This man is a nuts

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by merasmag

it's obvious to me you don't understand politics

Most people think I know a little bit about politics. I do have a B.A. in Political Science from UCLA.

UCLA has consistently ranked in the top 25 universities in the country.

You say that I don't understand politics. What is it about politics that you think I don't understand?

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Most people think I know a little bit about politics. I do have a B.A. in Political Science from UCLA.

UCLA has consistently ranked in the top 25 universities in the country.

1st round goes to Rupert! Way to bring it, Rup? Mera?

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Yes, I do know where his fortune came from. He was an incredibly successful businessman.

When he took over as CEO at Searle, they were $28 million in the red. When he left 4 year later, they were $128 million in the black. Searle is a pharmaceutical company known for products such as Dramamine, Metamucil, and an early birth control pill.

He left Searle and became Chairman and CEO of General Instruments, where he did an amazing job. General Instruments is a leader in broadband transmissions, distributions, and access control technologies.

After leaving General Instruments, he became Chairman of the Board of Gilead Sciences, which is a huge pharmaceutical company.

Rumsfeld was incredibly successful everywhere he went. He was regarded as a guy who could go into a company and turn things around in a relatively quick time.

Okay, leave out the good stuff.

Remember Searle also put out Nutrasweet. I wonder how much impact THAT had on the bottom line. And i wonder how he got that by the FDA. HMMMMMM.

How about his dealings with North Korea later. Or Sadaam earlier? HMMMM.

Does anyone else realize that BOTH times he was the Sec of Defense that neither of the presidents he served were elected by popular vote? HMMMMM.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Okay, leave out the good stuff.

Remember Searle also put out Nutrasweet. I wonder how much impact THAT had on the bottom line. And i wonder how he got that by the FDA. HMMMMMM.

How about his dealings with North Korea later. Or Sadaam earlier? HMMMM.

Does anyone else realize that BOTH times he was the Sec of Defense that neither of the presidents he served were elected by popular vote? HMMMMM.

What about his dealings with North Korea? What about his dealings with Saddam? You tell me. What about them?

Searle put out Nutrasweet? So? Nutrasweet is still around. When I drink coffee once a year, I use nutrasweet. They are still flourishing. Here is a link to their website: http://www.nutrasweet.com

Rumsfeld was Sec of Defense under Presidents that did not win the popular election. So? How is this relevant to anything? Was Ford not supposed to have a Defense Secreatry? Was Bush not supposed to have a Defense Secretary? Rumsfled could not have been any more qualified.

Hey Dalkhani, What about the Carlyle Group? Ooooooh. LOL. As if that means something. I love it when you make these veiled accusations which imply some type of wrongdoing when there is no evidence of any wrongdoing.

"HMMMM", as you would say. As if that means anything.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

What about his dealings with North Korea? What about his dealings with Saddam? You tell me. What about them?

Searle put out Nutrasweet? So? Nutrasweet is still around. When I drink coffee once a year, I use nutrasweet. They are still flourishing. Here is a link to their website: http://www.nutrasweet.com

Rumsfeld was Sec of Defense under Presidents that did not win the popular election. So? How is this relevant to anything? Was Ford not supposed to have a Defense Secreatry? Was Bush not supposed to have a Defense Secretary? Rumsfled could not have been any more qualified.

Hey Dalkhani, What about the Carlyle Group? Ooooooh. LOL. As if that means something. I love it when you make these veiled accusations which imply some type of wrongdoing when there is no evidence of any wrongdoing.

"HMMMM", as you would say. As if that means anything.

What I think is hilarious is that not one but two republican presidents passed on Rumsfeld and Bush HW even went as far as push Cheney PAST Rumsfeld. Think he knew something? Think Reagan knew something? Obviously, Rumsfeld didnt do too well in this job SO THEY MUST HAVE KNOWN SOMETHING.

The FDA objected to passing Nutrasweet. Maybe you should go back and look up how that came about. Use that BA of yours.

Yes, the Carlyle group. Does anything more need to be said?

Rumsfeld was a complete failure as was this administration. A group of historians that were polled say that this will go down as one of the five WORST ever.

HMMMMMMMMMMM

[dalakhani]

Your original contention was that this was one of the best foreign policy teams ever assembled. Obviously, that wasnt the case.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I think a combination of some type of flat tax and national sales tax could work.

