Obama i SAD (2008-2016)

User avatar
Black swan
Posts: 54053
Joined: 17/03/2004 09:36

#301

Post by Black swan » 10/01/2008 13:36

propao je narod koji ima ženu za vođu

propao ko engleska za vrijeme Viktorije, Margaret Tačer i Spajs Girls :D


fixer
Posts: 8091
Joined: 20/05/2006 15:05
Location: פיקסר אתה קינג

#302

Post by fixer » 10/01/2008 14:02

sto se tice amerike i njihovih izbora u samom pocetku sam bio za obamu. no on me s vremenom poceo nervirat jer covjek samo prica we can, we will. sve je to fino, al da sam americki gradjanin vishe bi em interesovao program. u zadnje vrijeme ron paul mi je odlican. imao sam neku dozu sumnje protiv republikanaca tako da od samog pocetka nisam ni mislio da tamo ima netko vrijedan slusanja. prevario sam se. ronu jedino sto nedostaje su emocije. covjek prica samo o cinjenicama americkog drustva, ekonomije, politike... pitanje je koliko amerikanaca zeli to cuti. pola njih i dalje zeli da zivi u svijetu gdje je amerika najbolja zemlja, najbogatija....
luud je malo sto zeli da ukine irs al kad covjek skonta ima pravo. americki porezni obveznik mora da da pola svoje zarade da bi amerika vodila ratove koje se , ako cemo iskreno jednog amerikanca ne bi trebali ticati. kad bi smanjili ucesce u ratovima americi bi neki porezi postali nepotrebni. ron paul for president :D

User avatar
pitt
Posts: 27105
Joined: 03/12/2002 00:00
Location: Steelers Nation

#303

Post by pitt » 10/01/2008 14:11

fixer wrote:sto se tice amerike i njihovih izbora u samom pocetku sam bio za obamu. no on me s vremenom poceo nervirat jer covjek samo prica we can, we will. sve je to fino, al da sam americki gradjanin vishe bi em interesovao program. u zadnje vrijeme ron paul mi je odlican. imao sam neku dozu sumnje protiv republikanaca tako da od samog pocetka nisam ni mislio da tamo ima netko vrijedan slusanja. prevario sam se. ronu jedino sto nedostaje su emocije. covjek prica samo o cinjenicama americkog drustva, ekonomije, politike... pitanje je koliko amerikanaca zeli to cuti. pola njih i dalje zeli da zivi u svijetu gdje je amerika najbolja zemlja, najbogatija....
luud je malo sto zeli da ukine irs al kad covjek skonta ima pravo. americki porezni obveznik mora da da pola svoje zarade da bi amerika vodila ratove koje se , ako cemo iskreno jednog amerikanca ne bi trebali ticati. kad bi smanjili ucesce u ratovima americi bi neki porezi postali nepotrebni. ron paul for president :D
Pa ne znam da je bas ukidanje IRS rjesenje, ipak porezi se koriste i za druge stvari sem ratovanja. Bolje smanjiti budzet za odbranu, pocistiti DC od raznoraznih savjetnika i rasipnika, i smanjiti poreze. Al koji to demokrata smije reci da ce smanjiti porez :D:D:D:D:D

fixer
Posts: 8091
Joined: 20/05/2006 15:05
Location: פיקסר אתה קינג

#304

Post by fixer » 10/01/2008 14:22

sorry sto moram na engleskom.... mrsko mi prevoditi. :D :D :D
Even today, individual income taxes account for only approximately one-third of federal revenue. Eliminating one-third of the proposed 2007 budget would still leave federal spending at roughly $1.8 trillion – a sum greater than the budget just 6 years ago in 2000! Does anyone seriously believe we could not find ways to cut spending back to 2000 levels?

User avatar
karabaja-x
Posts: 2051
Joined: 02/02/2007 04:54
Location: mangala mangala (ako ste a big fish in a small pond, morate adoptirat a low key profile)

#305

Post by karabaja-x » 10/01/2008 15:07

roni se izgleda ugledo na hareta

walkabout
Posts: 7869
Joined: 19/05/2007 00:46

#306

Post by walkabout » 10/01/2008 19:46

Evo jednog zanimljivog pokusaja da se objasni...

