same "so called conservative legislators" hundreds of thousands of dollars (mine got $150,000+ for forgetting his conservativeness)- along with their leader Delay selling out anything and everything for the almighty buck...

Now Red Robber- tell me how these folks fit in the line of the old definition of "conservative"..........Those folk had their chance and did nothing but sell out to the highest bidder or whatever Legislative Page that smiled at them......

:lol: :lol: :lol: Your wrong again.

 

[Tex]

I have no problem with you calling them dogs, it's the word conservative I'm concerned about. Your so called conservative dems that just got elected, don't wield any power as of yet and will just be yes boys to pelosi, wrangle, boxer,franks, etc. Not conservative.

Well- I'm not so sure that some of the Democrats that came in aren't much more "conservative" than a bunch of the Repubs that were in there/ or are in there- that helped sell out NAFTA, CAFTA, AFTA, whatever in long term never ending foreign agreements that tie up our kids and grandkids-- along with refusing to do anything with the immigration or border issue-- while sticking in $3 million dollar pork barrel bills for the richest Indian tribe in the US, so they can use their own money to further extend their gambling interests-- and approving the Communist Chinese to operate on US soil, operating sweatshops that used forced abortions, slave labor, and allowed sending products made there to be labeled "made in the USA" , all in return for Abrahms to give these same "so called conservative legislators" hundreds of thousands of dollars (mine got $150,000+ for forgetting his conservativeness)- along with their leader Delay selling out anything and everything for the almighty buck...

Now Red Robber- tell me how these folks fit in the line of the old definition of "conservative"..........Those folk had their chance and did nothing but sell out to the highest bidder or whatever Legislative Page that smiled at them......

:lol: :lol: :lol: Your wrong again.

Red Robin, it is "You are wrong...", or "You're wrong...".

I think you happen to be double down wrong on this one. Delay was convicted and sentenced to a 3 year term (who knows if he will have to do it).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/10/AR2011011000557_2.html

Delay wasn't acting conservative, he was acting crooked.

In my book, when you are a crook, that title supersedes dem or rep. If you don't allow it to do so, it trains the politicians to masquerade as dems. or repubs while really they are just a bunch of crooks running the show.

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

From the article above:



Lead prosecutor Gary Cobb repeatedly called attention to DeLay's defiance, asking the judge at one point if refusing to accept responsibility could properly be called a "conservative value."

"Conservative values . . . are supposed to include obeying the laws of the state and taking personal responsibility," Cobb said. If DeLay received only probation, Cobb warned the judge, he would "wear that probation" like Jesus and call himself a martyr.

A colleague, prosecutor Steve Brand, separately claimed at the hearing that probation would not only send the wrong message to other members of Congress, but would signal to working-class citizens that DeLay was treated lightly just because he wore "a suit and a tie." He said that DeLay's repeated claims in a recent memoir that he did nothing improper were "the equivalent of a 'screw you' to the system."






Tex

 

[redrobin]

My post was directed to the judge but since you so eagerly joined in, how have the democrats filled the conservative void that the republicans "vacated" ?

You can address this statement as well.

Pelosi may be the "devil" you chose to target, but the democratic party has changed during this election, whether you want to admit it or not. The dems. have more conservative members than they have had in the past.

 

[Tex]

My post was directed to the judge but since you so eagerly joined in, how have the democrats filled the conservative void that the republicans "vacated" ?

You can address this statement as well.

Pelosi may be the "devil" you chose to target, but the democratic party has changed during this election, whether you want to admit it or not. The dems. have more conservative members than they have had in the past.

I think the last two major elections have shown that neither the democrats or republicans can effectively run the country when they are in the majority.

They are both subject to the big money that buys a few in the middle to tip the scale for the corporate billionaires who are really calling the shots.

You can't call republicans conservative if you have watched them when they had complete control. They kept borrowing and borrowing. They lowered tax rates on the upper income levels and kept their exemptions from income over about 149,000 from SS tax and they keep on going with the big loopholes for Wall Street. The dems are not that much better and in some cases worse. There are a few who still want to run the country correctly but they have to yield to the majority who are selling the public interest for their own benefit instead of serving it.

It is becoming more and more clear that our politicians are puppets and they have some very big strings pulling their moves. Those strings are held by some of the richest men in the world who donate heavily to the political spin and the political system as a whole.

I haven't targeted Pelosi. We need to target the committee chairs and ranking members who the parties put in to do the puppet work for these corporations who are destroying our economy in the name of profits or consolidation of industries.

Tex


Here is an example:

http://yourdailyjournal.com/pages/full_story/push?need_to_add=true&id=11974975&content_instance=11974975#cb_post_comment_11974975


Kissell meets with area poultry growers
Richmond County Daily Journal
7 days ago | 536 views | 3 3 comments | | 5 5 recommendations | email to a friend | print


Congressman Larry Kissell (NC-08) met with area poultry growers last week to discuss pending changes in law that will affect the industry, including the new Farm Bill as well as GIPSA regulations.