Here is what my idea would be. We could have a national sales tax of around 5%. There would be no income tax for people in low tax brackets. So if you only make $30,000 a year, you would pay no income tax. The only tax you would pay would be the sales tax. So even if that person spent the entire $30,000 that they made, that means that they would only be paying a 5% tax on that. That's not too bad.

For people making $100,000 a year, you could make them pay a 10% flat income tax in addition to the 5% sales tax. For anyone who makes over $200,000 a year, you could give them a flat-tax of about 20%.

The most important thing would be to get rid of all of these tax right-offs. I've read some stories about some really rich people that pay practically no taxes because of all kinds of tax right-offs and tax shelters. We could have a flat-tax where you can't write anything off. If a person makes $1 million, they would have to pay $200,000(20%) in income tax and there would be no way to get around it.

I agree the tax code could be simplified and many loopholes should be closed (most having to do with corporate welfare), but how would you handle taxing dividends? The big problem with the flat tax proposals (besides the fact that it would effectively raise taxes on the poor and middle class because the wealthy would be the ones most benefiting from a flat tax) is that dividends are excluded from taxation. Which would permit the super-rich to live tax-free.

In my opinion, one needs to look at who is proposing a tax reform to figure out who would most benefit. Flat tax seems to be a pet of the super-rich. Wonder why? Because it will cost them less money and shift the burden onto the poor and middle-class.

Interestingly, the Earned Income Tax Credit is pretty popular with both parties because it's an efficient, inexpensive way to get a little extra money into the hands of working families. More effective than raising the minimum wage, because most minimum wage workers are teenagers.

The main reform that urgently needs fixing is the alternative minimum tax. Raise the threshold, already! (not that I'm anywhere near the threshold. Sigh...)

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

So much for equal treatment under the law...

Yeah, it would be lovely if if worked that way, but theories have a way of falling apart in reality. When you come down to it, communism is a perfectly nice idea in theory (everyone contributing to the comfort and survival of everyone else-- heck, it was first advocated in the Bible) but it's a complete mess in reality. 'Cause people likes to haves themselves some stuff, you know? Who doesn't like having stuff? I like having stuff.

[GenuineRisk]

Maybe Gandhi and Mother Teresa didn't like having stuff.

And maybe the naked guy on East 60th Street who poops on the sidewalk. He doesn't seem so into stuff. Including clothing and toilet paper.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

LOL

Well, there is communism and there is communism. Some forms of communism work. Some don't. You have the Amish and kibbutzes. You have the USSR and Cuba.

YIKES!!!
I find myself agreeing with Baba!
Actually, communism isn't a "deal" I buy into, but it works for some.
How about those Shakers?
They didn't know much about sex, but boy o boy could they make chairs!
And talk about dancing!!!
Jerry Spinger and Tucker Carlson would have been put to shame!

Dancing rules:
#1- Never look at your feet.
#2- Don't let your lips move to reveal that you're counting the beat.
#3- If you step on your partner's toes, don't stop dancin' to apologize. It's expected in the game.
#4- Shake, shake, shake...shake your bootie!

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

LOL

Well, there is communism and there is communism. Some forms of communism work. Some don't. You have the Amish and kibbutzes. You have the USSR and Cuba.

Excellent point, and my 10th-grade World Cultures teacher, Mrs. Bej (Pennsylvania Teacher of the Year 1987), would not be pleased that I forgot about kibbutzes.

So, maybe communism works in small, close-knit communities?

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

How do you tell the difference between a Shaker and an impotent epileptic?

Baba,
You got me there.
Does the answer have something to do with viagra or the law against "assault with a dead weapon"?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

What I think is hilarious is that not one but two republican presidents passed on Rumsfeld and Bush HW even went as far as push Cheney PAST Rumsfeld. Think he knew something? Think Reagan knew something? Obviously, Rumsfeld didnt do too well in this job SO THEY MUST HAVE KNOWN SOMETHING.

The FDA objected to passing Nutrasweet. Maybe you should go back and look up how that came about. Use that BA of yours.

Yes, the Carlyle group. Does anything more need to be said?

Rumsfeld was a complete failure as was this administration. A group of historians that were polled say that this will go down as one of the five WORST ever.

HMMMMMMMMMMM

I don't think Rumsfeld was interested in being Defense Secretary for Reagan or Bush senior. He was a little bit busy at the time running billion dollar companies.

Rumsfeld and the Admisistration did make one major blunder. They severely underestimated the strength of the insurgency. That was obviously a huge blunder. When you are in a position of power and you are constantly making tough decisions, you will probably make a poor decision eventually. If I was going to pick someone to run a company, Rumsfeld would still be at the top of my list.