----------------------------------

Pollsters emerge as biggest losers in New Hampshire
Email Printer friendly version Normal font Large font January 11, 2008

WASHINGTON: The morning after Hillary Clinton claimed victory in the New Hampshire Democratic primary, many pollsters plunged themselves into a post-mortem centred on a single question: how could they have not seen it coming?

In one of the biggest polling errors in the history of the industry, every leading survey put Barack Obama ahead in the final two days before Tuesday's vote, all but one by between 5 and 13 percentage points. On the day, he lost by 3 points.

The factors conspiring against pollsters included the convergence of two historic candidacies, those of a woman and a black. They also faced the compressed election calendar, with only five days between the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary; Saturday night's debate; and Senator Clinton's unusual moment of her eyes welling with tears on Monday.

On top of that came the long-acknowledged perils of so-called tracking polls, including their relatively high margins of error.

One theory pointed to past telephone polls that overstated the strength of black candidates for a variety of reasons - including the apparent reluctance of some white voters to say they intended to vote against a minority candidate.

But public opinion researchers say that is probably an artefact of a time when there were few black candidates running for elective office at any level and there is no evidence of that occurring in this instance.

In the end, the polls may simply have been unable to keep pace with events. The preferences, it seems, of a considerable number of New Hampshire voters were very much in flux in the final days of the campaign.

As late as the week before the primary, many voters were not fully committed to a candidate and said they might change their minds. In last-minute polling by CBS, which ended on Sunday, the network's pollsters found an unusually high number of voters who said they could still change their minds, 28 per cent, and another 9 per cent who said they were still undecided. Those who said they would vote for Senator Clinton were more strongly committed than those who said they would vote for Senator Obama.

The New York Times; Telegraph, London :D

User avatar
danas
Posts: 18803
Joined: 11/03/2005 19:40
Location: 10th circle...

#307

Post by danas » 10/01/2008 19:49

pitt wrote:
fixer wrote:sto se tice amerike i njihovih izbora u samom pocetku sam bio za obamu. no on me s vremenom poceo nervirat jer covjek samo prica we can, we will. sve je to fino, al da sam americki gradjanin vishe bi em interesovao program. u zadnje vrijeme ron paul mi je odlican. imao sam neku dozu sumnje protiv republikanaca tako da od samog pocetka nisam ni mislio da tamo ima netko vrijedan slusanja. prevario sam se. ronu jedino sto nedostaje su emocije. covjek prica samo o cinjenicama americkog drustva, ekonomije, politike... pitanje je koliko amerikanaca zeli to cuti. pola njih i dalje zeli da zivi u svijetu gdje je amerika najbolja zemlja, najbogatija....
luud je malo sto zeli da ukine irs al kad covjek skonta ima pravo. americki porezni obveznik mora da da pola svoje zarade da bi amerika vodila ratove koje se , ako cemo iskreno jednog amerikanca ne bi trebali ticati. kad bi smanjili ucesce u ratovima americi bi neki porezi postali nepotrebni. ron paul for president :D
Pa ne znam da je bas ukidanje IRS rjesenje, ipak porezi se koriste i za druge stvari sem ratovanja. Bolje smanjiti budzet za odbranu, pocistiti DC od raznoraznih savjetnika i rasipnika, i smanjiti poreze. Al koji to demokrata smije reci da ce smanjiti porez :D:D:D:D:D
ma paul je libertarian -- they always sound good :D :D iako i sama imam taj streak, jedno je masta a drugo realnost :-) nema sanse da bude izabran, a cak i da bude -- kako ce to majke ti ukinut porez :-) :-) :-) :-)

User avatar
danas
Posts: 18803
Joined: 11/03/2005 19:40
Location: 10th circle...

#308

Post by danas » 10/01/2008 19:53

NYTimes
January 9, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
Can Hillary Cry Her Way Back to the White House?
By MAUREEN DOWD

DERRY, N.H.

When I walked into the office Monday, people were clustering around a computer to watch what they thought they would never see: Hillary Clinton with the unmistakable look of tears in her eyes.

A woman gazing at the screen was grimacing, saying it was bad. Three guys watched it over and over, drawn to the “humanized” Hillary. One reporter who covers security issues cringed. “We are at war,” he said. “Is this how she’ll talk to Kim Jong-il?”

Another reporter joked: “That crying really seemed genuine. I’ll bet she spent hours thinking about it beforehand.” He added dryly: “Crying doesn’t usually work in campaigns. Only in relationships.”

