Dem Tells Radio Host You Dont Deserve To Keep All The Money You Earn

[fj1200]

So, your gripe isnt that the wealthy are making more money than the poor, but rather that they spend it differently

Of course, he's a statist.

[red states rule]

As I predicted. RSR will NEVER read anything that does not confirm his already deeply held beliefs.

ANd, as I said before, I did not flee to escape any taxes. I pay all the taxes that Uncle Sam asks of me and will gladly pay more if he wants me to. That is my patriotic duty.

Virgil we all know you want bigger and more costly government. You have always been a tax and spend liberal and nothing has changed. Whatever the Dems want you want. No questions asked

You did flee America for cheaper taxes even thiugh you are living off your dead mom's money now

[beanerboy]

Virgil we all know you want bigger and more costly government. You have always been a tax and spend liberal and nothing has changed. Whatever the Dems want you want. No questions asked

You did flee America for cheaper taxes even thiugh you are living off your dead mom's money now

As I said, I didn't flee America at all. I moved to a place where the weather suits me, where the culture is vibrant, where the food is delicious, and where the people are a hell of a lot nicer than in the US. I am living off the retirement income that a grateful nation pays me for a quarter of a century of service in uniform. There are a LOT of retired military here. And we ALL pay income taxes in the US.

Let me know when you get around to reading those links of mine. :laugh2:

[fj1200]

As I have said, and you have ignored, I agree completely that we have both a revenue problem AND a spending problem.

Good, we agree. The "revenue problem" is not a function of the tax rates however.

[beanerboy]

Good, we agree. The "revenue problem" is not a function of the tax rates however.

on that, we don't agree.

[fj1200]

on that, we don't agree.

You don't have the facts to back you up then. Would you like to take up the challenge I posed to j.t?

[J.T]

The definition of “Tax” from Websters:

1tax verb \ˈtaks\
Definition of TAX
transitive verb
1: to assess or determine judicially the amount of (costs in a court action)
2: to levy a tax on
3obsolete : to enter (a name) in a list <there went="" out="" a="" decree="" …="" that="" all="" the="" world="" should="" be="" taxed="" —="" luke="" 2:1(authorized="" version)="">
4: charge, accuse <taxed him="" with="" neglect="" of="" duty="">; also : censure
5: to make onerous and rigorous demands on <the job="" taxed="" her="" strength="">
— tax·able adjective
— tax·er noun

for the purposes of discussion, let’s concentrate on definition number 5. “To make onerous and rigorous demands on”.

</the></taxed></there>:rolleyes:

Donchya think that's just a tad disingenuous?



In America, we pay people primarily for what they do with their brains. <there went="" out="" a="" decree="" …="" that="" all="" the="" world="" should="" be="" taxed="" —="" luke="" 2:1(authorized="" version)=""><taxed him="" with="" neglect="" of="" duty=""><the job="" taxed="" her="" strength=""></the></taxed></there>
You must be very hungry.


it has nothing to do with monetary taxation

Then it has nothing to do with this discussion ;)


I never said that there was a number and I don't recall any Republicans deciding on a number either.

Oh? Have they finally abandoned their laughable curve meme?

Oh wait, you must have missed the recent debates and news. They think the magic number is zero.

[fj1200]

Oh? Have they finally abandoned their laughable curve meme?

Oh wait, you must have missed the recent debates and news. They think the magic number is zero.

It's funny that you bring up things that you have zero capacity to be able to discuss. But why do you hate Keynes so?

Nor should the argument seem strange that taxation may be so high as to defeat its object, and that, given sufficient time to gather the fruits, a reduction of taxation will run a better chance than an increase of balancing the budget.
I would think you'd take his word as gospel.

[J.T]

First, hedge fund managers, who were specifically cited by Obama, typically don’t pay taxes on their income the same way other Americans do.

The bulk of hedge-fund managers’ income is typically considered "carried interest" -- that is, their share of profits from the funds they manage. When a fund has capital gains and those gains flow to the manager, they are taxed as a capital gain, not as ordinary income. From a taxation perspective, the difference is significant -- taxation can be as low as 15 percent (http://money.cnn.com/2010/06/10/news/companies/sloan_carried_interest.fortune/index.htm), rather than the 35 percent paid by everyone else (including other types of Wall Street managers).

The 15 percent rate for capital gains has been in place since 2003, so tax rates for hedge-fund managers’ carried interest isn’t new. But 15 percent is the lowest it has been since 1950
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jun/29/barack-obama/barack-obama-says-tax-rates-are-lowest-1950s-ceos-/

[J.T]

Even Laffer said there was no simple curve and that it's impossible to know what side of the imaginary line you're on.

Tax rates are but one of many things influencing the behavior of economic actors. Political instability, threats of terrorism, and threats to default all influence the market as well. It's called behavioral economics and you can learn more here (http://mises.org).

[fj1200]

^Is that your way of saying that you can't answer the question? You're calling for higher rates so I would imagine you'd at least be able to narrow it down.

[ConHog]

that is only YOUR bottom line, and God knows you repeat it often enough. Our problems are not simple either/or sorts of things. We DO have a spending problem AND a revenue problem. We need to address both. And moaning about how the guys at the bottom of the socioeconomic spectrum do not pay income tax is silly. The distribution of wealth and, therefore, power, in the US over the past thirty years is frightening.

from wiki:

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

In the United States at the end of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth and the top 1% owned 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the nation's wealth.[13] According to this 2006 study by the Federal Reserve System, from 1989 to 2004, the distribution in the United States had been changing with indications there was a greater concentration of wealth held by the top 10% and top 1% of the population.[1] A PBS report by Solman on Aug. 16, 2011 now found that financial gains over the last decade in the United States have been mostly made at the "tippy-top" of the economic food chain as more people fall out of the middle class. The top 20 percent of Americans now holds 84 percent of U.S. wealth.[2], the 2nd 20 % holds 11%, the third 20 % 4 %.


WHo cares? Income tax is on INCOME, not total wealth. So why do you keep arguing about total wealth?

[LuvRPgrl]

So jobs elsewhere instead of here isn't a problem but you want us to 'be more competitive' to bring those jobs here?

Make up your minds. Is it a problem or not that jobs and production leave the country?

uh, other countries outsource to us also

[Missileman]

wrong. it has nothing to do with monetary taxation, and I never said it did.

The thread IS about monetary taxation...just read the title.

[J.T]

So jobs elsewhere instead of here isn't a problem but you want us to 'be more competitive' to bring those jobs here?

Make up your minds. Is it a problem or not that jobs and production leave the country?uh
Well? You just gonna sit there and look stupid, or are you gonna answer the question?

[fj1200]

So jobs elsewhere instead of here isn't a problem but you want us to 'be more competitive' to bring those jobs here?

Make up your minds. Is it a problem or not that jobs and production leave the country?

What's wrong with being more competitive?

[ConHog]

This thread has devolved into nothing more than a mess of JT and Virgil trying ANYTHING to avoid the topic at hand.

It REALLY is this simple , no matter how hard they try to avoid it.

Should ANYONE be able to enjoy the benefits of a government that they themselves have not contributed anything to support?


The government is the ONLY entity I know of which essentially expects half of its customers to pay for their share plus the other half's share. And THAT is why they are so far in debt. You don't see Microsoft operating that way do you?

[J.T]

Stop evading, fj.

If lack of jobs/production isn't a problem, why do you make a point to say you want to bring jobs/production to America?

[J.T]

Hey con, government's not a business (unless you live in a fascist state).

Also, Ubuntu gives its product away to everyone for free and is doing just fine, Mr Microsoft ;)

[LuvRPgrl]

that is only YOUR bottom line, and God knows you repeat it often enough. Our problems are not simple either/or sorts of things. We DO have a spending problem AND a revenue problem. We need to address both. And moaning about how the guys at the bottom of the socioeconomic spectrum do not pay income tax is silly. The distribution of wealth and, therefore, power, in the US over the past thirty years is frightening.

from wiki:

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

In the United States at the end of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth and the top 1% owned 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the nation's wealth.[13] According to this 2006 study by the Federal Reserve System, from 1989 to 2004, the distribution in the United States had been changing with indications there was a greater concentration of wealth held by the top 10% and top 1% of the population.[1] A PBS report by Solman on Aug. 16, 2011 now found that financial gains over the last decade in the United States have been mostly made at the "tippy-top" of the economic food chain as more people fall out of the middle class. The top 20 percent of Americans now holds 84 percent of U.S. wealth.[2], the 2nd 20 % holds 11%, the third 20 % 4 %.

Actually , you left out one player, the govt controls 65% of the wealth

[ConHog]

Hey con, government's not a business (unless you live in a fascist state).

Also, Ubuntu gives its product away to everyone for free and is doing just fine, Mr Microsoft ;)

That's part of the problem, the government IS a business when it comes to finances, or it should be.

Oh, and Ubuntu has a revenue stream, they aren't operating at a loss. So that's a facetious comparison.

[fj1200]

Stop evading, fj.

If lack of jobs/production isn't a problem, why do you make a point to say you want to bring jobs/production to America?

I'm not evading, I would think you of all people would know what evasion is. Did I say "bring jobs/production back to America"? I would like it to occur of course as a result of our being more competitive.

[ConHog]

I'm not evading, I would think you of all people would know what evasion is. Did I say "bring jobs/production back to America"? I would like it to occur of course as a result of our being more competitive.



Don't you love it when the King of Evasion accuses others of doing so?

[LuvRPgrl]

Edited. False quote given has been removed; no use of explanation or indication of such.

go ahead

Fair warning for all, altering quotes of another, without making it clear that YOU ARE DOING SO, will lead to thread ban, at best.

[J.T]

Oh, and Ubuntu has a revenue stream, they aren't operating at a loss.

So you can have people using your product/services for free and do fine?

Looks like you just refuted your own bull.


Did I say "bring jobs/production back to America"?

wait for it

I would like it to occur
Again in the very same post

So we've got con refuting himself,fj going around in circles, and luv falsifying quotes and proving she's incapable of an honest and intelligent response...

You people avoid reality like the plague, don't you?

[ConHog]

So you can have people using your product/services for free and do fine?

Looks like you just refuted your own bull.



wait for it

Again in the very same post

So we've got con refuting himself,fj going around in circles, and luv falsifying quotes and proving she's incapable of an honest and intelligent response...

You people avoid reality like the plague, don't you?


Sure you can let people use your product for free, if you have an additional source of revenue, the USG does NOT. So your silly claim that I am contradicting myself simply isn't true.

[J.T]

The government is the ONLY entity I know of which essentially expects half of its customers to pay for their share plus the other half's share. And THAT is why they are so far in debt. You don't see Microsoft operating that way do you?


Sure you can let people use your product for free, if you have an additional source of revenue.

They have the taxes on the wealthy as a source of revenue to cover the fact that the cost of those exempt from taxation do not pay for their use of government services.

See, all you needed was to be walked through it and you were capable of thoroughly refuting your own bullshit metaphor all along. I knew you could do it! Such a good boy! Have a banana sticker!

2461

[ConHog]

They have the taxes on the wealthy as a source of revenue to cover the fact that the cost of those exempt from taxation do not pay for their use of government services.

See, all you needed was to be walked through it and you were capable of thoroughly refuting your own bullshit metaphor all along. I knew you could do it! Such a good boy! Have a banana sticker!

2461



Oh I see now we're getting to the crux of the matter. You believe that SOME people should be able to enjoy government services for free while other people have to pay for them. How do you justify that? Why do you think that just because some people were too lazy/stupid/or otherwise unable to make a decent living that they should get to enjoy a government that they paid not one dime in income tax to help fund?

I could even live with that if we passed a a simple law. "If you're income tax liability was <$1 you don't get to voted in any of that year's elections."


That's certainly the way it works in my home, if you don't contribute to paying the bills then you get no say in how things are ran.

[beanerboy]

Oh I see now we're getting to the crux of the matter. You believe that SOME people should be able to enjoy government services for free while other people have to pay for them. How do you justify that? Why do you think that just because some people were too lazy/stupid/or otherwise unable to make a decent living that they should get to enjoy a government that they paid not one dime in income tax to help fund?

I could even live with that if we passed a a simple law. "If you're income tax liability was <$1 you don't get to voted in any of that year's elections."


That's certainly the way it works in my home, if you don't contribute to paying the bills then you get no say in how things are ran.


there is a difference between being lazy and being stupid. Some smart people are lazy, and lots and lots of stupid people really work hard for little compensation.

[beanerboy]

I could even live with that if we passed a a simple law. "If you're income tax liability was <$1 you don't get to voted in any of that year's elections."


That's certainly the way it works in my home, if you don't contribute to paying the bills then you get no say in how things are ran.

and what about, say Vietnam and Iraq war veterans who are now homeless. Do we not let THEM vote either?

[Missileman]

lots and lots of stupid people really work hard for little compensation.

Uh, so? There's always going to be a bottom rung on the economic ladder, it CAN NOT be avoided. If you give everyone a million dollars, a million dollars is worthless. The only solution if you're unhappy with your lot in life is to roll up your sleeves and work your way up to the higher rungs on the ladder.

[ConHog]

Uh, so? There's always going to be a bottom rung on the economic ladder, it CAN NOT be avoided. If you give everyone a million dollars, a million dollars is worthless. The only solution if you're unhappy with your lot in life is to roll up your sleeves and work your way up to the higher rungs on the ladder.


That's the part they don't seem to get. Now I'm all for everyone making a decent living wage, and I think the minimum wage is a joke, but no matter what we do, someone is going to be at the bottom of that ladder.

And everyone should be asked to contribute SOMETHING before we go to any one group and say "you give more, simply because you can"

[ConHog]

and what about, say Vietnam and Iraq war veterans who are now homeless. Do we not let THEM vote either?


Too freaking bad. I fought in two wars and managed to keep a home and earn an income, so to did my uncle and my grandfather, and countless other Americans.

But even at that, you are talking about a few people who's heads are screwed up, and frankly no they shouldn't be voting. Sorry if that sounds cold, but it's a truth.