You keep mentioning the Carlyle Group. Tell us what is wrong with the Carlyle Group. And tell us what Rumsfeld's relationship was to the group.

In addition to the B.A., I have an M.A. But I don't need the M.A. to figure out that Nutrasweet is still on the market today. The FDA has pulled thousands of things off the shelf. If there was conclusive evidence that Nutrasweet was dangerous, it would be pulled off the shelf. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't ingest Nutrasweet every day, but I wouldn't eat meat every day either.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

I agree the tax code could be simplified and many loopholes should be closed (most having to do with corporate welfare), but how would you handle taxing dividends? The big problem with the flat tax proposals (besides the fact that it would effectively raise taxes on the poor and middle class because the wealthy would be the ones most benefiting from a flat tax) is that dividends are excluded from taxation. Which would permit the super-rich to live tax-free.

In my opinion, one needs to look at who is proposing a tax reform to figure out who would most benefit. Flat tax seems to be a pet of the super-rich. Wonder why? Because it will cost them less money and shift the burden onto the poor and middle-class.

Interestingly, the Earned Income Tax Credit is pretty popular with both parties because it's an efficient, inexpensive way to get a little extra money into the hands of working families. More effective than raising the minimum wage, because most minimum wage workers are teenagers.

The main reform that urgently needs fixing is the alternative minimum tax. Raise the threshold, already! (not that I'm anywhere near the threshold. Sigh...)

I don't think the super-wealthy would be the ones to benefit from a flat-tax. In fact, I think they are totally against it. I think they would actually have to pay much more in taxes if all the current loopholes were closed.

If there was a flat tax, I would be in favor of stock dividends being treated as regular income.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I don't think the super-wealthy would be the ones to benefit from a flat-tax. In fact, I think they are totally against it. I think they would actually have to pay much more in taxes if all the current loopholes were closed.

If there was a flat tax, I would be in favor of stock dividends being treated as regular income.

Rupert, take a look at the link I posted earlier in the thread about the flat tax. Not as dry reading as it could be, really. And interesting. There's another one I remember from a few years back-- lemme see if I can find it again. In the meantime, the other link isn't bad. And it's not long.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Rupert, take a look at the link I posted earlier in the thread about the flat tax. Not as dry reading as it could be, really. And interesting. There's another one I remember from a few years back-- lemme see if I can find it again. In the meantime, the other link isn't bad. And it's not long.

My idea is not for an absolute flat-tax. As I said earlier, the people in the highest tax bracket would pay 20% in income taxes or something like that, but there would be no write-offs. People in lower brackets would pay less.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

My idea is not for an absolute flat-tax. As I said earlier, the people in the highest tax bracket would pay 20% in income taxes or something like that, but there would be no write-offs. People in lower brackets would pay less.

But what would a flat tax do to the housing market?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by merasmag

i have a bs in poli sci from a school that shall remain nameless...along with a few other degrees...bfd...if u really have a bachelors of arts in poli sci from ucla it should be revoked and they should put u on a wall of shame...please tell me u had a double-major and the one u got most of the credits in was journalism or husbandry or something...i think dalikhali and others have said all i care to say (and if they haven't, it would be deleted anyways) besides... NUTRASWEET KILLS

If you have anything to say about politics then say it. It's easy to come on here and criticize other posters but that's pretty pointless if you don't have anything to add to the conversation. I disagree with people on this board all the time. But when I disagree with someone, I tell them that I disagree with them and then I explain why I disagree. I don't just say, "You're stupid or you are wrong" or whatever. What's the point of that?

By the way, it was obvious that you knew nothing about Rumsfeld. You came on here and inferred that he made his money in some type of sinister manner, when in fact he made practically all of his money at General Instuments and Gilead Sciences. Maybe you or Dalakhani can tell me what is wrong with being the CEO at General Instruments or Gilead Sciences.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by merasmag

what u don't seem to grasp is a 90 something to 0 something vote doesn't mean support...it usually means compromise and leave the battle til another day

A vote of 95-2 obviously means that they don't have a problem with the person and it may very well mean that they like the person. There are plenty of times that the vote is very close and the person barely wins confirmation. Sometimes the person does not win confirmation. There have been plenty of people nominated over the years who did not end up being confirmed.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by merasmag

why don't u ask all the dead people? how old are you, 12?

I'm listening. What did Rumsfeld do wrong at General Instruments or Gilead Sciences? Maybe you know something that I don't. I'm all ears.