Bill Clinton was known for biting his lip, but here was Hillary doing the Muskie. Certainly it was impressive that she could choke up and stay on message.

She won her Senate seat after being embarrassed by a man. She pulled out New Hampshire and saved her presidential campaign after being embarrassed by another man. She was seen as so controlling when she ran for the Senate that she had to be seen as losing control, as she did during the Monica scandal, before she seemed soft enough to attract many New York voters.

Getting brushed back by Barack Obama in Iowa, her emotional moment here in a cafe and her chagrin at a debate question suggesting she was not likable served the same purpose, making her more appealing, especially to women, particularly to women over 45.

The Obama campaign calculated that they had the women’s vote over the weekend but watched it slip away in the track of her tears.

At the Portsmouth cafe on Monday, talking to a group of mostly women, she blinked back her misty dread of where Obama’s “false hopes” will lead us — “I just don’t want to see us fall backwards,” she said tremulously — in time to smack her rival: “But some of us are right and some of us are wrong. Some of us are ready and some of us are not.”

There was a poignancy about the moment, seeing Hillary crack with exhaustion from decades of yearning to be the principal rather than the plus-one. But there was a whiff of Nixonian self-pity about her choking up. What was moving her so deeply was her recognition that the country was failing to grasp how much it needs her. In a weirdly narcissistic way, she was crying for us. But it was grimly typical of her that what finally made her break down was the prospect of losing.

As Spencer Tracy said to Katharine Hepburn in “Adam’s Rib,” “Here we go again, the old juice. Guaranteed heart melter. A few female tears, stronger than any acid.”

The Clintons once more wriggled out of a tight spot at the last minute. Bill churlishly dismissed the Obama phenom as “the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen,” but for the last few days, it was Hillary who seemed in danger of being Cinderella. She became emotional because she feared that she had reached her political midnight, when she would suddenly revert to the school girl with geeky glasses and frizzy hair, smart but not the favorite. All those years in the shadow of one Natural, only to face the prospect of being eclipsed by another Natural?

How humiliating to have a moderator of the New Hampshire debate ask her to explain why she was not as popular as the handsome young prince from Chicago. How demeaning to have Obama rather ungraciously chime in: “You’re likable enough.” And how exasperating to be pushed into an angry rebuttal when John Edwards played wingman, attacking her on Obama’s behalf.

“I actually have emotions,” she told CNN’s John Roberts on a damage-control tour. “I know that there are some people who doubt that.” She went on “Access Hollywood” to talk about, as the show put it, “the double standards that a woman running for president faces.” “If you get too emotional, that undercuts you,” Hillary said. “A man can cry; we know that. Lots of our leaders have cried. But a woman, it’s a different kind of dynamic.”

It was a peculiar tactic. Here she was attacking Obama for spreading gauzy emotion by spreading gauzy emotion. When Hillary hecklers yelled “Iron my shirt!” at her in Salem on Monday, it stirred sisterhood.

At Hillary’s victory party in Manchester, Carolyn Marwick, 65, said Hillary showed she was human at the cafe. “I think she’s really tired. She’s been under a lot more scrutiny than the other candidates — how she dresses, how she laughs.”

Her son, David, 35, an actor, said he also “got choked up” when he saw Hillary get choked up. He echoed Hillary’s talking points on the likability issue. “It’s not ‘American Idol.’ You have to vote smart.”

Olivia Cooper, 41, of Concord said, “When you think you’re not going to make it, it’s heart-wrenching when you want something so much.”

Gloria Steinem wrote in The Times yesterday that one of the reasons she is supporting Hillary is that she had “no masculinity to prove.” But Hillary did feel she needed to prove her masculinity. That was why she voted to enable W. to invade Iraq without even reading the National Intelligence Estimate and backed the White House’s bellicosity on Iran.

Yet, in the end, she had to fend off calamity by playing the female victim, both of Obama and of the press. Hillary has barely talked to the press throughout her race even though the Clintons this week whined mightily that the press prefers Obama.

Bill Clinton, campaigning in Henniker on Monday, also played the poor-little-woman card in a less-than-flattering way. “I can’t make her younger, taller or change her gender,” he said. He was so low-energy at events that it sometimes seemed he was distancing himself from her. Now that she is done with New Hampshire, she may distance herself from him, realizing that seeing Bill so often reminds voters that they don’t want to go back to that whole megillah again.