[J.T]

I could even live with that if we passed a a simple law. "If you're income tax liability was <$1 you don't get to voted in any of that year's elections."How bout an English a literacy test, instead? :p It should be 'run', not 'ran', btw ;)

How 'bout if you income was less than 35,000? Or if you do not actually hold the title on a plot of land (which would get rid of most voters, including just about everyone in the cities)? Why not just go all the way and remove that idiotic constitutional ban on titles of nobility and bring back the proper aristocracy? :rolleyes:
And you never answered my question. Would you take half a starving man's sandwich to feed the troops occupying Libya? Would you condemn a poor woman to death in order to fund our next military excursion?


and what about, say Vietnam and Iraq war veterans who are now homeless. Do we not let THEM vote either?
If they're too weak and stupid to move on, get over it, and get real jobs? Of course!

Just ask the Right around here and they'll tell you that only landed gentry should have a say in things.

[ConHog]

How an English a literacy test, instead? :p It should be 'run', not 'ran', btw ;)

How 'bout if you income was less than 35,000? Or if you do not actually hold the title on a plot of land (which would get rid of most voters, including just about everyone in the cities)? Why not just go all the way and remove that idiotic constitutional ban on titles of nobility and bring back the proper aristocracy? :rolleyes:
And you never answered my question. Would you take half a starving man's sandwich to feed the troops occupying Libya? Would you condemn a poor woman to death in order to fund our next military excursion?


If they're too weak and stupid to move on, get over it, and get real jobs? Of course!

Just ask the Right around here and they'll tell you that only landed gentry should have a say in things.

Nothing funnier than when the grammar police make a grammar error. :laugh2:

[J.T]

Now I'm all for everyone making a decent living wage

So you want government to artificially drive up wages? But that's socialism and it leads to catastrophic inflation, makes it so we can't compete against the third world, destroys capitalism, and brigs the world to an end. Just ask logroller or look at his posts earlier in this very thread.

[ConHog]

So you want government to artificially drive up wages? But that's socialism and it leads to catastrophic inflation, makes it so we can't compete against the third world, destroys capitalism, and brigs the world to an end. Just ask logroller or look at his posts earlier in this very thread.


I'm not Logroller, so why are you comparing what I wrote to what he said? Just because we both agree that you're an idiot for suggesting that the wealthy should pay all the bills while the not so well off pay nothing doesn't mean we agree on every issue.

PS - Saying I'm all for everyone making a decent wage doesn't actually mean I want the government doing shit. You do realize that don't you?

[J.T]

PS - Saying I'm all for everyone making a decent wage doesn't actually mean I want the government doing shit.

Unions, then? Or are you going to pray to the same magical invisible hand that worked so well in Saipan?

[LuvRPgrl]

Edited. False quote given has been removed; no use of explanation or indication of such.

go ahead

Fair warning for all, altering quotes of another, without making it clear that YOU ARE DOING SO, will lead to thread ban, at best. I dont know which mod did this, so I c ant pm you about it. Does that include using "partial" quotes that are also taken out of context? cuz thayt is exactly what JT is doing, which was the ONLY reason I did it.

[Kathianne]

I dont know which mod did this, so I c ant pm you about it. Does that include using "partial" quotes that are also taken out of context? cuz thayt is exactly what JT is doing, which was the ONLY reason I did it.

Twas me. He can use ellipsis, if that is what you are referring to? So can you, they indicate something before or after.

[ConHog]

Unions, then? Or are you going to pray to the same magical invisible hand that worked so well in Saipan?


It could mean unions, although I would assume you remember our conversations about unions enough to know that I don't support unions. It COULD also mean governmental control ( I merely said earlier that it doesn't automatically mean I favor that, but it doesn't rule it out either) OR it could be that I would just like to see business owners recognize that it is in their own best interest to pay their employees a decent wage.

[LuvRPgrl]

there is a difference between being lazy and being stupid. Some smart people are lazy, and lots and lots of stupid people really work hard for little compensation.

I guess you arent lazy then.

[J.T]

OR it could be that I would just like to see business owners recognize that it is in their own best interest to pay their employees a decent wage.

Except it's not. Their interest is to keep wages as low as possible not to pay more. Ideally, they want to pay just enough for the workers to survive and continue working without paying more than necessary and enabling class mobility. And indeed, this is what we still see around the world where naked capitalism remains unchained.

[LuvRPgrl]

Too freaking bad. I fought in two wars and managed to keep a home and earn an income, so to did my uncle and my grandfather, and countless other Americans.

But even at that, you are talking about a few people who's heads are screwed up, and frankly no they shouldn't be voting. Sorry if that sounds cold, but it's a truth.

You realize you are advocating removing someones right to vote based on poverty.

[ConHog]

You realize you are advocating removing someones right to vote based on poverty.

I advocate removing the right to vote. It's a privilege that should have to be earned IMO. Now you could make a valid argument that anyone who has fought for their country has earned a lifetime to vote, and I might agree to that; but I certainly am of the opinion that there are people in this country who should not be allowed to vote, and not all of them are criminals.

Oh and let me clear, I do NOT think "you're poor" is a valid reason to take someone's vote.

[Kathianne]

You realize you are advocating removing someones right to vote based on poverty.

While there originally were property requirements, along with gender, race, etc., those are long gone. There are no amendments requiring one to be working, have a work ethic, or not paying taxes. On this CH is a bit over the top.

Now truth-to-tell, there are many studies that show that the groups he wishes to target, rarely vote in the first place. I just think they should have the right.

[ConHog]

While there originally were property requirements, along with gender, race, etc., those are long gone. There are no amendments requiring one to be working, have a work ethic, or not paying taxes. On this CH is a bit over the top.

Now truth-to-tell, there are many studies that show that the groups he wishes to target, rarely vote in the first place. I just think they should have the right.


Here is where I would put my litmus test

Did you have income last year and if so did you pay income tax if the answer to question one is yes then the answer to question 2 needs to also be yes or you don't get to vote. If the answer to question 1 is no, you aren't automatically disqualified from voting, continue with the test.

Note anyone notice that Warren Buffett wouldn't get to vote until he paid his taxes under my plan?


Next question - Have you received ANY form of welfare for a combined 24 months or more out of the last 50 months? If the answer is yes, you don't get to vote.

Next question - Can you prove that you are a qualified US citizen with a proper picture ID? If the answer is NO, then you don't get to vote.

next question - Can you name the current President, Vice President, and Speaker of the House. If you miss 2 of the 3 you don't get to vote.

That's really all it needs to be. Nothing set up to weed out any group of people. Well okay unless you count tax cheats, welfare pigs, or idiots. And frankly who cares about them losing the "right" to vote.

[LuvRPgrl]

And you never answered my question..

And you never answered mine, should I pay for someones college education when I cant afford to send myself or my kids?


Would you take half a starving man's sandwich to feed the troops occupying Libya? Would you condemn a poor woman to death in order to fund our next military excursion?


.

Give me a break. Do you really think anybody is going to believe we let people starve to death at all, much less to fund the military?
THAT IS REALLY JUST SO PATHETIC

[Missileman]

How bout an English a literacy test, instead? :p It should be 'run', not 'ran', btw ;)

How 'bout if you income was less than 35,000? Or if you do not actually hold the title on a plot of land (which would get rid of most voters, including just about everyone in the cities)? Why not just go all the way and remove that idiotic constitutional ban on titles of nobility and bring back the proper aristocracy? :rolleyes:
And you never answered my question. Would you take half a starving man's sandwich to feed the troops occupying Libya? Would you condemn a poor woman to death in order to fund our next military excursion?


If they're too weak and stupid to move on, get over it, and get real jobs? Of course!

Just ask the Right around here and they'll tell you that only landed gentry should have a say in things.

Personally, I think vets should be tax exempt...period.

[Kathianne]

Here is where I would put my litmus test

Did you have income last year and if so did you pay income tax if the answer to question one is yes then the answer to question 2 needs to also be yes or you don't get to vote. If the answer to question 1 is no, you aren't automatically disqualified from voting, continue with the test.

Note anyone notice that Warren Buffett wouldn't get to vote until he paid his taxes under my plan?


Next question - Have you received ANY form of welfare for a combined 24 months or more out of the last 50 months? If the answer is yes, you don't get to vote.

Next question - Can you prove that you are a qualified US citizen with a proper picture ID? If the answer is NO, then you don't get to vote.

next question - Can you name the current President, Vice President, and Speaker of the House. If you miss 2 of the 3 you don't get to vote.

That's really all it needs to be. Nothing set up to weed out any group of people. Well okay unless you count tax cheats, welfare pigs, or idiots. And frankly who cares about them losing the "right" to vote.

Write your congressman/woman and ask for a bill. See where it goes...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEJL2Uuv-oQ

[Missileman]

Unions, then? Or are you going to pray to the same magical invisible hand that worked so well in Saipan?

Companies will pay great wages to great employees. A union forces companies to pay great wages to lousy, mediocre, and great employees alike...that's why unions SUCK!

[LuvRPgrl]

Twas me. He can use ellipsis, if that is what you are referring to? So can you, they indicate something before or after.

Just a tiny fragment of what JT pullls, ck post 283, he intentionally makes it look like other people are saying things they arent by using quotes in a way they arent intended to be used. THAT WAS THE REASON I MIS QUOTED ON PURPOSE, TO BRING THIS TO LIGHT

BUT I suppose if nothing can be done about it, except threatening a ban, then I will have to fight fire with fire.

[ConHog]

Personally, I think vets should be tax exempt...period.

While I personally would benefit from that I'd have to think about it. Do you mean combat vets, or all vets?

[Kathianne]

Just a tiny fragment of what JT pullls, ck post 283, he intentionally makes it look like other people are saying things they arent by using quotes in a way they arent intended to be used. THAT WAS THE REASON I MIS QUOTED ON PURPOSE, TO BRING THIS TO LIGHT

BUT I suppose if nothing can be done about it, except threatening a ban, then I will have to fight fire with fire.

#283 was CH, not JT

[ConHog]

Just a tiny fragment of what JT pullls, ck post 283, he intentionally makes it look like other people are saying things they arent by using quotes in a way they arent intended to be used. THAT WAS THE REASON I MIS QUOTED ON PURPOSE, TO BRING THIS TO LIGHT

BUT I suppose if nothing can be done about it, except threatening a ban, then I will have to fight fire with fire.

Fight fire with ignore. That's where everyone should put JT.

[J.T]

Here is where I would put my litmus test

Did you have income last year and if so did you pay income tax if the answer to question one is yes then the answer to question 2 needs to also be yes or you don't get to vote. If the answer to question 1 is no, you aren't automatically disqualified from voting, continue with the test.
So you want to take away their right to vote because they're poor 9and therefore exempt)


Next question - Have you received ANY form of welfare for a combined 24 months or more out of the last 50 months? If the answer is yes, you don't get to vote.

So you'd take away the Bachmann family's right to vote?

[Kathianne]

Fight fire with ignore. That's where everyone should put JT.

Good lord! I'm looking for that judge from "The Good Wife", you do mean, "in your opinion?" Surely you aren't telling everyone what to do here, right?

[ConHog]

Companies will pay great wages to great employees. A union forces companies to pay great wages to lousy, mediocre, and great employees alike...that's why unions SUCK!

I'm going to disagree with you slightly here. GOOD companies pay good employees a good wage. Unfortunately not all companies are good companies, and when there are more , way more, people who want jobs then there are jobs available, Companies can do even less. Now I don't think unions are the answer at all, but neither is just letting companies just decide on their own what to pay.

[Missileman]

While I personally would benefit from that I'd have to think about it. Do you mean combat vets, or all vets?

I'm inclined to include all honorably discharged vets.

[ConHog]

Good lord! I'm looking for that judge from "The Good Wife", you do mean, "in your opinion?" Surely you aren't telling everyone what to do here, right?

Isn't it sort of implied that each of our posts is in fact our OPINION? I'm not JT ma'am. I don't think all my posts are the gospel and anyone who disagrees with me is just stupid.

[ConHog]

I'm inclined to include all honorably discharged vets.

i don't know man. Look how many honorably discharged vets have went on to make BIG bucks in the private sector, I don't mind them paying income tax since in most cases they used skills they were trained with on Uncle Sam's dime.

[J.T]

And you never answered mine, should I pay for someones college education when I cant afford to send myself or my kids?

Already answered a long time ago. I'm not going to keep repeating myself every time you play stupid.

Give me a break. Do you really think anybody is going to believe we let people starve to death at all, much less to fund the military?
Not currently, because we don't listen to people like you and conhog. That's why those below the poverty line are exempt from taxes and we have SNAP and other assistance programs. Not that complicated, really.


Personally, I think vets should be tax exempt...period.

Why? What does flying a plane over texas or killing children halfway around the world have to do with taxes?

Write your congressman/woman and ask for a bill. See where it goes...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEJL2Uuv-oQ

You think it'd get past the courts the moment someone invoked the 'equal protection' clause?

[Missileman]

Why? What does flying a plane over texas or killing children halfway around the world have to do with taxes?


Go do four years and get back to me. Before you do though, take your "baby-killer" comments and cram them up your chicken shit ass!

[ConHog]

Go do four years and get back to me. Before you do though, take your "baby-killer" comments and cram them up your chicken shit ass!

That would require that he climb out of mommy's basement and that isn't going to happen.

[LuvRPgrl]

Except it's not. Their interest is to keep wages as low as possible not to pay more. Ideally, they want to pay just enough for the workers to survive and continue working without paying more than necessary and enabling class mobility. And indeed, this is what we still see around the world where naked capitalism remains unchained.

what they want "ideally" and what happens around the world, has what to do with American workers in reality??
Please, I know you like to take quotes out of context, cuz you cant answer legitimate questions (why should I pay fore someones college educ when I cant pay for my own or my kids)
and making things up that others dont say
and using another persons statement and then attributing it to the wrong person

but please, try staying on topic.
and try answering some direct questions

[J.T]

what they want "ideally" and what happens around the world, has what to do with American workers

Because the very same happened here before socialism took hold in America.

Look around you. Now thank a Wobbly.

[Missileman]

i don't know man. Look how many honorably discharged vets have went on to make BIG bucks in the private sector, I don't mind them paying income tax since in most cases they used skills they were trained with on Uncle Sam's dime.