"The poultry industry is very important to our District's economy, and I wanted to hear directly from those who will be most affected by proposed changes in the way businesses operate." said Kissell. "I want to make sure the true experts on these matters — the producers — have a voice in Washington. As providers of quality, safe food, as well economic growth and products for export, family farms are key to America's well-being and our national security. And they deserve to be heard on the policies impacting their industry."

Much of the discussion at the recent meeting focused on the ongoing debate over a proposed US Department of Agriculture rules with the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA). GIPSA facilitates the marketing of livestock, poultry, meat, cereals, oilseeds and related agricultural products, and promotes fair and competitive trading practices intended to benefit both consumers and members of the agriculture community.

"The poultry industry in North Carolina and our local area is a vital part of our economy," said Richard Goforth, Area Poultry Specialist of the N.C. Cooperative Extension. "The growers appreciate the opportunity to relay their concerns personally to Mr. Kissell about the proposed GIPSA rules and the effects the rules may have on the overall industry, and their farms. Cooperative Extension would like to thank Congressman Kissell and his staff for working with us to arrange this meeting."

Last year, Kissell called on the USDA to extend the public comment period on the GIPSA rule, which was granted, extending comments through late November of 2010. Kissell also joined his colleagues on both sides of the aisle in calling for an extensive economic analysis to be conducted regarding the effects of these rule changes on local industry. During a recent House Agriculture Committee meeting on the state of the U.S. farm economy, Kissell pressed USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack to provide the public with a time line for completion of this important economic analysis.

"While there are certainly some positive aspects of the GIPSA rule, I believe that the USDA has addressed issues that are clearly outside of their authority," said Kissell. "I support provisions that allow producers to speak their mind without fear of retaliation from the integrator, as well as language to ensure that our producers are properly compensated for mandatory upgrades they must make. I feel that the USDA's foray into base prices, packer-to-packer sales, and competitive harm are serious overreaches against our local producers. I will continue to fight to make sure that the concerns of the farmers, ranchers and producers of our district are heard loud and clear, and that their livelihoods are protected."
Copyright 2011 Richmond County Daily Journal. All rights reserved.
Share This Article |
similar stories

Read more: Richmond County Daily Journal - Rockingham, Hamlet NC - News, Sports, Classifieds, Business, Events, Richmond County



Read more: Richmond County Daily Journal - Rockingham, Hamlet NC - News, Sports, Classifieds, Business, Events, Richmond County



rote on Thursday, Mar 03 at 12:33 PM »
It is almost comical that an industry would be against a set of regulations that prohibits unfair and deceptive pratices. The reality is the government props the poultry industry up six ways from Sunday both directly and indirectly. Wasn't that long ago that the USDA had to purchase the excess chicken on the market to relieve the glut on the market and stabilize prices. So once the oversupply was back under control the next thing that happened was many of these complexes started expanding like gangbusters and if you are a current grower this should worry you..remember 2007/2008?? The same problems are rearing up right now. It also wasn't that long ago that Pigrim's Pride idled plants and left farmers in financial ruin. The government stepped in with 60 million in grants which is great for those farmers but the taxpayers of this country just rewarded a major corporation for bad behavior. Mr. Kissel it is the government's job to protect citizens from this predatory type of behavior. If the harm to competition does not include individual growers than these regs are useless.

JCW

wrote on Wednesday, Mar 02 at 10:54 PM »
Well Kissell might have listened to the poultry growers but he clearly is on the companies side of the fence. This does not only affect poultry growers but cattle and hog farmers too. They are all watching and reading what the people like Kissell are doing. These are the people that put them in office and will take them out.


Tom wrote on Wednesday, Mar 02 at 03:06 PM »
Foray into base prices?

This is the central element of fraud. This guy doesn't have a clue how markets work.

I thought republicans were supposed to believe in market forces. I think they really believe in whoever is blowing the most smoke in their ears--- the organized poultry companies and their minions both those who know what is going

on and those who don't.

The problem of a level playing field is not new to agriculture. The problem is

that these companies have been allowed to pay based on equipment instead of the

actual product being produced. This has allowed all sorts of mischief for the

integrators to get away with.

I truly sympathize with the grower who called me and spoke to me about his new

houses. He worried that he wouldn't be able to cover his bills if they

tournament system wasn't tilted in his favor and taking away from other

efficient growers.

That is what happens when you base your pricing mechanism off of a fraud. You

mess up everything.

Kissel is case in point to the competence of our congressional leaders. They

are educated by the corporations who sit in all the committee hearings with them

and pay for their election bids.

This kind of corruption has ruined this industry for many.

It should be ruining the careers of people like Kissel instead.

The competitive harm requirement by the courts has essentially gutted all of the

provisions he says he supports. It is the kind of doubletalk that we are

getting from politicians. Sounds good but is as incompetent as heck.

It really is funny how these guys implicate themselves all the time but never get called on it.

Tom

Kissell is a democrat