Hillary sounded silly trying to paint Obama as a poetic dreamer and herself as a prodigious doer. “Dr. King’s dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act,” she said. Did any living Democrat ever imagine that any other living Democrat would try to win a presidential primary in New Hampshire by comparing herself to L.B.J.? (Who was driven out of politics by Gene McCarthy in New Hampshire.)

Her argument against Obama now boils down to an argument against idealism, which is probably the lowest and most unlikely point to which any Clinton could sink. The people from Hope are arguing against hope.

At her victory party, Hillary was like the heroine of a Lifetime movie, a woman in peril who manages to triumph. Saying that her heart was full, she sounded the feminist anthem: “I found my own voice.”


uzas :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

User avatar
pitt
Posts: 27105
Joined: 03/12/2002 00:00
Location: Steelers Nation

#309

Post by pitt » 10/01/2008 20:14

placpicka sto bi se reklo :D:D:D:D:D

walkabout
Posts: 7869
Joined: 19/05/2007 00:46

#310

Post by walkabout » 10/01/2008 20:48

Kod Kemice isto guzva ovije dana.

“Sta ima Kemice, nema te nidje?”

“Suti, puno sam bizi ove hefte – izbori u nasoj MZ pa frka.”

“Sto je frka tebi?”

“Pa eto, ja sam ti vako malo ko ugledniji insan naokolo, bijo samti izabrat vec dvaput da vodim ovu moju MZ kroza sve probleme uopcini ali je pravilo nemere vise od dvaput tojes dvije godine pa to ti je – a narod me hoce.”

“Pa sta ces sad?”

“Pa evo moja Mensura se prijavila – a mog ti rec i ona je dobra zaote funkcije, zna sve sta je ko u mahali i imal kakije novih habera. A ija bi je malo poguro, jel, kosta samti i naucijo :D

“Pa zar to more tako da se vlada MZ, mozda ce neko primijetit?”

“Sto nebi moglo, kad je mogo Nurko progurat onog svog sina sto nebi i mi ostali.”

“Dobro to, nego reci sto si to toliko zadihan, jedva pricas?”

“Pa evo doletijo sam iz ljetnje baste u Parkushi, bijo malo srajom...Malo smo i pricali o ovim nasijem izborima u MZ. :D

User avatar
jeza u ledja
Posts: 36040
Joined: 29/12/2005 01:20

#311

Post by jeza u ledja » 10/01/2008 21:02

Ma to 'plakanje' je bilo i vise nego napuhano. Jel ko gledao to? Bezze rekla par stvari sa malo tisim tonom, kao zamislila se tuzno i to je to. To je trajalo cirka 5 sekundi. Prvo su rekli eto nije bas plakala ali imala je suzne oci (dze ba? ja ne znam sta su ljudi vidjeli ali ja nisam vidio da je bila pred cmizdrenjem?!), a sad koriste frazu 'plakala je'!!?! Ma nije plakala jebem ga ja, nije niti blizu bila toga. Ovo sto je ona uradila ima gotovo svaki kandidat vise puta tokom kampanje. Ovo nije plakanje zglave.
Ali ne, onda su 'media' toliko to napuhali, spinovali i izvrtili da je by the end of the day haman pa cijela CNN publika bila uvjerena da je Hillary plakala poput malo djeteta pred kamerama. E vala nije.

Tipicno medijsko napuhavanje i fatanje za slamku i pravljenje senzacije od nicega. Na isti nacin sada prave senzaciju od njene pobjede u NH, a luzera od Obame. Mada!...je Obama imao samo 2 procenta manje glasova i bio toliko blizu da je u stvari konacni rezultat bio isti: Clinton 9 delegatskih glasova - Obama 9 delegatskih glasova. I NIKO od medija nije spomenuo 'hej, pa NH izbori su ustvari bili a tie' , a ne pobjeda Clintonove.
Ali ne, ovdje ako si drugi pa makar i za 2 procenta onda si luzer. Obama je valjda trebao pobjediti sa 10 procenata prednosti da bi to mediji prihvatili kao genuine. :-)

A sve je to uzrokovano potpuno pogresnim i nepouzdanim anketiranjem glasaca. Da su kojim slucajem ankete govorile i dalje da ce Clintonova uzeti NH, kao sto su govorile tokom cijele godine, onda bi se pricalo o 'velikoj pobjedi Obame' koji je skoro pa stigao Clintonovu.