Then an exemption on the first $50-$100K.

[ConHog]

Then an exemption on the first $50-$100K.

I could live with something like that.

[LuvRPgrl]

it could be that I would just like to see business owners recognize that it is in their own best interest to pay their employees a decent wage.

You fell for a common trap
It isnt in the best interest for employees to pay their workers a "decent" wage, nor does "decent wage" even really mean anything concrete.
Its in their best interests to pay them as little as possible.
Its in the interest of workers to get the highest wages they can.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with either scenario.

[ConHog]

You fell for a common trap
It isnt in the best interest for employees to pay their workers a "decent" wage, nor does "decent wage" even really mean anything concrete.
Its in their best interests to pay them as little as possible.
Its in the interest of workers to get the highest wages they can.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with either scenario.


Oh , I know someone dishonest like JT would turn that into a trap, but I figured the more intelligent and honest would recognize what I was saying.

I really don't think it's fair when a CEO of a company is earning tens of millions of dollars a year in income while hundreds of the companies employees are barely making ends meet, and in some cases are on welfare assistance. I don't care how you dress that pig up it isn't right, especially when you consider that in almost every case we the taxpayer are subsidizing the company paying their employees so low by giving those lower waged employees welfare assistance.


So to me, it's not a question of is this right, it's a question of what is the solution. Personally I wouldn't mind seeing a percentage set that says no employee may be paid less than say 1/100th of what the highest paid person in the company makes. So if you want to pay your CEO $5M a year. go right ahead, but that means the least paid person in the company is going to make $50K a year.

Now of course at some point you would run across smaller companies who would be exempt from this because their CEOs aren't making obscene salaries , but those aren't the companies that are generally paying employees peanuts anyway.

But just to act like there is no problem, companies are acting fairly to all is a bit naive IMO.

[LuvRPgrl]

I advocate removing the right to vote. It's a privilege that should have to be earned IMO..

is it a right or a privledge, make up your mind


Now you could make a valid argument that anyone who has fought for their country has earned a lifetime to vote, and I might agree to that; but I certainly am of the opinion that there are people in this country who should not be allowed to vote, and not all of them are criminals..someone has fought for this country and you MIGHT agree to that??? I would love to hear whom you think should be allowed to vote.l


Oh and let me clear, I do NOT think "you're poor" is a valid reason to take someone's vote.

Actually, thats EXACTLY what you are advocating. You clearly stated that a person who doesnt pay any income taxes shouldnt be allowed to vote. If you dont pay income taxes, that pretty much means you are poor, hence, if poor, no vote for you in Cons world

[LuvRPgrl]

While there originally were property requirements, along with gender, race, etc., those are long gone. There are no amendments requiring one to be working, have a work ethic, or not paying taxes. On this CH is a bit over the top.

Now truth-to-tell, there are many studies that show that the groups he wishes to target, rarely vote in the first place. I just think they should have the right.

Ideally, I actually think it would be good to restrict voting based on several factors, but in reality, it would be a nightmare to try to come up with something fair and would work.
Problem is, people use those restrictions to to force many who should not be restricted, to not be abl,e to vote, ex racists use a certain level of educational ability, knowing full well it would overwhelmingly affect black people, not white, then they make it illegal to teach blacks to get that level of educatioon so they can vote

[ConHog]

is it a right or a privledge, make up your mind

Huh? What part of in my opinion it shouldn't be a right, it should be a privilege confused you?


someone has fought for this country and you MIGHT agree to that??? I would love to hear whom you think should be allowed to vote.l



There actually are vets how there who are pieces of shit and have no business voting. Not everyone who served is a model citizen.


Actually, thats EXACTLY what you are advocating. You clearly stated that a person who doesnt pay any income taxes shouldnt be allowed to vote. If you dont pay income taxes, that pretty much means you are poor, hence, if poor, no vote for you in Cons world

[/QUOTE]

Actually under the current tax code a person could earn $30K and not owe a dime in income tax. Now I don't care where you live, $30K a year isn't poor. You may not be well off by any means, but you aren't poor. Also, as I noted in my original post. Warren Buffett would also be ineligible to vote because he hasn't paid any income taxes, and I'd hardly call him poor. WOuld you?

[LuvRPgrl]

Here is where I would put my litmus test

Did you have income last year and if so did you pay income tax if the answer to question one is yes then the answer to question 2 needs to also be yes or you don't get to vote..
So, if someone is able to use legal deductions to reduce their taxes due, to 0, that would disqualify them from voting? Do you know how insane that is ?


If the answer to question 1 is no, you aren't automatically disqualified from voting, continue with the test. .

Note anyone notice that Warren Buffett wouldn't get to vote until he paid his taxes under my plan?


Next question - Have you received ANY form of welfare for a combined 24 months or more out of the last 50 months? If the answer is yes, you don't get to vote..

so when I was going to college and accepting food stamps, I shouldnt have had the right to vote? Based on what? Not to mention, what qualifies as "welfare", a govt grant to go to college? tax deductions? SS disabili,ty, unemployment insurance?
If a self employed person and a union worker both lose their jobs cuz obama is pres, and the union dude manages to get unemployment cks to keep him afloat, but the self employed person doesnt, but does have to accept welfare to feed his family, he shouldnt be allowed to vote?


Next question - Can you prove that you are a qualified US citizen with a proper picture ID? If the answer is NO, then you don't get to vote. .concur


next question - Can you name the current President, Vice President, and Speaker of the House. If you miss 2 of the 3 you don't get to vote..
I dont know who the speaker of the house is, and sometimes I have to think about who is the vp, Im that close to losing my right to vote?


That's really all it needs to be. Nothing set up to weed out any group of people. Well okay unless you count tax cheats, welfare pigs, or idiots. And frankly who cares about them losing the "right" to vote.

All of those target NON rich people, so it favors the rich. A guy inheirets alot of money, his buddy, who knows more about how the govt works, is having to work his way thru school, and manages cuz mom and dad pay his room and board, and gi ve him an allowance to spend on extras, then the rich kid gets to vote and the poor kid doesnt?

NEXT QUESTION ?

[ConHog]

So, if someone is able to use legal deductions to reduce their taxes due, to 0, that would disqualify them from voting? Do you know how insane that is ?



so when I was going to college and accepting food stamps, I shouldnt have had the right to vote? Based on what? Not to mention, what qualifies as "welfare", a govt grant to go to college? tax deductions? SS disabili,ty, unemployment insurance?
If a self employed person and a union worker both lose their jobs cuz obama is pres, and the union dude manages to get unemployment cks to keep him afloat, but the self employed person doesnt, but does have to accept welfare to feed his family, he shouldnt be allowed to vote?

concur


I dont know who the speaker of the house is, and sometimes I have to think about who is the vp, Im that close to losing my right to vote?



All of those target NON rich people, so it favors the rich. A guy inheirets alot of money, his buddy, who knows more about how the govt works, is having to work his way thru school, and manages cuz mom and dad pay his room and board, and gi ve him an allowance to spend on extras, then the rich kid gets to vote and the poor kid doesnt?

NEXT QUESTION ?



I think you missed the entire part of my post where I wrote "have you received 24 months or more of welfare in the last 60 months" That's not someone who just needs a little help.

Oh, and we all know welfare is, you can Google around for yourself if you have further questions.

[LuvRPgrl]

Already answered a long time ago. I'm not going to keep repeating myself every time you play stupid.?
You have a post number? otherwise you are a liar and a coward


Not currently, because we don't listen to people like you and conhog. That's why those below the poverty line are exempt from taxes and we have SNAP and other assistance programs. Not that complicated, really.?so you are saying tht the current system doesnt force something to happen that you claimed was happening?

WHY SHOULD I HAVE TO PAY FOR SOMEONE ELSE TO GO TO COLLEGE WHEN I CANT AFFORD TO PAY MYSELF, OR MY KIDS TO GO?

[LuvRPgrl]

Why? What does flying a plane over texas or killing children halfway around the world have to do with taxes?


?
How long have you supported torturing women and children?

[LuvRPgrl]

Because the very same happened here before socialism took hold in America.

Look around you. Now thank a Wobbly.

nope, never happened.
We have never been socialist
and employees have always had the upper hand with employers.

[LuvRPgrl]

Oh , I know someone dishonest like JT would turn that into a trap, but I figured the more intelligent and honest would recognize what I was saying.

I really don't think it's fair when a CEO of a company is earning tens of millions of dollars a year in income while hundreds of the companies employees are barely making ends meet, and in some cases are on welfare assistance. I don't care how you dress that pig up it isn't right, especially when you consider that in almost every case we the taxpayer are subsidizing the company paying their employees so low by giving those lower waged employees welfare assistance.


So to me, it's not a question of is this right, it's a question of what is the solution. Personally I wouldn't mind seeing a percentage set that says no employee may be paid less than say 1/100th of what the highest paid person in the company makes. So if you want to pay your CEO $5M a year. go right ahead, but that means the least paid person in the company is going to make $50K a year.

Now of course at some point you would run across smaller companies who would be exempt from this because their CEOs aren't making obscene salaries , but those aren't the companies that are generally paying employees peanuts anyway.

But just to act like there is no problem, companies are acting fairly to all is a bit naive IMO.

so you dont support the free market.
as for ceo's making tens of millions, I would need a specific example of that, otherwise its just some pie in the sky scenario made up by some rich bored hateful kid of some ceo making millions of dollars.

[ConHog]

so you dont support the free market.
as for ceo's making tens of millions, I would need a specific example of that, otherwise its just some pie in the sky scenario made up by some rich bored hateful kid of some ceo making millions of dollars.


Am I for a 100% complete free market? No, because people are inherently greedy and those with power would take advantage of everyone else. That's just reality.

[LuvRPgrl]

Huh? What part of in my opinion it shouldn't be a right, it should be a privilege confused you??

you might want to reword your statement then. You say "take away the right" meaning it is currently a right, AND "Its currently a privledge" meaning its currently a privledge.



There actually are vets how there who are pieces of shit and have no business voting. Not everyone who served is a model citizen.


and who the hell are you to decide which ones are pieces of shit. Besides, thy still put their lives on the line.


Actually under the current tax code a person could earn $30K and not owe a dime in income tax. Now I don't care where you live, $30K a year isn't poor. You may not be well off by any means, but you aren't poor. Also, as I noted in my original post. Warren Buffett would also be ineligible to vote because he hasn't paid any income taxes, and I'd hardly call him poor. WOuld you?

In southern california 30K would barely pay your housing
getting buffet to not vote doesnt make the entire idea good, what makes it stink is the numbers of people who , undeservedly, would lose their right

[ConHog]

you might want to reword your statement then. You say "take away the right" meaning it is currently a right, AND "Its currently a privledge" meaning its currently a privledge.


and who the hell are you to decide which ones are pieces of shit. Besides, thy still put their lives on the line.



In southern california 30K would barely pay your housing
getting buffet to not vote doesnt make the entire idea good, what makes it stink is the numbers of people who , undeservedly, would lose their right

Who am I to decide? Just a random guy on the net lol

as for the $30K thing, I advocate getting rid of all the loopholes and credits anyway and just everyone pays a percentage on what they earn. So essentially anyone who earns pays in so no one who works would lose their vote over income tax.

[LuvRPgrl]

I think you missed the entire part of my post where I wrote "have you received 24 months or more of welfare in the last 60 months" That's not someone who just needs a little help..

Didnt miss a thing, in fact,as I recall you said 50 mths, not 60


Oh, and we all know welfare is, you can Google around for yourself if you have further questions...


Oh, trust me, trying to get anyone to agree on what constitutes welfare, we would have the biggest bru haha this country has ever seen.
....If you dont believe me, just pose the question to DP members in a thread

[ConHog]

Didnt miss a thing, in fact,as I recall you said 50 mths, not 60




Oh, trust me, trying to get anyone to agree on what constitutes welfare, we would have the biggest bru haha this country has ever seen.
....If you dont believe me, just pose the question to DP members in a thread

Well., I meant 60 months, 5 years. And of course all those number would be negotiable.

Whatever people want to believe there are certain programs that are welfare and others that are not.

[fj1200]

Again in the very same post

So we've got con refuting himself,fj going around in circles, and luv falsifying quotes and proving she's incapable of an honest and intelligent response...

You people avoid reality like the plague, don't you?

You are so unconscionably stupid that it boggles the mind. You claimed I said something, which I had not. But for your edification I added that it would be a good thing for that to occur IF we removed the barriers that make us uncompetitive in the global environment. You think we should erect all sorts of barriers to free-trade which will accomplish the exact opposite of your desired end; see Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act for reference. Now, there are some open questions which you are unwilling (possibly) or unable (likely) to answer. There is a whole board here just waiting for you take make an attempt at honest debate without having to create these false victories of yours so why don't you man-up and make an effort; we've all seen your picture so we know it will be difficult to do it but please, make the effort.

[ConHog]

You are so unconscionably stupid that it boggles the mind. You claimed I said something, which I had not. But for your edification I added that it would be a good thing for that to occur IF we removed the barriers that make us uncompetitive in the global environment. You think we should erect all sorts of barriers to free-trade which will accomplish the exact opposite of your desired end; see Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act for reference. Now, there are some open questions which you are unwilling (possibly) or unable (likely) to answer. There is a whole board here just waiting for you take make an attempt at honest debate without having to create these false victories of yours so why don't you man-up and make an effort; we've all seen your picture so we know it will be difficult to do it but please, make the effort.


He is incapable. You're wasting your time. Not only is he incapable of honest debate, he doesn't even WANT honest debate. I can only speculate as to why.

[J.T]

You think we should erect all sorts of barriers to free-trade

We already do, though less than we once did or should. Nothing is worse for the working class than capitalist 'free trade'.

http://politicalaffairs.net/free-trade-kills-jobs/

This is 'free trade' (http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/106924-what-is-the-exploitation-of-the-proletariat-what-is-free-trade.html)?

'Free Trade'; naked capitalism in action (http://www.globallabourrights.org/reports)

http://www.democracynow.org/2006/1/4/forced_abortions_sweatshops_a_look_at

[J.T]

nope, never happened.
We have never been socialist

So we have no minimum wage, labour laws, or social safety net?


and employees have always had the upper hand with employers.Right... they just demand sweatshops and demand they be chained to their work station and the boss reluctantly agrees :rolleyes:

[fj1200]

We already do, though less than we once did or should. Nothing is worse for the working class than capitalist 'free trade'.