Ma, isto to rade sa svim izborima. Eno, pricaju ako Romney ne uzme Michigan moze spakovati kofere. Zasto? Pa imao je samo 5% procenata manje od McCaina u NH. Jedini je kandidat koji je bio na prva dva mjesta u sva 3 prajmariz i trenutno vodi ispred svih kanidata. Sta ako Giuliani uzme Michigan, a Romney bude par boba iza njega? Romney ce u tom slucaju biti ubjedljivo prvi. Zasto mora pobjediti ako jedini ima stabilan skor u svakoj drzavi, a drugi kandidati osiciliraju?
Onda se prica o pobjedi McCaina u NH ko da je ne znam ni ja sta. Kao he's back in the race. Pa mozda i jeste, ali ne postoje nikakve indicije da on ima podrsku glasaca u drugim drzavama, pogotovo od tradicionalne republikanske baze konzervativaca.

Onaj jedan nadobudni crnacki intelektualac, tipicno preopterecen svojom bojom koze, sinoc na ultraljevicarskom MSNBC raspravlja upravo o ovom fenomenu gore spomenutom kako bijelci kazu da bi glasali za crnca, ali onda u zadnjem momentu glasaju za bijelca. Uz to jos kaze kako ce on sam glasati za Obamu, jer je izmedju ostalog crnac. Znaci bijelci su problem jer nece da kao glasaju za crnca (hello! Iowa je 95% bijelacka!), a on sam - crnac ce glasati za svog - crnca. Ma daaj. Pun mi je kurac crnackih pametnjakovica poput onog Tavis Smileya, ok, vi ste crnci, get over it.
A glupan, ni sam svjestan nije da tim svojim pametovanjem upravo sjebava bas Obamu jer ce upravo neki crnci koji ga slusaju biti manje zainteresovani da glasaju za Obamu jer nece vjerovati da bi ga bijelci na kraju podrzali.

I tako, mediji kreiraju misljenje javnosti. Hillary je sad pobjednik, Obama je luzer. McCain je extra, Romney moze da se pakuje. Giuliani nije dobio nijedan bod do sada, oni i dalje pricaju o njemu. Itd itd....Bah. :-x

fixer
Posts: 8091
Joined: 20/05/2006 15:05
Location: פיקסר אתה קינג

#312

Post by fixer » 10/01/2008 21:14

danas wrote:
pitt wrote:
fixer wrote:sto se tice amerike i njihovih izbora u samom pocetku sam bio za obamu. no on me s vremenom poceo nervirat jer covjek samo prica we can, we will. sve je to fino, al da sam americki gradjanin vishe bi em interesovao program. u zadnje vrijeme ron paul mi je odlican. imao sam neku dozu sumnje protiv republikanaca tako da od samog pocetka nisam ni mislio da tamo ima netko vrijedan slusanja. prevario sam se. ronu jedino sto nedostaje su emocije. covjek prica samo o cinjenicama americkog drustva, ekonomije, politike... pitanje je koliko amerikanaca zeli to cuti. pola njih i dalje zeli da zivi u svijetu gdje je amerika najbolja zemlja, najbogatija....
luud je malo sto zeli da ukine irs al kad covjek skonta ima pravo. americki porezni obveznik mora da da pola svoje zarade da bi amerika vodila ratove koje se , ako cemo iskreno jednog amerikanca ne bi trebali ticati. kad bi smanjili ucesce u ratovima americi bi neki porezi postali nepotrebni. ron paul for president :D
Pa ne znam da je bas ukidanje IRS rjesenje, ipak porezi se koriste i za druge stvari sem ratovanja. Bolje smanjiti budzet za odbranu, pocistiti DC od raznoraznih savjetnika i rasipnika, i smanjiti poreze. Al koji to demokrata smije reci da ce smanjiti porez :D:D:D:D:D
ma paul je libertarian -- they always sound good :D :D iako i sama imam taj streak, jedno je masta a drugo realnost :-) nema sanse da bude izabran, a cak i da bude -- kako ce to majke ti ukinut porez :-) :-) :-) :-)
povlacenjem iz ratova bi se moglo razmisljati o ukidanju ili drasticnom smanjivanju poreza.... zasto ne