Shall I show how free trade is good or will you just ignore those too?

[LuvRPgrl]

So we have no minimum wage, labour laws, or social safety net?
Right... they just demand sweatshops and demand they be chained to their work station and the boss reluctantly agrees :rolleyes:

doesnt make us socialists

yep

[J.T]

Being socialist makes you socialist, dude. It's not that complicated.

[LuvRPgrl]

We already do, though less than we once did or should. Nothing is worse for the working class than capitalist 'free trade'.

http://politicalaffairs.net/free-trade-kills-jobs/

This is 'free trade' (http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/106924-what-is-the-exploitation-of-the-proletariat-what-is-free-trade.html)?

'Free Trade'; naked capitalism in action (http://www.globallabourrights.org/reports)

http://www.democracynow.org/2006/1/4/forced_abortions_sweatshops_a_look_at

you dont support or care for the poor or working class one iota, you just hate people who make more money than you, and you use the working class and poor as an excuse to attack the rich.,

You feel inferior, and you dont think you can earn as much as rich people do, so the only way for you to get ahead of them, is to take away some of their money

[ConHog]

you dont support or care for the poor or working class one iota, you just hate people who make more money than you, and you use the working class and poor as an excuse to attack the rich.,

You feel inferior, and you dont think you can earn as much as rich people do, so the only way for you to get ahead of them, is to take away some of their money


JT doesn't just FEEL inferior.

[J.T]

you dont support or care for the poor or working class one iota

:yawn:

Do you have anything intelligent to add to the discussion?

[red states rule]

And you never answered mine, should I pay for someones college education when I cant afford to send myself or my kids?



Give me a break. Do you really think anybody is going to believe we let people starve to death at all, much less to fund the military?
THAT IS REALLY JUST SO PATHETIC



http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/lb0916cd20110915025856.jpg

[logroller]

So we have no minimum wage, labour laws, or social safety net?
Right... they just demand sweatshops and demand they be chained to their work station and the boss reluctantly agrees :rolleyes:

What the fuck are talking about? You're just being irrational.

[red states rule]

What the fuck are talking about? You're just being irrational.

Situation normal

[beanerboy]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/lb0916cd20110915025856.jpg

and, instead of a regular guy in a plaid shirt, it was Mr. Moneybags from the Monopoly game, the cartoon would be a lot more accurate. :laugh:

[DragonStryk72]

and, instead of a regular guy in a plaid shirt, it was Mr. Moneybags from the Monopoly game, the cartoon would be a lot more accurate. :laugh:

Oh yes, because none of us poor folk have been effected by Obama's. Got laid off? Check. Nearly ended up homeless? Check. The reality is this: There is no faster way to fuck over the poor than to raise taxes on the rich, because rich people own businesses, thus determining the costs of goods and services. So unless you really believe that wal-mart is a non-profit organization, you're just advocating screwing the poor over even more.

[ConHog]

Oh yes, because none of us poor folk have been effected by Obama's. Got laid off? Check. Nearly ended up homeless? Check. The reality is this: There is no faster way to fuck over the poor than to raise taxes on the rich, because rich people own businesses, thus determining the costs of goods and services. So unless you really believe that wal-mart is a non-profit organization, you're just advocating screwing the poor over even more.

Beyond a few talking points, Beanerboy aka MaineRetard, has proven beyond a doubt that he doesn't actually grasp the facts behind the discussion.

[beanerboy]

Beyond a few talking points, Beanerboy aka MaineRetard, has proven beyond a doubt that he doesn't actually grasp the facts behind the discussion.


oh yeah.. cuz when the marginal tax rate was 90% during the Eisenhower administration, those rich bastards weren't hiring anybody and the middle class shrunk to nothing, didn't it?:laugh2:

[red states rule]

oh yeah.. cuz when the marginal tax rate was 90% during the Eisenhower administration, those rich bastards weren't hiring anybody and the middle class shrunk to nothing, didn't it?:laugh2:

Well Virgil not everyone can flee to Mexico to avoid paying taxes, live off their dead Moms money, and then lecture on how the "rich" are not paying enough in taxes

Of course libs like you ignore the IRS numbers showing the people who are NOT paying their fair share in the "poor"

But by all means please run on raising taxes. the last Dem who did that was Walter Mondale in 1984

Do I have to refresh your memory on the outcopme of that election?

BTW, here are the numbers from the IRS Virgil - not that you care



http://cdn.financialsamurai.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/toptaxes.jpg

[beanerboy]

did the 90% marginal tax rate during Ike's presidency kill the middle class and stifle business and cause the rich to no hire people?

yes or no?

oh... by the way, I haven't spent a dime of my parent's estate.... I am putting it all in trust for my children.

and your IRS graph shows that the top 1% earn more than the bottom half of the country put together. Now THAT'S America!

[red states rule]

did the 90% marginal tax rate during Ike's presidency kill the middle class and stifle business and cause the rich to no hire people?

yes or no?

oh... by the way, I haven't spent a dime of my parent's estate.... I am putting it all in trust for my children.

WHo cares about the 50's? JFK cut the tax rates and revenue increased to the government

Yea, you have not spent a dime of your dead mom's money Virgil. The same way you did not know who moderate democrat was; never heard of that guy Virgil, and you did not write that PM to me on the other board :laugh2:


Bottom line is, go ahead an run on class warfare and raising taxes. It has worked so well in the past for your party

Besides, the "new" Obama jobs plan is DOA anyway when it arrives on Capital Hill - but it does show Obama is stuck on stupid

[ConHog]

oh yeah.. cuz when the marginal tax rate was 90% during the Eisenhower administration, those rich bastards weren't hiring anybody and the middle class shrunk to nothing, didn't it?:laugh2:

History proves that the ramp of our economy during and after WWII were far more responsible for creating the middle class than anything else. Had nothing to do with tax rates.

And once again, that is nothing but deflection on your part. I could afford to give Uncle Sam $20K a year. I honestly could. Doesn't mean I want to, but I could manage. That doesn't give someone else the right to say "well fuck yeah, I can't afford to give $20K so I'm giving NOTHING" and that's all this is about. Why do YOU think the poor should be allowed to not contribute one single penny?


I really think you're full of shit about being wealthy to be honest.

[red states rule]

History proves that the ramp of our economy during and after WWII were far more responsible for creating the middle class than anything else. Had nothing to do with tax rates.

And once again, that is nothing but deflection on your part. I could afford to give Uncle Sam $20K a year. I honestly could. Doesn't mean I want to, but I could manage. That doesn't give someone else the right to say "well fuck yeah, I can't afford to give $20K so I'm giving NOTHING" and that's all this is about. Why do YOU think the poor should be allowed to not contribute one single penny?


I really think you're full of shit about being wealthy to be honest.

Why would anyone want to give the govrnemnt MORE money with the examples of TRILLIONS this administration has WASTED!

The government has to cut (and I mean real CUTS) the budget to the bone; cut their workforce; scale back the perks elected polticans get; and then - maybe - we can talk about tax increases

But if the above is done, there would be no need to raise taxes. The Feds take about $2.4 TRILLION from the folks and that should be more than enough for them

[ConHog]

Why would anyone want to give the govrnemnt MORE money with the examples of TRILLIONS this administration has WASTED!

The government has to cut (and I mean real CUTS) the budget to the bone; cut their workforce; scale back the perks elected polticans get; and then - maybe - we can talk about tax increases

But if the above is done, there would be no need to raise taxes. The Feds take about $2.4 TRILLION from the folks and that should be more than enough for them

Oh, I wasn't offering or suggesting that I should give them any more. I am just saying simply saying "hey you can afford to give more" is not an excuse to let others give nothing.

And of course we agree on spending.

[beanerboy]

History proves that the ramp of our economy during and after WWII were far more responsible for creating the middle class than anything else. Had nothing to do with tax rates.

And once again, that is nothing but deflection on your part. I could afford to give Uncle Sam $20K a year. I honestly could. Doesn't mean I want to, but I could manage. That doesn't give someone else the right to say "well fuck yeah, I can't afford to give $20K so I'm giving NOTHING" and that's all this is about. Why do YOU think the poor should be allowed to not contribute one single penny?


I really think you're full of shit about being wealthy to be honest.

tax rates had nothing to do with businessman creating jobs and growing the economy during the 50's? thanks. a 90% tax rate back then had NO effect on stifling jobs, but somehow, a 3% rise now will destroy the economy? got it.

and I could give a fuck whether you think I have money or not. I am sitting outside next to the pool drinking a rum and tonic under the sunshine in Merida, Mexico. Do you honestly think I give a flying fuck what YOU think of me? HAHAHAHAHAHA

[ConHog]

tax rates had nothing to do with businessman creating jobs and growing the economy during the 50's? thanks. a 90% tax rate back then had NO effect on stifling jobs, but somehow, a 3% rise now will destroy the economy? got it.

and I could give a fuck whether you think I have money or not. I am sitting outside next to the pool drinking a rum and tonic under the sunshine in Merida, Mexico. Do you honestly think I give a flying fuck what YOU think of me? HAHAHAHAHAHA

Umm hey stupid, when demand is high , prices including taxes can be however high they are set at , but when demand is low , as it is today, then costs have to be cut. DUH.

Oh, and I think you care very much what I think Virg. Tell me, how much property do you own in Mexico?

[red states rule]

tax rates had nothing to do with businessman creating jobs and growing the economy during the 50's? thanks. a 90% tax rate back then had NO effect on stifling jobs, but somehow, a 3% rise now will destroy the economy? got it.

and I could give a fuck whether you think I have money or not. I am sitting outside next to the pool drinking a rum and tonic under the sunshine in Merida, Mexico. Do you honestly think I give a flying fuck what YOU think of me? HAHAHAHAHAHA

Well he KNOW Obama's polices have destroyed jobs Virgil - and he is showing once again he has no idea how jobs are created in the private sector

It is fun to watch you throw a temper tanturm when you are publicly confronted with SOME of your past lies :laugh2:

[ConHog]

Well he KNOW Obama's polices have destroyed jobs Virgil - and he is showing once again he has no idea how jobs are created in the private sector

It is fun to watch you throw a temper tanturm when you are publicly confronted with SOME of your past lies :laugh2:

But if you take $5 a week out of a poor person's paycheck to help pay the for government that would kill the cigarette industry.

[red states rule]

But if you take $5 a week out of a poor person's paycheck to help pay the for government that would kill the cigarette industry.

Not if they buy online at about 1/3 the retail price

[Kathianne]

OT, flaming posts moved to cage. Please knock this off on top of the board threads.

[ConHog]

What Obama is TRYING is not working because the GOP in the Senate blocks all of it. WHy don't you be a man and admit that McConnell said that his TOP priority was .... not jobs, not the economy, not the American people, not the troops, not education, not the environment... NONE of that meant squat to him... his first and TOP priority was making Obama a one term president, and if he could obstruct every fucking thing that Obama tried to do, he thought that would do the trick.

Please remind me which party was in charge for the first two years of Obama's Ascension?

[beanerboy]

Please remind me which party was in charge for the first two years of Obama's Ascension?

don't know much about senate rules, do you there, tiger?

[ConHog]

don't know much about senate rules, do you there, tiger?

Oh for sure , Senate rules kept a Democratic President and a Democratic Senate AND a Democratic House from creating Obama's utopia.

Good lawd you make it too easy.

[Kathianne]

Umm hey stupid, when demand is high , prices including taxes can be however high they are set at , but when demand is low , as it is today, then costs have to be cut. DUH.

Oh, and I think you care very much what I think Virg. Tell me, how much property do you own in Mexico?

I'm going to begin thread banning those that want to keep up the flaming.

[beanerboy]

Oh for sure , Senate rules kept a Democratic President and a Democratic Senate AND a Democratic House from creating Obama's utopia.

Good lawd you make it too easy.

do you understand that Obama never had 60 votes in the senate? do you understand what that means? clearly not.

do you even fucking know what cloture means?

[ConHog]

do you understand that Obama never had 60 votes in the senate? do you understand what that means? clearly not.

do you even fucking know what cloture means?

Obviously Obama didn't need 60 votes to pass a bill , only 51. Unless he vetoed his own party's bill. Not likely.

[Psychoblues]

Obviously Obama didn't need 60 votes to pass a bill , only 51. Unless he vetoed his own party's bill. Not likely.

You are obfuscating the filibuster rules, connie. You really, as beanerboy alludes, don't have a freaking clue.

Psychoblues

[ConHog]

You are obfuscating the filibuster rules, connie. You really, as beanerboy alludes, don't have a freaking clue.

Psychoblues

I have a clue, and there is noway you can blame the Republicans for Obama not getting anything worthwhile done from 2008-2010.

[beanerboy]

Obviously Obama didn't need 60 votes to pass a bill , only 51. Unless he vetoed his own party's bill. Not likely.

clearly, you do NOT understand cloture and how McConnell has used it.

[beanerboy]

I have a clue, and there is noway you can blame the Republicans for Obama not getting anything worthwhile done from 2008-2010.

like I said... you do not understand cloture and how McConnell has used it. get a clue.

[DragonStryk72]

did the 90% marginal tax rate during Ike's presidency kill the middle class and stifle business and cause the rich to no hire people?

yes or no?

oh... by the way, I haven't spent a dime of my parent's estate.... I am putting it all in trust for my children.

and your IRS graph shows that the top 1% earn more than the bottom half of the country put together. Now THAT'S America!

Yes, rich people earn more money. It's theirs, and a number of those 1% are former poor people who made good, such as, just an example, Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. They had great ideas that they turned into empires for themselves, but yeah, how dare those bastards earn money. Funny how when they weren't billionaires, they were just decent folk.

Yeah, and let's talk about Ike's term as POTUS, you know, back when we were a producer nation? Or do you not want to talk about reality.

[fj1200]

tax rates had nothing to do with businessman creating jobs and growing the economy during the 50's? thanks. a 90% tax rate back then had NO effect on stifling jobs, but somehow, a 3% rise now will destroy the economy? got it.

So you're in the j.t camp that would have us destroy our own economy in the 30's and then bomb the rest of the world into oblivion in the 40's so that we can enjoy the 50's all over again? That's bold, not smart, but bold. Will you also reinstate all of the exemptions that were available in the 50's?

[ConHog]

So you're in the j.t camp that would have us destroy our own economy in the 30's and then bomb the rest of the world into oblivion in the 40's so that we can enjoy the 50's all over again? That's bold, not smart, but bold. Will you also reinstate all of the exemptions that were available in the 50's?

They want to ignore the fact that a war that consumed 1000 tons of American goods a month for four years had turned our economy into a giant .

[fj1200]

do you understand that Obama never had 60 votes in the senate? do you understand what that means? clearly not.

do you even fucking know what cloture means?

I seem to recall a "reconciliation vote" that got around that pesky rule to "fix" health reform. Was that subject to cloture?

[fj1200]

That is why I am a Democrat. Reichwingers and repugs are nothing if not deniers, obfuscaters, liars and pitiful. I think more of my country than anything they have offered since 1992. Where have all the flowers gone?

Psychoblues

Better turn in your Dem card too then.

[Psychoblues]

Better turn in your Dem card too then.

Dem card? What Dem card? But I get your point, fj2000. There are no innocents in the political world. Therefore I remain true to those that at least demonstrate a propensity for an understanding of my plights and my understanding of what America is all about. The greed, hate and fearmongering of the pigs will never attract me for any kind of support.

Psychoblues

[ConHog]

Dem card? What Dem card? But I get your point, fj2000. There are no innocents in the political world. Therefore I remain true to those that at least demonstrate a propensity for an understanding of my plights and my understanding of what America is all about. The greed, hate and fearmongering of the pigs will never attract me for any kind of support.

Psychoblues

How sweet. You actually believe the Democratic Party gives a shit about you.

[Psychoblues]

How sweet. You actually believe the Democratic Party gives a shit about you.

You have no clue. Nothing sweet about that.

Psychoblues

[SassyLady]

And? We need roads and levies built. It damn well better not take forever.

We left the sweatshops and slums and saw the rise of the middle class. All-in-all, I'd say it was a smashing success.

Uh-huh. And then get paid two dollars an hour instead of one. Only when the working class has organized and collective action has been taken (through the unions or the government) has the standard of living improved for the working class. That's wages remain lower even for persons of comparable or even superior skill in regions lacking string unions or regulation.

You keep repeating you mythical 'magic hand of the market' nonsense and I'll just point to the real world. Why do people come to America for a better opportunity, if their skills alone will raise their income through the magic of the mythical anarchy-capitalist market?

JT...if every person joined a union and the unions take collective action to control what a business can and cannot do, effectively strangling the businesses to the point where there are no profits, why would anyone want to start a business, or stay in business ... therefore, no jobs are provided for anyone, including the "organized working class".

[DragonStryk72]

The greed, hate and fearmongering of the pigs will never attract me

I'm sorry, have to drop the BS flag on that play. Do you see this section, PB? You literally just labeled all conservatives in broad, hateful strokes, and you repeatedly spread fear of what the right will do. Let's not even get into the idea that you seem to only want to government to continue making itself larger (i.e. getting greedy).

[red states rule]

Dem card? What Dem card? But I get your point, fj2000. There are no innocents in the political world. Therefore I remain true to those that at least demonstrate a propensity for an understanding of my plights and my understanding of what America is all about. The greed, hate and fearmongering of the pigs will never attract me for any kind of support.

Psychoblues

Yea PB here are a few updates on that hope and change you were promised

http://api.ning.com/files/fviICY6UbfSM38F2nzyFtWfcx3krPwQquJ8BpFo21vk8s5G1c2 kSUr8uKhNQZPfCRUFRPURrmQAx415CI9eGlSCe32348H3B/debt2.jpg




http://ihartpolitics.com/special/census/black_chance_percent.jpg


http://s3.amazonaws.com/data.tumblr.com/tumblr_lhqsozdOME1qzbjado1_1280.png?AWSAccessKeyId =AKIAJ6IHWSU3BX3X7X3Q&Expires=1316590186&Signature=WLzPWCTvJxG82rZIDcKdKTER9Lw%3D


http://www.tumblr.com/photo/1280/3722258722/1/tumblr_lhqsozdOME1qzbjad

[J.T]

I've always understood 'partisan' to be a synonym of 'retard'.

pb seems like a most adamant partisan.

[red states rule]

I've always understood 'partisan' to be a synonym of 'retard'.

pb seems like a most adamant partisan.

He is a white version of Obama

[red states rule]

Class warfare never creates jobs

<IFRAME height=315 src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/HW2VW-Z1M94" frameBorder=0 width=420 allowfullscreen></IFRAME>

[fj1200]

The greed, hate and fearmongering of the pigs will never attract me for any kind of support.

Psychoblues

But you said you don't support the Dems... You are so contradictory.

[ConHog]

It's not the governments money. The government didn't earn it.



Oh, I would beg to differ. The government does earn their taxes. The only questions are A) Why do only SOME people have to pay them and B) Why are they allowed to just waste the money with no input from the people paying the bills?

[fj1200]

Oh, I would beg to differ. The government does earn their taxes. The only questions are A) Why do only SOME people have to pay them and B) Why are they allowed to just waste the money with no input from the people paying the bills?

No, they lay claim to it, big difference. Earn implies that they've done something to deserve it.

[LuvRPgrl]

oh yeah.. cuz when the marginal tax rate was 90% during the Eisenhower administration, those rich bastards weren't hiring anybody and the middle class shrunk to nothing, didn't it?:laugh2:

IT wasnt 90% during the Eisenhower admin

[logroller]

<there went="" out="" a="" decree="" …="" that="" all="" the="" world="" should="" be="" taxed="" —="" luke="" 2:1(authorized="" version)=""><taxed him="" with="" neglect="" of="" duty=""><the job="" taxed="" her="" strength=""> “To make onerous and rigorous demands on”. In America, we pay people primarily for what they do with their brains. Those citizens with higher degrees of education and higher levels of intelligence are paid more than those citizens with low levels of education and lower than average intellects. We reward people for BRAIN power, not MUSCLE power.I would suggest that most people with the intellectual abilities to read and post their own thoughts on internet message boards probably fall above the 100 IQ AVERAGE.

But that only highlights the fact that there are millions of Americans who have less than a 100 IQ... people for whom math is hard, making change is difficult, reading and comprehending simple instruction manuals beyond their capability, no matter how many times they try to learn how. For the smart folks, we pay them dearly for their wisdom and their insightfulness and ability to comprehend complex thoughts and concepts, their facility with difficult mathematical calculations.

For the not so smart folks, we make rigorous and onerous demands on their bodies. Busboys carrying heavy trays of food for hours and hours every day. Dishwashers cleaning solid food waste off dishes and shoving tray after tray of dirty dishes into hot steaming Hobart dishwashing machines for hours and hours every day. Stockboys lifting tray after tray of tomato sauce cans onto grocery store shelves. Gardeners who toil bended over in the hot sun day after day making our yards lovely. They do these jobs because, in most cases, they do not have the mental capabilities to do other, less TAXING jobs.

And, for the most part, we pay these people who wash our clothes and dishes and cook our french fries and clean our bedpans and sweep and wash the floors of our office buildings the bare minimum wage. Many of them have to work two or more of these TAXING onerous jobs in order to make ends meet, and in many cases they NEVER actually make the ends meet. They are forever having to decide between necessities as to which one they can afford to purchase this week or this month.

But hey, we certainly NEED those folks in our society. Our economy relies on the people who pick vegetables and stock shelves and cook french fries and wash dishes and clean hotel rooms and mow lawns and wait tables. We couldn’t get along without them, but nonetheless, we pay them next to nothing for their TAXING efforts on our behalf. As employers, we provide them with no health care or other benefits provided to other, more intelligent, well educated workers. We exploit them and we make onerous and rigorous demands on them because we can.

These folks do not really pay a lot of INCOME tax, but to suggest that they are not TAXED by our economic and governmental system is really not an honest assessment.

Though I appreciate the spirit and color of your post, a few items are misrepresented. The reason highly skilled workers, regardless of intelligence, are paid more is because there a less people who are able to do the job; supply and demand dictates their wage. If those service workers who make too little simple stopped working, ie strike, they reduce the labor supply and can therefore demand a higher wage; but the market will always correct itself in two ways: 1) hire a lesser number and demand higher production from existing employees and/or 2) they raise the price of goods/services sold to accommodate the higher wage. Either way, the problem of not enough people, making not enough money continues as the overall wealth (& production) increases. Only with artificial adjustments to natural market behavior, we've seen the problem exacerbated.

How the hell did we get so screwed up?

Thanks to the industrial revolution, massive productive ability came into being, as did profits ~ runaway capitalism, as so vilified among the progressive movements, also gave birth to some of the earliest modern philanthropic organization in existence today. So often people hail the equality of the economic conditions during the boom of contemporary America (Post WWII on), failing to mention the far superior living conditions of today. How many people in the 50's ate out more than a few times a month, a year even-- it was considered a luxury. Today, half a century of luxurious spending later, we NOW question why these problems continue? Ask somebody who lived during those years about the sacrifices, uphill both ways in the snow. We covet, having become overwhelmed by greed and wanton indulgence, blind to personal responsibility and the sacrifices necessary to a better future. As too many focus on what we do not have rather than what we do, we have, in essence, furthered our own inequality-- such is greed, and it cares only for rewarding its own behaviors'.


The intent of welfare.


Regarding the poor, popular wisdom demanded the diffusion of "knowledge, self-respect, self-control, morality, and religion through all classes of the population" (Bremner 1988). Many charities gave only to the ''worthy poor" and, then, it was in-kind philanthropy rather than in the form of money. The Boston Provident Association, for example, gave food, clothes, or fuel to those willing to work, but it did not disburse money and refused to help drunkards. Equal treatment was not the goal, rather, the intent was to help those unable to help themselves (Olasky 1995). http://learningtogive.org/papers/paper54.html

How do we fix it?

The key to solving this problem is putting wealth, real wealth, into a greater number of hands; but subsidies and taxes are monetary, and money is not wealth, it is consumable, not long-lasting or prescriptive of growth. "Wealth" transfers serve only to provide those without such, a temporary means of survival; the proverbial lesson of giving a man a fish comes to mind.

What needs to happen is our society itself needs to regularly evaluate what is valued beyond money and willfully and purposefully enhance, through private organization, those values which haven't a capable economic or political solution. This is not a question of personal ability or inequality, but rather the social will---even an idiot can be taught how to fish.</the></taxed></there>

[beanerboy]

I seem to recall a "reconciliation vote" that got around that pesky rule to "fix" health reform. Was that subject to cloture?

healthcare? no. go look and see how many filibusters McConnell has invoked.... it'll blow your mind.

[ConHog]

healthcare? no. go look and see how many filibusters McConnell has invoked.... it'll blow your mind.

Bernie Sanders................. Enough said about filibusters.

[beanerboy]

IT wasnt 90% during the Eisenhower admin

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213

you're right... it was 92%

[ConHog]

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213

you're right... it was 92%


thanks for bringing up that time period. Might I add that the poorest earners paid around 20% at that time? The same group that today pays NOTHING....


http://ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-individual-1.html


You're such a failure.

[Kathianne]

CH is right about time period. 1950's there was virtually no competition for US companies outside of US. In fact, money was still flowing through Marshall Plan. There was also the debt from WWII outstanding, while paying for the other countries rebuilding efforts. Mustn't forget the early 50's recession, that melted away to a boom when the housing demand heated up with the babies being born.

[LuvRPgrl]

oh yeah.. cuz when the marginal tax rate was 90% during the Eisenhower administration, those rich bastards weren't hiring anybody and the middle class shrunk to nothing, didn't it?:laugh2:

I know, from memory, a few things about the marginal tax rates, 1. There never was a 90% rate 2. All but a few times, the rate has been going down steadily after 1939. 3. The rate isnt the only stat indicating how much "rich people" paid.

The income threshold to be labled rich, changed often. Right before Eisenhower, that threshold, if I recall correctly, was $100,000 or thereabouts. Also, the 91-92% rate was in place a few years before Eisenhower, which also coincides when the income threshold was increased to $400,000, or thereabouts. This means in actual dollars coming from the "rich", it was less than before Eisenhower, at a higher precentage rate.

It was a completely different world then.

Unions were new, relatively speaking
Women werent in the work force
We were just coming off the most massive war ever,
There was no global economy
There was no internet economy
Virtually all men retired at 65 or earlier.

And Im not so sure that in the 50's we were doing as well as it is romantically portrayed.

[ConHog]

I know, from memory, a few things about the marginal tax rates, 1. There never was a 90% rate 2. All but a few times, the rate has been going down steadily after 1939. 3. The rate isnt the only stat indicating how much "rich people" paid.

The income threshold to be labled rich, changed often. Right before Eisenhower, that threshold, if I recall correctly, was $100,000 or thereabouts. Also, the 91-92% rate was in place a few years before Eisenhower, which also coincides when the income threshold was increased to $400,000, or thereabouts. This means in actual dollars coming from the "rich", it was less than before Eisenhower, at a higher precentage rate.

It was a completely different world then.

Unions were new, relatively speaking
Women werent in the work force
We were just coming off the most massive war ever,
There was no global economy
There was no internet economy
Virtually all men retired at 65 or earlier.

And Im not so sure that in the 50's we were doing as well as it is romantically portrayed.



You're most definitely not right on that one. One of the more famous results of WWII is that tens of thousands of women joined the workforce in the US first to support the war effort and then many stayed in after the war because they realized they enjoyed the income and freedom offered by working out of the home.

[beanerboy]

thanks for bringing up that time period. Might I add that the poorest earners paid around 20% at that time? The same group that today pays NOTHING....


http://ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-individual-1.html


You're such a failure.

so...you'd be happy, I would imagine, if we cut 20% off the top for all tax brackets from those days?

72% for the wealthiest and 0% for the poorest?

and "failure"? I am retired and living in a dream town thanks to the grateful nation that pays its warriors for their service. If you call that failure, count me in, asshole.