User avatar
pitt
Posts: 27105
Joined: 03/12/2002 00:00
Location: Steelers Nation

#313

Post by pitt » 10/01/2008 21:27

ne moze ba drasticno nikako. Sta mislis odakle pare za puteve, mostove, skole, biblioteke, nasu, i sve ostalo. :roll:

artzy
Posts: 839
Joined: 03/01/2005 05:52

#314

Post by artzy » 10/01/2008 21:30

pitt wrote:
fixer wrote:sto se tice amerike i njihovih izbora u samom pocetku sam bio za obamu. no on me s vremenom poceo nervirat jer covjek samo prica we can, we will. sve je to fino, al da sam americki gradjanin vishe bi em interesovao program. u zadnje vrijeme ron paul mi je odlican. imao sam neku dozu sumnje protiv republikanaca tako da od samog pocetka nisam ni mislio da tamo ima netko vrijedan slusanja. prevario sam se. ronu jedino sto nedostaje su emocije. covjek prica samo o cinjenicama americkog drustva, ekonomije, politike... pitanje je koliko amerikanaca zeli to cuti. pola njih i dalje zeli da zivi u svijetu gdje je amerika najbolja zemlja, najbogatija....
luud je malo sto zeli da ukine irs al kad covjek skonta ima pravo. americki porezni obveznik mora da da pola svoje zarade da bi amerika vodila ratove koje se , ako cemo iskreno jednog amerikanca ne bi trebali ticati. kad bi smanjili ucesce u ratovima americi bi neki porezi postali nepotrebni. ron paul for president :D
Pa ne znam da je bas ukidanje IRS rjesenje, ipak porezi se koriste i za druge stvari sem ratovanja. Bolje smanjiti budzet za odbranu, pocistiti DC od raznoraznih savjetnika i rasipnika, i smanjiti poreze. Al koji to demokrata smije reci da ce smanjiti porez :D:D:D:D:D
Novac od poreza se koristi da se plate kamate na novac koji centralna banka "posudjuje" drzavi da funkcionise - znaci za profit nekoliko VLASNIKA te banke.

:shock: :shock: :shock:

User avatar
danas
Posts: 18803
Joined: 11/03/2005 19:40
Location: 10th circle...

#315

Post by danas » 10/01/2008 21:31

fixer wrote:
danas wrote:
pitt wrote: Pa ne znam da je bas ukidanje IRS rjesenje, ipak porezi se koriste i za druge stvari sem ratovanja. Bolje smanjiti budzet za odbranu, pocistiti DC od raznoraznih savjetnika i rasipnika, i smanjiti poreze. Al koji to demokrata smije reci da ce smanjiti porez :D:D:D:D:D
ma paul je libertarian -- they always sound good :D :D iako i sama imam taj streak, jedno je masta a drugo realnost :-) nema sanse da bude izabran, a cak i da bude -- kako ce to majke ti ukinut porez :-) :-) :-) :-)
povlacenjem iz ratova bi se moglo razmisljati o ukidanju ili drasticnom smanjivanju poreza.... zasto ne
nema sanse, moze ga mozda smanjiti za par postotaka ili dati neke olaksice (recimo za djecu ili skolovanje) ali moderna drzava ne moze funkcionisati bez poreskog sistema :)

venera888
Posts: 414
Joined: 29/07/2007 15:24

#316

Post by venera888 » 10/01/2008 21:45

komi wrote:propao je narod koji ima ženu za vođu

propao ko engleska za vrijeme Viktorije, Margaret Tačer i Spajs Girls :D

kraljica nije imala neku moc,vec je bila simbolicna figura :D

Though Victoria ascended the throne at a time when the United Kingdom was already an established constitutional monarchy in which the king or queen held few political powers, she still served as a very important symbolic figure of her time
Last edited by venera888 on 10/01/2008 21:46, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
pitt
Posts: 27105
Joined: 03/12/2002 00:00
Location: Steelers Nation

#317

Post by pitt » 10/01/2008 21:46

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :D :D :D :D :D :D

User avatar
danas
Posts: 18803
Joined: 11/03/2005 19:40
Location: 10th circle...

#318

Post by danas » 10/01/2008 21:47

imal' ko da skloni ovu budalu :roll: :roll: :roll:

fixer
Posts: 8091
Joined: 20/05/2006 15:05
Location: פיקסר אתה קינג

#319

Post by fixer » 10/01/2008 21:48

danas wrote:
fixer wrote:
danas wrote: ma paul je libertarian -- they always sound good :D :D iako i sama imam taj streak, jedno je masta a drugo realnost :-) nema sanse da bude izabran, a cak i da bude -- kako ce to majke ti ukinut porez :-) :-) :-) :-)
povlacenjem iz ratova bi se moglo razmisljati o ukidanju ili drasticnom smanjivanju poreza.... zasto ne
nema sanse, moze ga mozda smanjiti za par postotaka ili dati neke olaksice (recimo za djecu ili skolovanje) ali moderna drzava ne moze funkcionisati bez poreskog sistema :)
pa ako je istina za to da putem irsa samo jedu trecinu para dobijaju u budzetu onda to znaci da ukidanjem irsa ne ukida se porez. ukidaju jedan vid poreza. i dalje ostaju drugi porezi drugi.

venera888
Posts: 414
Joined: 29/07/2007 15:24

#320

Post by venera888 » 10/01/2008 21:49


User avatar
pitt
Posts: 27105
Joined: 03/12/2002 00:00
Location: Steelers Nation

#321

Post by pitt » 10/01/2008 21:52

danas wrote:imal' ko da skloni ovu budalu :roll: :roll: :roll:
neka ba :D:D Sta bi da je nema :D:D:D

User avatar
danas
Posts: 18803
Joined: 11/03/2005 19:40
Location: 10th circle...

#322

Post by danas » 10/01/2008 21:54

fixer wrote:
danas wrote:
fixer wrote: povlacenjem iz ratova bi se moglo razmisljati o ukidanju ili drasticnom smanjivanju poreza.... zasto ne
nema sanse, moze ga mozda smanjiti za par postotaka ili dati neke olaksice (recimo za djecu ili skolovanje) ali moderna drzava ne moze funkcionisati bez poreskog sistema :)
pa ako je istina za to da putem irsa samo jedu trecinu para dobijaju u budzetu onda to znaci da ukidanjem irsa ne ukida se porez. ukidaju jedan vid poreza. i dalje ostaju drugi porezi drugi.
ne -- IRS je poreska sluzba... jedna trecina federal revenue dolazi iz licnog poreza, a ostatak od poreza koji placaju biznisi, poreza na prodaju, poreza na nekretnine, i slicno... ukidanjem IRS-a bi se ukinuo citav poreski sistem tj. poreska administracija, sto je nesto sasvim drugo od ukidanja poreza na licni dohodak...

User avatar
pitt
Posts: 27105
Joined: 03/12/2002 00:00
Location: Steelers Nation

#323

Post by pitt » 10/01/2008 21:57

drkaju pojmove opet :D:D

fixer
Posts: 8091
Joined: 20/05/2006 15:05
Location: פיקסר אתה קינג

#324

Post by fixer » 10/01/2008 22:10

danas wrote:
fixer wrote:
danas wrote: nema sanse, moze ga mozda smanjiti za par postotaka ili dati neke olaksice (recimo za djecu ili skolovanje) ali moderna drzava ne moze funkcionisati bez poreskog sistema :)
pa ako je istina za to da putem irsa samo jedu trecinu para dobijaju u budzetu onda to znaci da ukidanjem irsa ne ukida se porez. ukidaju jedan vid poreza. i dalje ostaju drugi porezi drugi.
ne -- IRS je poreska sluzba... jedna trecina federal revenue dolazi iz licnog poreza, a ostatak od poreza koji placaju biznisi, poreza na prodaju, poreza na nekretnine, i slicno... ukidanjem IRS-a bi se ukinuo citav poreski sistem tj. poreska administracija, sto je nesto sasvim drugo od ukidanja poreza na licni dohodak...
razumijem ja sve to.. znam za irs sluzbu i tako. samo mi bilo mrsko detaljno pisat. ono sto paul tvrdi da taj porez koji nije licni je sasvim dovoljan za ameriku. zbog toga on zeli poreze licne ukinuti. i to smatram opravdanim.danas svi ti porezi idu za americke ratove. povlacenjem amerckih vojnika iz 700 baza u svijetu bi se oslobodile pare za nesto drugo

Post Reply