I am WAY cool with that. Glad you are too.

[ConHog]

so...you'd be happy, I would imagine, if we cut 20% off the top for all tax brackets from those days?

72% for the wealthiest and 0% for the poorest?


I am WAY cool with that. Glad you are too.

Is dishonestly the only way you know to "debate?" I , of course, never said that.


Are you okay with a 20% rate for the "working poor?"

[beanerboy]

Is dishonestly the only way you know to "debate?" I , of course, never said that.


Are you okay with a 20% rate for the "working poor?"

I would be if you were OK with a 92% tax on the rich, how's that?

[Missileman]

I would be if you were OK with a 92% tax on the rich, how's that?

Why don't one of you ignorant liberals have the balls to suggest the feds just confiscate every cent of the rich bastards and get it over with? Ever stop to wonder where the economic recovery will come from if there's noone around to start up/expand businesses? Oh sure, Obama can employ a few thousand construction workers for a few months at the cost of billions, but then what. Newsflash...NADA!

[ConHog]

I would be if you were OK with a 92% tax on the rich, how's that?




Sure, go for it. Let's see which "side" screams no mas first.

[beanerboy]

Sure, go for it. Let's see which "side" screams no mas first.
92 vs 20? sure

I am telling you for certain.... you add three percent to the tax burden of the wealthiest Americans, and they don't even fucking FEEL it.... hell... I am far from the top of the income scale, and I wouldn't give a shit. I'd buy jimador instead of cazadores tequila and it would be a wash.

[Missileman]

92 vs 20? sure

I am telling you for certain.... you add three percent to the tax burden of the wealthiest Americans, and they don't even fucking FEEL it.... hell... I am far from the top of the income scale, and I wouldn't give a shit.

So the rumors that you're supplementing your dollars with glory hole pesos are true?

[beanerboy]

So the rumors that you're supplementing your dollars with glory hole pesos are true?

gosh... gratuitous insults from the right devoid of intellectual content. what a fucking surprise.

[ConHog]

92 vs 20? sure

I am telling you for certain.... you add three percent to the tax burden of the wealthiest Americans, and they don't even fucking FEEL it.... hell... I am far from the top of the income scale, and I wouldn't give a shit. I'd buy jimador instead of cazadores tequila and it would be a wash.



You're such a liar Virgil.

And as for the 90 vs 20 , let's see who would cry first the 1% of the earners in this nation who would be taxed at 90% or the 47% of the workers who would suddenly see their rate go from 0% to 20%. I promise the lower income workers would scream mercy first.

[beanerboy]

You're such a liar Virgil.

And as for the 90 vs 20 , let's see who would cry first the 1% of the earners in this nation who would be taxed at 90% or the 47% of the workers who would suddenly see their rate go from 0% to 20%. I promise the lower income workers would scream mercy first.

so..Carlos, you are saying that the top 1% wouldn't really MIND a 55% increase in their marginal tax rate.

I agree.

[logroller]

so...you'd be happy, I would imagine, if we cut 20% off the top for all tax brackets from those days?

72% for the wealthiest and 0% for the poorest?

and "failure"? I am retired and living in a dream town thanks to the grateful nation that pays its warriors for their service. If you call that failure, count me in, asshole.


I am WAY cool with that. Glad you are too.

I'd be happy if they cut all tax brackets to 0%, taxing spending alone. But no, that's too sensible an idea. Way more fun to spend money like drunken sailors, playing politics as a shill game of public sentiment every 2,4 and 8 years. Need money, the treasury prints more-- 14 trillion and counting. WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee ee!

[Missileman]

gosh... gratuitous insults from the right devoid of intellectual content. what a fucking surprise.

The only thing devoid of intellect is the notion that pulling $150 billion a year out of our economy for the next 10 years and handing it over to the feds to spend on projects like Solyndra is going to result in economic growth.

[ConHog]

so..Carlos, you are saying that the top 1% wouldn't really MIND a 55% increase in their marginal tax rate.

I agree.


Once again you make stuff up. I didn't say that. What I DID say was that the 1% would complain less about their taxes going up than the lower 47% would complain about their taxes going up ( and $1 would be going up for them)

[fj1200]

healthcare? no. go look and see how many filibusters McConnell has invoked.... it'll blow your mind.

I hope it's even more than I would guess.

[ConHog]

I hope it's even more than would guess.

Virgil would have us believe it is a bad thing that any Republican would take advantage of any legal means to stop Obama and company from implementing their master plan.

[fj1200]

^At least he admitted to the nefariousness with which HC reform was passed.

[ConHog]

^At least he admitted to the nefariousness with which HC reform was passed.

Good point.


By the way, do you find it as amusing as I do that Virgil is so happy with what Obama is doing to the US that he has allegedly moved out of the country?

[LuvRPgrl]

92 vs 20? sure

I am telling you for certain.... you add three percent to the tax burden of the wealthiest Americans, and they don't even fucking FEEL it.... hell... I am far from the top of the income scale, and I wouldn't give a shit. I'd buy jimador instead of cazadores tequila and it would be a wash.

No kidding they dont feel it, you could add 30% and they wont feel it, its the people they employ who will be getting laid off and feel it.

[red states rule]

Why don't one of you ignorant liberals have the balls to suggest the feds just confiscate every cent of the rich bastards and get it over with? Ever stop to wonder where the economic recovery will come from if there's noone around to start up/expand businesses? Oh sure, Obama can employ a few thousand construction workers for a few months at the cost of billions, but then what. Newsflash...NADA!

Remember the corporate jet tax credit Obama and the Dems were screaming about? Well the tx credit was part of the Obama "stimulus" and you would have to collect that tax for about 500 years and you still would not have enough money to cover ONE YEAR of Obama debt

Same goes with the top 1%. Thanks to Obama's recovery there are fewer in that income bracket today. Obama could take 100% of their income and again, it would not cover ONE YEAR of Obama's debt

Meanwhile more people lose thier jobs, their homes, and Obama runs around in campaign mode recycling the same wornout plays from the Class Warfare Playbook

and Obama lapdogs like Virgil lap it up like a dog at the water bowl

[red states rule]

and, instead of a regular guy in a plaid shirt, it was Mr. Moneybags from the Monopoly game, the cartoon would be a lot more accurate. :laugh:


Answer the question Virgil


http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/110919%20attacktherich%20RGB20110919104233.jpg

[fj1200]

No kidding they dont feel it, you could add 30% and they wont feel it, its the people they employ who will be getting laid off and feel it.

The boat buyers in 1990 with the Luxury Tax didn't feel it either, they just didn't buy new boats. Too sad for the boat builders though.

[ConHog]

No kidding they dont feel it, you could add 30% and they wont feel it, its the people they employ who will be getting laid off and feel it.




That's missing the point anyway. Who cares if they could afford it , or if it would affect them? Why should anyone else have to pay MORE while some pay NOTHING?


I got a solution and it's really rather simple. Do away with the EIC then raise everyone's rate by 10%. Then cut the budget by 1/3. Deficit fixed.

[beanerboy]

Good point.


By the way, do you find it as amusing as I do that Virgil is so happy with what Obama is doing to the US that he has allegedly moved out of the country?

I would have moved out of the country four years ago if we hadn't promised our daughter we'd stay until she graduated from college. I am certainly happy with what Obama is TRYING to do.... it's just that I am so fucking sick of strident, wacky, hateful, intolerant righties and how they have blocked nearly everything he's tried to do. I don't have those sorts of neighbors here.

[fj1200]

I would have moved out of the country four years ago if we hadn't promised our daughter we'd stay until she graduated from college. I am certainly happy with what Obama is TRYING to do.... it's just that I am so fucking sick of strident, wacky, hateful, intolerant righties and how they have blocked nearly everything he's tried to do. I don't have those sorts of neighbors here.

You've got the proof that things would be better if he had accomplished everything he TRIED to do? Higher taxes, higher regulation, higher stimulus spending...

[beanerboy]

You've got the proof that things would be better if he had accomplished everything he TRIED to do? Higher taxes, higher regulation, higher stimulus spending...

we'll never know, will we. Do you have PROOF that things WOULDN'T be better? OF course you don't.

[fj1200]

we'll never know, will we. Do you have PROOF that things WOULDN'T be better? OF course you don't.

Yes I do. Historical responses to recessions that do NOT emphasize ever larger centralized government controls result in meaningful recoveries and job growth. Responses to recessions to DO emphasize those things result in stagnation.

[logroller]

BB and Fj (or anyone else) What do think matters most to job growth and recovery: the policies themselves, or the will of the populous to embrace them?

Just curious, because I do think Obama's heart is in the right place, but he doesn't have a majority of the people (or their reps, Congress) behind him; and I think this matters most. As spending escalates the business sector has recovered (profits and DOW have improved since late '08, but the job growth remains dismal). Which makes me wonder if the what we have is a problem with confidence in the policies, not the policies in and of themselves.

[fj1200]

BB and Fj (or anyone else) What do think matters most to job growth and recovery: the policies themselves, or the will of the populous to embrace them?

Just curious, because I do think Obama's heart is in the right place, but he doesn't have a majority of the people (or their reps, Congress) behind him; and I think this matters most. As spending escalates the business sector has recovered (profits and DOW have improved since late '08, but the job growth remains dismal). Which makes me wonder if the what we have is a problem with confidence in the policies, not the policies in and of themselves.

It's the policies. I could have the utmost confidence in a particular policy but that has nothing to do with the far reaching effects of those policies. The '90 Luxury Tax was scored to raise X revenue but actual revenue was far lower because there was no thought, or not enough at least, to what the outcome would be by the actual people subject to it. Not to mention the payroll effects of blue collar boatbuilders who were not the ones who would even pay the tax, they're just the ones who were affected.

The will of the populous, for the most part, is not in a position to actually embrace and/or carry out those policies, they are subject to those policies.

Certainty, or uncertainty, of future policies is also a factor. I have a friend who makes investment decisions for a large company and his point was that the government should stop dicking around with potential regulations, just to tell him what they would be, so he could go ahead and make his decision based on whatever the rule is going to be.

[ConHog]

we'll never know, will we. Do you have PROOF that things WOULDN'T be better? OF course you don't.

I feel fairly confident that we could take the fact that Obama accomplishing part of what he has wanted to do has sent the economy into a tailspin indicates that if he had free reign we'd be fucked.

[logroller]

It's the policies...
Certainty, or uncertainty, of future policies is also a factor. I have a friend who makes investment decisions for a large company and his point was that the government should stop dicking around with potential regulations, just to tell him what they would be, so he could go ahead and make his decision based on whatever the rule is going to be.

Is it govt?.. or media, pundits, and the general population that should stop dicking around with potential regs? I think govt should debate over potential regulations, that's what their paid to do; but does the public need to participate in such debates-- it undermines our representative form ofgovt. I've come to believe the media's over coverage of potential bills often undermines the potential benefits a bill could provide. In this thread, or another maybe, I said something about the elected officials being practically unable to implement economic policies, which almost always bridged elected terms. Obama wasn't in office 6 months in before attacks on his policies had began. He certainly deserves some of the blame, he'd put many of his policies out for public consideration, playing to the role media has assumed (which has completely backfired), harping on every clause--It's really no wonder Obama introduced the healthcare act without any time for the masses, media or the public, let alone 535 members of Congress, to actually inspect it--because policies are decidedly flawed before they're even implemented. I doubt we could even pass our Constitution through Congress with today's level of public scrutiny.

[fj1200]

Is it govt?..

Yes, his example was selling cap and trade rights so according to Harry Reid, "we can pay for HC." What the two have to do with each other is precisely zero, but some want government growth and control for the aggrandizement of bureaucracy. I maintain, for the most part, that the populous has no idea the policies that are debated and set unless something gets really bad and regardless are in no position to be able to approve/disprove the policy with their actions.

[fj1200]

I think govt should debate over potential regulations, that's what their paid to do; but does the public need to participate in such debates-- it undermines our representative form ofgovt.

Not that I don't get what you're saying. Personally I think that there has been too much movement of the debate away from representative government and towards government by delegated regulation. Take any large piece of legislation and much of it will be determined by rules created by an agency with no debate and no nod to our Republican form of government. The rule was made by someone with no accountability to the electorate and with almost zero chance of being overridden. So yes, there should be debate but it's almost impossible to have that debate when regulation becomes overly complex that it's impossible at the Congressional level.

[Gaffer]

Is it govt?.. or media, pundits, and the general population that should stop dicking around with potential regs? I think govt should debate over potential regulations, that's what their paid to do; but does the public need to participate in such debates-- it undermines our representative form ofgovt. I've come to believe the media's over coverage of potential bills often undermines the potential benefits a bill could provide. In this thread, or another maybe, I said something about the elected officials being practically unable to implement economic policies, which almost always bridged elected terms. Obama wasn't in office 6 months in before attacks on his policies had began. He certainly deserves some of the blame, he'd put many of his policies out for public consideration, playing to the role media has assumed (which has completely backfired), harping on every clause--It's really no wonder Obama introduced the healthcare act without any time for the masses, media or the public, let alone 535 members of Congress, to actually inspect it--because policies are decidedly flawed before they're even implemented. I doubt we could even pass our Constitution through Congress with today's level of public scrutiny.

The media does not cover enough. All bills should be dissected publicly. And no bill should contain anything other than what it was presented to cover. And your mistaken about the dark one putting his policies out for consideration. He NEVER did anything publicly. His has always been a grab bag policy of "we have to pass it to see what's in it", as polosi said. That is the stupidest statement anyone could ever make concerning laws of the land.

A huge bill that no one has read could contain wording that outlaws the republican party. Once it's made law who is there to rescind it?

[beanerboy]

Yes I do. Historical responses to recessions that do NOT emphasize ever larger centralized government controls result in meaningful recoveries and job growth. Responses to recessions to DO emphasize those things result in stagnation.

historical responses are not always accurate predictors of future responses.

[beanerboy]

I feel fairly confident that we could take the fact that Obama accomplishing part of what he has wanted to do has sent the economy into a tailspin indicates that if he had free reign we'd be fucked.

biased opinion is not proof.

If I submitted legislation that gave the motorcycle enough horsepower to clear the chasm, and you only funded half of it, and the motorcycle fell to the bottom of the chasm, whose fault is it?

[Missileman]

biased opinion is not proof.

If I submitted legislation that gave the motorcycle enough horsepower to clear the chasm, and you only funded half of it, and the motorcycle fell to the bottom of the chasm, whose fault is it?

The rider's. DUH!

[ConHog]

The rider's. DUH!

Exactly, and in Beaner's analogy Obama would of course be the rider.

[Gaffer]

Get it right guys :laugh: it's Bush's fault.

[ConHog]

Get it right guys :laugh: it's Bush's fault.

I blame Thomas Jefferson. I even heard that sumbitch served cucumber sandwiches which cost 2 bits apiece at the Constitutional Convention. Wasteful motherfucker.

[logroller]

I blame Thomas Jefferson. I even heard that sumbitch served cucumber sandwiches which cost 2 bits apiece at the Constitutional Convention. Wasteful motherfucker.

yeah but with adjustments for the slave rate, 3/5, that's only like 1.2 bits~15 cents.

[J.T]

This is mostly addressed to our friends on the Left, although it is also (somewhat less) applicable to to some on the Right:

There is no tax structure that can be laid over our current economic system and conditions that would raise sufficient revenue after its implementation to cover all government expenditures. It is impossible to address our deficit or debt without significant reductions in government spending.

Until you're willing to talk cuts (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?32555-Let-s-talk-cuts) and reduce spending to such a level as to fund all expenditures it through whatever tax structure you propose, nothing else you propose is really meaningful at all.

It does no good to place balm on the cuts on the patient's face and ignore the leg that has been torn from his body.

[beanerboy]

Exactly, and in Beaner's analogy Obama would of course be the rider.

we're ALL the riders... and the GOP and their obstruction who didn't fund the motorcycle now try to say they have NOTHING to do with it.

[J.T]

we're ALL the riders... and the GOP and their obstruction who didn't fund the motorcycle now try to say they have NOTHING to do with it.

How 'bout we just bother to build a bridge so people stop falling in the gorge?

[beanerboy]

How 'bout we just bother to build a bridge so people stop falling in the gorge?

and let Obama succeed? Why, you know that the GOP's TOP priority (not the economy, not unemployment, not education, not the environment, not ANYTHING that helps ANY working American today) is making sure that Obama is a one term president. Do you honestly think they'd vote for funding to build the WHOLE bridge? Give me a break.

[ConHog]

and let Obama succeed? Why, you know that the GOP's TOP priority (not the economy, not unemployment, not education, not the environment, not ANYTHING that helps ANY working American today) is making sure that Obama is a one term president. Do you honestly think they'd vote for funding to build the WHOLE bridge? Give me a break.

Obama failing = America winning, THAT is why they want the community organizer to fail.

[J.T]

and let Obama succeed?
Obama's never offered any real solutions. Do you have anything other than blind partisan hackery to contribute to this or any other discussion?


Why, you know that the GOP's TOP priority (not the economy, not unemployment, not education, not the environment, not ANYTHING that helps ANY working American today) is making sure that Obama is a one term president
And Obama's is to keep his job.

America needs sound policy, not politics. All Obama has offered since he came into office is more of the same damnable politicking that's left Americans sick and tired of both parties. A plague on both their houses!

[LuvRPgrl]

Hmmm, WERENT YOU THE ONE WHO POSTED THIS?

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by beanerboy http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=494819#post494819)
oh yeah.. cuz when the marginal tax rate was 90% during the Eisenhower administration, those rich bastards weren't hiring anybody and the middle class shrunk to nothing, didn't it?:laugh2:

AND THEN YOU SAY THIS:

historical responses are not always accurate predictors of future responses.

[beanerboy]

Obama's never offered any real solutions. Do you have anything other than blind partisan hackery to contribute to this or any other discussion?

And Obama's is to keep his job.

America needs sound policy, not politics. All Obama has offered since he came into office is more of the same damnable politicking that's left Americans sick and tired of both parties. A plague on both their houses!

bullshit. Presidents are judged on what they accomplish, and the GOP has made it their top priority that Obama not accomplish ANY fucking thing. And without 60 votes in the senate, and the GOP attitude, he won't be able to accomplish very much.

The only good news is that the pack of GOP wackos running for the nomination scare the shit out of the middle of the bell curve.

but the teabaggers will hold sway - thank God - and the GOP nominee will be so unpalatable to the middle that they will all hold their nose and vote for Barack.

[beanerboy]

Hmmm, WERENT YOU THE ONE WHO POSTED THIS?

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by beanerboy http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=494819#post494819)
oh yeah.. cuz when the marginal tax rate was 90% during the Eisenhower administration, those rich bastards weren't hiring anybody and the middle class shrunk to nothing, didn't it?:laugh2:

AND THEN YOU SAY THIS:



oooh... pretty colors. and if I were suggesting that we return to a 92% marginal tax rate as we had during Ike's terms, you might have a point. but... I'm not and you don't. two words for you: bar fine.

[Missileman]

bullshit. Presidents are judged on what they accomplish, and the GOP has made it their top priority that Obama not accomplish ANY fucking thing. And without 60 votes in the senate, and the GOP attitude, he won't be able to accomplish very much.

The only good news is that the pack of GOP wackos running for the nomination scare the shit out of the middle of the bell curve.

but the teabaggers will hold sway - thank God - and the GOP nominee will be so unpalatable to the middle that they will all hold their nose and vote for Barack.

Care to wager a substantial amount of money against the GoP increasing their majority in the House, the Dems losing the majority in the Senate AND losing the Whitehouse?

[ConHog]

bullshit. Presidents are judged on what they accomplish, and the GOP has made it their top priority that Obama not accomplish ANY fucking thing. And without 60 votes in the senate, and the GOP attitude, he won't be able to accomplish very much.

The only good news is that the pack of GOP wackos running for the nomination scare the shit out of the middle of the bell curve.

but the teabaggers will hold sway - thank God - and the GOP nominee will be so unpalatable to the middle that they will all hold their nose and vote for Barack.

So now you're suggesting that politicians who disagree with Obama on well EVERYTHING should stand aside and let him do whatever he wants, regardless of consequences so that he judged well for accomplishing things?


Good Lord you just PROVED that all you care about is Obama looking good for accomplishing his crazy goals. Who cares what that does to the US.

[beanerboy]

So now you're suggesting that politicians who disagree with Obama on well EVERYTHING should stand aside and let him do whatever he wants, regardless of consequences so that he judged well for accomplishing things?


Good Lord you just PROVED that all you care about is Obama looking good for accomplishing his crazy goals. Who cares what that does to the US.

fund the motorcycle to only cross half the chasm and then don't accept any responsibility when it falls. got it.

[ConHog]

fund the motorcycle to only cross half the chasm and then don't accept any responsibility when it falls. got it.

If the motorcycle was going to land in a motorcycle crusher if it did make it across the chasm, why would I not fund it at all? Oh I wouldn't , instead I'd tell the rider "look you idiot, attempting to jump the chasm is stupid, take the fucking road around"

[Missileman]

fund the motorcycle to only cross half the chasm and then don't accept any responsibility when it falls. got it.

He got EVERYTHING he wanted in the first stimulus...it accomplished NOTHING. Now HE'S proposing another HALF as much. But you're right, Obama has yet to take responsibility, he's too busy trying to lead from the rear.

[beanerboy]

If the motorcycle was going to land in a motorcycle crusher if it did make it across the chasm, why would I not fund it at all? Oh I wouldn't , instead I'd tell the rider "look you idiot, attempting to jump the chasm is stupid, take the fucking road around"

ah yes... the motorcycle crusher... the predictions of doom and gloom that allow the GOP to continue to obstruct. Hey... we get it. You guys don't give a fuck about ANYTHING other than making Obama a one term president... and if you have to totally screw over the bottom half of the socioeconomic scale to get your way, that's cool with you.

[ConHog]

ah yes... the motorcycle crusher... the predictions of doom and gloom that allow the GOP to continue to obstruct. Hey... we get it. You guys don't give a fuck about ANYTHING other than making Obama a one term president... and if you have to totally screw over the bottom half of the socioeconomic scale to get your way, that's cool with you.

YOU are the one who stated right in this thread that getting Obama reelected is your top priority, nothing else matters.

You don't give a shit about America, at least stop pretending.

[J.T]

If the motorcycle was going to land in a motorcycle crusher if it did make it across the chasm, why would I not fund it at all? Oh I wouldn't , instead I'd tell the rider "look you idiot, attempting to jump the chasm is stupid, take the fucking road around"

'Dude, we can see the bridge from here... I got a roadmap and everything.'

[beanerboy]

YOU are the one who stated right in this thread that getting Obama reelected is your top priority, nothing else matters.

You don't give a shit about America, at least stop pretending.

got a post number for that? I'll wait.

[fj1200]

historical responses are not always accurate predictors of future responses.

Which is what people say when history goes against them.

[fj1200]

Until you're willing to talk cuts (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?32555-Let-s-talk-cuts) and reduce spending to such a level as to fund all expenditures it through whatever tax structure you propose, nothing else you propose is really meaningful at all.

Tax revenues will rebound to their historical average once we get a meaningful recovery. Spending needs to be brought in line with that.

[ConHog]

got a post number for that? I'll wait.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?32618-Dem-Tells-Radio-Host-You-Dont-Deserve-To-Keep-All-The-Money-You-Earn&p=494827#post494827

[fj1200]

we're ALL the riders... and the GOP and their obstruction who didn't fund the motorcycle now try to say they have NOTHING to do with it.

What a stupid analogy. Leave it to a Dem to think that a motorcycle could clear the Grand Canyon.

[ConHog]

Tax revenues will rebound to their historical average once we get a meaningful recovery. Spending needs to be brought in line with that.

Beanerboy would have us believe that the wealthy are more than happy to pay yet more in income tax so that government employees may continue enjoying $16 muffins.

[beanerboy]

got a post number for that? I'll wait.

still waitin'

[beanerboy]

Beanerboy would have us believe that the wealthy are more than happy to pay yet more in income tax so that government employees may continue enjoying $16 muffins.

bullshit. I would have you believe that wealthy people are more than happy to pay a few percentage points more in income tax if it were to help solve the deficit crisis.

[Missileman]

bullshit. I would have you believe that wealthy people are more than happy to pay a few percentage points more in income tax if it were to help solve the deficit crisis.

And has been pointed out to you ad infinitum, the federal government has shown no inclination at all to cut spending, only raise taxes to cover spending increases. The deficit and debt problem is inarguably a spending problem, NOT a revenue problem.

[beanerboy]

And has been pointed out to you ad infinitum, the federal government has shown no inclination at all to cut spending, only raise taxes to cover spending increases. The deficit and debt problem is inarguably a spending problem, NOT a revenue problem.

most intelligent economist would tell you it is both. I am all for drastic cuts in spending AND I am all for raising the marginal rate for the uber-wealthy to help to further deal with the deficit.

[Missileman]

most intelligent economist would tell you it is both. I am all for drastic cuts in spending AND I am all for raising the marginal rate for the uber-wealthy to help to further deal with the deficit.

Let's see the cuts first!

[beanerboy]

Let's see the cuts first!

let's see BOTH sides agree to them both, for the good of this country.

[ConHog]

Let's see the cuts first!

Let's also see those who are getting a free ride currently ante up SOMETHING .

[beanerboy]

Let's also see those who are getting a free ride currently ante up SOMETHING .

running away still, I see

[J.T]

What a stupid analogy. Leave it to a Dem to think that a motorcycle could clear the Grand Canyon.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aT4omt51CtQ

:rolleyes:

[LuvRPgrl]

oooh... pretty colors. and if I were suggesting that we return to a 92% marginal tax rate as we had during Ike's terms, you might have a point. but... I'm not and you don't. two words for you: bar fine.

Uh, you really think anybody here is gonna buy that BS excuse.

Bar fine, I didnt know you have to pay for sex, explains your exodus to Mexico, cheap beer, cheaper women.

[LuvRPgrl]

bullshit. I would have you believe that wealthy people are more than happy to pay a few percentage points more in income tax if it were to help solve the deficit crisis.

Then that must mean they dont think a tax increase on them is going to solve the deficit crisis.

[LuvRPgrl]

oooh... pretty colors. and if I were suggesting that we return to a 92% marginal tax rate as we had during Ike's terms, you might have a point. but... I'm not and you don't. .

Then you DONT want an increase on the marginal tax rate, please make up your mind.

[ConHog]

Then you DONT want an increase on the marginal tax rate, please make up your mind.

He'll get back to after he receives his emailed instructions from Obama.

[beanerboy]

Uh, you really think anybody here is gonna buy that BS excuse.

Bar fine, I didnt know you have to pay for sex, explains your exodus to Mexico, cheap beer, cheaper women.

I didn't meet MY wife through a bar fine, pal....

[beanerboy]

Then you DONT want an increase on the marginal tax rate, please make up your mind.

Oh... I want and increase.... not to 92%, back when the days when the republican was in office and that was OK with the republicans... back when the days when that marginal tax rate still caused phenomenal job growth. I only want a paltry 3% increase to 39%, and yet, those righties like you, who, most likely don't pay anywhere NEAR that rate, are whining on behalf of the wealthy, who really could give a SHIT whether you whine for them or not.

[beanerboy]

He'll get back to after he receives his emailed instructions from Obama.

still runnin' away from that wager, I see.

[ConHog]

Oh... I want and increase.... not to 92%, back when the days when the republican was in office and that was OK with the republicans... back when the days when that marginal tax rate still caused phenomenal job growth. I only want a paltry 3% increase to 39%, and yet, those righties like you, who, most likely don't pay anywhere NEAR that rate, are whining on behalf of the wealthy, who really could give a SHIT whether you whine for them or not.

And likewise we just want a paltry 10% on the 47% who are currently paying NOTHING, yet here you are whining.............

[red states rule]

I would have moved out of the country four years ago if we hadn't promised our daughter we'd stay until she graduated from college. I am certainly happy with what Obama is TRYING to do.... it's just that I am so fucking sick of strident, wacky, hateful, intolerant righties and how they have blocked nearly everything he's tried to do. I don't have those sorts of neighbors here.

Virgil, you do suffer from selective memory loss. When Obama took over he had a huge majority in the House and 60 Dems in the Senate

Dems rammed thru their pork filled "stimulus" and said how it would put people back to work fixing our crumbling roads and bridges. Obama and Pelosi "promised" there would be no pork in the stimulus. They wrote and they passed it

Obama got his "Cash for Clunkers" passed and even added more money to the program. No last impact on the economy

Then came Obamacare. Virgil, it was Dems who were blocking it due to the public opposition to the bill. R's could do NOTHING to stop it except go to the voters and tell them what ws in the bill. It became so bad for Reid and Pelosi they had to publicly bribe fellow Dems with pork projects and waivers to Obamacre to secure their votes

Dems NEVER passed a budget for TWO years Virgil because they did not want to have a paper trail of their spending and deficits. Agains the R's could do nothing

Before the 2010 midterms Dems saw how pissed off the voters were and said they would not talk about a budget until AFTER the midterm election. Again, Dems ran the show Virgil

Then came the 2010 midterm election when the Dems lost 62 House seats and 6 Senate seats. Nationwide Dems lost over 600 seats. The voters sent R's to oppose Obama, and stop the insane spending. They were tired of his poilcies Virgil!

All of a sudden Obama was for NOT raising taxes. During the lame duck session, Obama, Reid, and Pelosi extended the Bush tax cuts leaving rates where they were for the past 10 years. (There was no tax CUT here Virgil)

Bottom line is Virigl, Obama did get everything he wanted and the results are clear. Dems lost another seat in NY (a seat you bellowed was "safe" BTW) that has not gone to the R's since the 1920's. People have lsot faith in Obama, and they see his policies have failed

Obama great "accomplishment" - Obamacare continues to see a majority of the voters wanting it repealed. Most polls show about 55% want it repealed.

All Obama is doing now is appealing to he kook base (that you are a proud member of) in a desperate attempt to try and get his approval numbers up. Obama said he would transform Amercia Virgil - and he is doing just that

All you can do is make excuses and try to blame others for his failures

Any questons Virgil?

[red states rule]

bullshit. I would have you believe that wealthy people are more than happy to pay a few percentage points more in income tax if it were to help solve the deficit crisis.

Solve the debt crisis? You must be using the same math Obama used when he promised to cut the deficit in half after his first term

Virgil, you could tak the top 1% at 100% and not cover one year of Obama's deficits

You could take all the money from the top 5% and not cover the cost of one year of Obama's spending

Currently the Federal government takes around $2.3 TRILLION from the producers and corporations in America and that is not enough for you far left loons. You are demanding more!

[red states rule]

ah yes... the motorcycle crusher... the predictions of doom and gloom that allow the GOP to continue to obstruct. Hey... we get it. You guys don't give a fuck about ANYTHING other than making Obama a one term president... and if you have to totally screw over the bottom half of the socioeconomic scale to get your way, that's cool with you.


http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/wright0920color20110921035024.jpg

[logroller]

most intelligent economist would tell you it is both. I am all for drastic cuts in spending AND I am all for raising the marginal rate for the uber-wealthy to help to further deal with the deficit.


Most intelligent people, economists included, would refer to themselves in the plural form (if you have time for a hyphen, you have time for a 's').

Besides, the deficit problem is too much spending, not lack of revenue-- anybody who's bounced a check knows that. The rich are rich; they don't suffer because of the economy being in the shitter, and the poor suffer regardless. The problem does worsen when the economy contracts, and the costs of supporting the poor are increased; while the uber-wealthy (>1%) don't lose as much of their income due to market contraction, so they still pay a lion's share of the tax burden. The poor, who don't pay taxes, don't matter in the context of tax policy's purpose; only that they require somebody to pay them---ergo, they are a spending issue.

The problem with the current tax policy is it places a disproportionate tax burden on the upper-3rd and 4th quintiles (~55%-80%)-- these are the ones who are inhibited from the pursuit of happiness. The purpose of progressive tax is to foster the upward earning capability of taxpayers, thus future revenues. While the 55-80% take it hardest, paying undaunted taxes or losing their jobs outright* and burning through whatever investments they did have-- effectively shifting the wealth upwards. We should drop the AMT, index it to inflation at minimum, and implement a tax raise to the top for the difference-- that's fair. Spending cuts are a given necessity.

*Which is why you don't see their tax contributions increase during such periods.

[fj1200]

bullshit. I would have you believe that wealthy people are more than happy to pay a few percentage points more in income tax if it were to help solve the deficit crisis.

False premise, it wouldn't.

[fj1200]

most intelligent economist would tell you it is both. I am all for drastic cuts in spending AND I am all for raising the marginal rate for the uber-wealthy to help to further deal with the deficit.

So, that would include SS and unfunded government pensions?


let's see BOTH sides agree to them both, for the good of this country.

When was the last time government cut* spending?

*Actual cuts.

[beanerboy]

http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/03/02/republican-obstruction-at-work-record-number-of-filibusters/

[fj1200]

http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/03/02/republican-obstruction-at-work-record-number-of-filibusters/

Good, looks like a lot of filibuster's by the Dems under Bush huh? But linking a highly partisan site that decries partishanship? Questionable.

[ConHog]

Most intelligent people, economists included, would refer to themselves in the plural form (if you have time for a hyphen, you have time for a 's').

Besides, the deficit problem is too much spending, not lack of revenue-- anybody who's bounced a check knows that. The rich are rich; they don't suffer because of the economy being in the shitter, and the poor suffer regardless. The problem does worsen when the economy contracts, and the costs of supporting the poor are increased; while the uber-wealthy (>1%) don't lose as much of their income due to market contraction, so they still pay a lion's share of the tax burden. The poor, who don't pay taxes, don't matter in the context of tax policy's purpose; only that they require somebody to pay them---ergo, they are a spending issue.

The problem with the current tax policy is it places a disproportionate tax burden on the upper-3rd and 4th quintiles (~55%-80%)-- these are the ones who are inhibited from the pursuit of happiness. The purpose of progressive tax is to foster the upward earning capability of taxpayers, thus future revenues. While the 55-80% take it hardest, paying undaunted taxes or losing their jobs outright* and burning through whatever investments they did have-- effectively shifting the wealth upwards. We should drop the AMT, index it to inflation at minimum, and implement a tax raise to the top for the difference-- that's fair. Spending cuts are a given necessity.

*Which is why you don't see their tax contributions increase during such periods.

Off topic I know, but who refers to themselves in the plural? We disagree with you there Winthorp.

[logroller]

Off topic I know, but who refers to themselves in the plural? We disagree with you there Winthorp.

Pronouns, like 'we' ---I think people use that one to refer to themselves, broadly, in the plural. So you can add on some other noun to clarify. Like -- We DP members frequently argue over mundane things. Well everybody does really, but you get my point.

In the post I critiqued, unless BB was referring to the 'most intelligent economist', the plural was intended, and simply omitted. There were several modifiers used to specify what he meant to imply-- that the economists who say otherwise are not the most intelligent. Its a logic trap, if I disagree or present an economist view to the contrary, I'm automatically wrong. BB logic: FAIL.

[beanerboy]

Pronouns, like 'we' ---I think people use that one to refer to themselves, broadly, in the plural. So you can add on some other noun to clarify. Like -- We DP members frequently argue over mundane things. Well everybody does really, but you get my point.

In the post I critiqued, unless BB was referring to the 'most intelligent economist', the plural was intended, and simply omitted. There were several modifiers used to specify what he meant to imply-- that the economists who say otherwise are not the most intelligent. Its a logic trap, if I disagree or present an economist view to the contrary, I'm automatically wrong. BB logic: FAIL.

you are absolutely correct. I simply omitted the "s".

[fj1200]

you are absolutely correct. I simply omitted the "s" and any rational basis for making the comment in the first place.

I finished the sentence for ya'. ;)

[LuvRPgrl]

I didn't meet MY wife through a bar fine, pal....

Yea, I know, the whores in mexico hang around outside the bars.

[LuvRPgrl]

Oh... I want and increase.... not to 92%, back when the days when the republican was in office and that was OK with the republicans... back when the days when that marginal tax rate still caused phenomenal job growth. I only want a paltry 3% increase to 39%, and yet, those righties like you, who, most likely don't pay anywhere NEAR that rate, are whining on behalf of the wealthy, who really could give a SHIT whether you whine for them or not.

Show me where Im supporting or opposing a marg tax rate increase, I've just been pointing out facts, only the defensive have a problem with that.

[LuvRPgrl]

Most intelligent people, economists included, would refer to themselves in the plural form (if you have time for a hyphen, you have time for a 's').

Besides, the deficit problem is too much spending, not lack of revenue-- anybody who's bounced a check knows that. The rich are rich; they don't suffer because of the economy being in the shitter, and the poor suffer regardless. The problem does worsen when the economy contracts, and the costs of supporting the poor are increased; while the uber-wealthy (>1%) don't lose as much of their income due to market contraction, so they still pay a lion's share of the tax burden. The poor, who don't pay taxes, don't matter in the context of tax policy's purpose; only that they require somebody to pay them---ergo, they are a spending issue.

The problem with the current tax policy is it places a disproportionate tax burden on the upper-3rd and 4th quintiles (~55%-80%)-- these are the ones who are inhibited from the pursuit of happiness. The purpose of progressive tax is to foster the upward earning capability of taxpayers, thus future revenues. While the 55-80% take it hardest, paying undaunted taxes or losing their jobs outright* and burning through whatever investments they did have-- effectively shifting the wealth upwards. We should drop the AMT, index it to inflation at minimum, and implement a tax raise to the top for the difference-- that's fair. Spending cuts are a given necessity.

*Which is why you don't see their tax contributions increase during such periods.

The biggest danger of people paying no income taxes at all is that they then have absolutely no concern what the feds do regarding raising tax rates, and hence what should be one of the biggest issues, becomes a non issue for them.

[ConHog]

The biggest danger of people paying no income taxes at all is that they then have absolutely no concern what the feds do regarding raising tax rates, and hence what should be one of the biggest issues, becomes a non issue for them.

Exactly, if you have no skin in the game you don't care. Which I why I say those who pay no income tax shouldn't get to vote.

[logroller]

The biggest danger of people paying no income taxes at all is that they then have absolutely no concern what the feds do regarding raising tax rates, and hence what should be one of the biggest issues, becomes a non issue for them.

Taxing the lower two quintiles is foolish; as it wont raise revenues beyond additional entitlements. Short-term: FAIL


Do you agree that the primary objective of progressive tax system is to increase long-term revenue growth?

If so, then tax policy should serve to encourage the year over year(long-term) increase in earnings among a greater number of taxpayers.

[LuvRPgrl]

Exactly, if you have no skin in the game you don't care. Which I why I say those who pay no income tax shouldn't get to vote.

thats just whacky on so many levels,

and I have explained a few reasons why we cant/shouldnt even consider such a thing, but you seem to have ignored them, or at least you had no response, but to just make the claim again JT,,errr, BeanerBAGofWIND, errr, oh, Im sorry, this is CH Im responding to, just sounds so much like one of those other two turds.

[beanerboy]

thats just whacky on so many levels,

and I have explained a few reasons why we cant/shouldnt even consider such a thing, but you seem to have ignored them, or at least you had no response, but to just make the claim again JT,,errr, BeanerBAGofWIND, errr, oh, Im sorry, this is CH Im responding to, just sounds so much like one of those other two turds.

I agree that this position of losing your right to vote depending on whether you pay income tax any given year is wacky. But I disagree that it is something that I would ever have said.

[ConHog]

thats just whacky on so many levels,

and I have explained a few reasons why we cant/shouldnt even consider such a thing, but you seem to have ignored them, or at least you had no response, but to just make the claim again JT,,errr, BeanerBAGofWIND, errr, oh, Im sorry, this is CH Im responding to, just sounds so much like one of those other two turds.

I should neg you for that.




And I'm NOT talking about calling my idea whacky.

[red states rule]

Virgil, you do suffer from selective memory loss. When Obama took over he had a huge majority in the House and 60 Dems in the Senate

Dems rammed thru their pork filled "stimulus" and said how it would put people back to work fixing our crumbling roads and bridges. Obama and Pelosi "promised" there would be no pork in the stimulus. They wrote and they passed it

Obama got his "Cash for Clunkers" passed and even added more money to the program. No last impact on the economy

Then came Obamacare. Virgil, it was Dems who were blocking it due to the public opposition to the bill. R's could do NOTHING to stop it except go to the voters and tell them what ws in the bill. It became so bad for Reid and Pelosi they had to publicly bribe fellow Dems with pork projects and waivers to Obamacre to secure their votes

Dems NEVER passed a budget for TWO years Virgil because they did not want to have a paper trail of their spending and deficits. Agains the R's could do nothing

Before the 2010 midterms Dems saw how pissed off the voters were and said they would not talk about a budget until AFTER the midterm election. Again, Dems ran the show Virgil

Then came the 2010 midterm election when the Dems lost 62 House seats and 6 Senate seats. Nationwide Dems lost over 600 seats. The voters sent R's to oppose Obama, and stop the insane spending. They were tired of his poilcies Virgil!

All of a sudden Obama was for NOT raising taxes. During the lame duck session, Obama, Reid, and Pelosi extended the Bush tax cuts leaving rates where they were for the past 10 years. (There was no tax CUT here Virgil)

Bottom line is Virigl, Obama did get everything he wanted and the results are clear. Dems lost another seat in NY (a seat you bellowed was "safe" BTW) that has not gone to the R's since the 1920's. People have lsot faith in Obama, and they see his policies have failed

Obama great "accomplishment" - Obamacare continues to see a majority of the voters wanting it repealed. Most polls show about 55% want it repealed.

All Obama is doing now is appealing to he kook base (that you are a proud member of) in a desperate attempt to try and get his approval numbers up. Obama said he would transform Amercia Virgil - and he is doing just that

All you can do is make excuses and try to blame others for his failures

Any questons Virgil?


Hey Virgil - cat got your tongue? Cough up that furrball and at least attempt some lame ass answer :laugh2: