And then we hear what the rich men have been saying. Warren Buffet has long complained that he and his peers are not taxed enough. A recent GAO study discovered that at least 50% of American corporations don't pay any taxes. The only place the tax cut does not appear - among the moderate and low income earners.

Wacko extremist conservatives whose power comes from legalized bribery would rather these realities are not discusses. Let's see. Whereas the income of the richest have increased to numbers never before seen in history, the income of the average America dropped by 2%.

Rush Limbaugh will never mention these numbers or what the richest men have long been saying. Warren Buffet long ago complained how he pays less taxes than his receptionist.

Any questions about why the richest 2% get the most tax breaks?

Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten
comes to $100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something
like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy
with the arrangement, until on day, the owner threw them a curve.
"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce
the cost of your daily beer by $20."Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the
first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But
what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide
the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted
that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would
each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each
man's bill by roughly the sa me amount, and he proceeded to work out the
amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued
to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to
compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth man. He pointed
to the tenth man," but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar,
too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"

"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back
when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get
anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine
sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the
bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money
between
all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our
tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most
benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being
wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might
start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen's homepage. Check the second sentence.

Ohh - wow - I tried to check it out on snopes and it didn't come up. Oh well. My bad.

I took his name out so that I don't keep the incorrect info going.

Probably worth pointing out that, if you are a wealthy patron, there aren't many friendlier eateries than Uncle Sam's. I'm pretty sure they could stand a few more 'unfair' beer bills before that establishment became less appealing than others.

It's about balance. It's true, if you go too far, then you push the wealthy away to tax havens and other nations. You only have to look at the 'brain drain' in the UK when we operated the so-called Super Tax. We went too far. Now, I believe we have swung the pendulum too far in the other direction and our wealthiest people and businesses get it far too easy. But I would contend that America has a fair way to go before its wealthy start to feel even the beginnings of a tax pinch compared to those in many developed countries. The middle class meanwhile bear a disproportionately heavy burden. Damn right those guys in the middle should have their load lightened.

I think the moral of that story is, discounts are perceived as unfair so scrap them - everyone was happy until that happened.

Oh and use your fists for raising the beer glass rather than fighting, especially if you're being bought drinkd.

A friends take on it.

My reply - No I don't remember...... Do any of you?

Be careful what you wish for.

The election is now eight days way. If you've made up your mind for Obama; or if you're trying to noodle through some of the things he's been saying on the campaign trail, this should help. I've taken four statements that The Chosen One repeats at almost every campaign rally. Now these statements are pretty powerful ... if unchallenged ... and we know that the MoveOn Media isn't exactly what we would call "eager" to challenge God's Candidate on any of these issues.

So, here we go again .. this simple talk show host (right wing, hate-filled shock jock, I believe they call us) is going to use some basic logic and the ability to actually read newspapers to catch you up to speed on just what the Big BO is saying here. Now if you're educated in our wonderful government schools you may find this challenging. Stick with it. In spite of what the government has done to you, you can generate some new brain cells that will help you deal with this stuff. It would also help if you got your campaign news from somewhere other than Saturday Night Live.

Here we go, front and center with Barack Obama!

"I'm going to cut taxes for 95% of Americans."

This Obama promise has already been pretty much debunked in the media. The problem is that it hasn't been debunked on the Black Entertainment Television network or on Inside Edition or Entertainment Tonight. Until these television outlets bring forth the facts most of Obama's supporters won't know the truth.

And what is the truth? The truth is that almost one-half of working Americans eligible to vote don't pay federal income taxes in the first place. This brings forth the interesting question of how do you cut taxes for people who don't pay taxes. What Obama has done here is change the definition of "tax cut."

It used to be that when the government walked up to someone who had just received their paycheck and said 'Gimme some of that," and the government then gave that money to someone else who had not earned it; that was called welfare. Now apparently you can't get welfare if you're working ... so we'll just call it income seizure and redistribution. Under Obama a couple earning, for example, $70,000 and owing no federal income taxes at all will get several checks from Obama's federal taxpayer-funded treasury. These checks will be called "tax cuts."

So .. for those who don't pay taxes, here are some of the "tax cut" checks you'll be getting from The Chosen One. I'm taking some literary license here and replacing the words "tax credit" with the word "payment." That literary flourish brings us much closer to the truth. Here are your goodies; come and get 'em:

A $500 "make work pay" payment.
A $4,000 payment for college tuition.
A payment equal to 10% of your mortgage interest
A payment equal to 50% of the amount of money you put into a savings account up to $1000.
A payment equal to 50% of the amount of money you pay for child care up to $6000.
A payment of up to $7,000 if you purchase a "clean car." By that Obama means an environmentally correct car.
Plus ... an expansion of the earned income tax credit .. increased payments on top of your earnings if the government doesn't feel you are earning enough.

There you go ... Obama's "tax cuts." Sounds pretty good, doesn't it. Well, I guess it is, if you're not too successful it IS pretty good. Remember, the harder you work the lower these payments get. Barack Obama's tax plans are all about punishing success and rewarding failure. He understands that if it weren't for failures, Democrats would be scrounging in the alleys for votes.

It's rather ironic that the Obama campaign will go to the mat with critics over the definition of "socialist," but feel absolutely free to change the definition of "tax cut" to anything that suits them.

"95% of small businesses won't pay any more taxes."

Once people started hearing that the very people that Obama wanted to raise taxes on are the people we depend on for jobs, The BO campaign had to come up with a line to neuter the "small business" argument. Barack Obama knows he's in trouble if the voters find out that 70% of all extant jobs are in the small business sector and that 80% of all new jobs are coming from small businesses. So, Obama comes up with this line about 95% of small businesses not paying any more taxes under his plan.

Here's the trick. Let me illustrate reality with a simple comparison. Let's say that we have 1000 small businesses. About 950 of them, that would be 95%, employ one or two people each for a total employment figure of 1,200. Now let's assume that the other 50 businesses employ anywhere from 20 people to hundreds of people for a total of about 250,000 workers. If someone comes along and says 95% of small businesses won't be affected by his tax increases, how do you feel? You know that the tax increase is going to slam those businesses that employ 250,000 workers, while leaving the 95% of businesses that employ just 1,200 people alone. Quite a deal, huh. Aren't you impressed?

The point here is that it's not the percentage of small businesses your tax increases hit, it's the percentage of small business employees. Unfortunately that nuance is lost on the majority of voters educated by the government, and the MoveOn Media sure isn't going to take the time to explain it to you. Obama's tax increases are going to hit the small business owners who employ the most people. They are the ones that make the most money. These business owners are going to respond to the tax increases one of two ways. They'll increase prices -- which hit all of us -- or they'll cut expenses. Their number one expense? Personnel. Vote for Obama, say TTFN to your job. Makes perfect sense to me, but then I was government educated too.

"John McCain voted with George Bush 90% of the time."

First of all, George Bush doesn't cast votes in the U.S. Senate, though McCain and Obama do. The best way to judge how they vote is to see how often they vote with their respective parties. You might want to get those nuisance resolutions proclaiming the need for a colonoscopy every once in a while out of the way. That would leave some key votes for you to consider. The Congressional Research Service did the work. They looked at votes for Obama and McCain on KEY issues. The results? Barack Obama voted with Democrats 97% of the time. John McCain voted with the Republicans 79% of the time. Now .. just sit on your hands and wait for the MoveOn Media to report that one. Sit on your hands, but for God's sake don't hold your breath.

"John McCain wants to tax your health insurance benefits."

He's right, but here's the rest of the story. Let's say that you and your brother work for different companies. Your company provides you with health insurance. Your brother has to buy his own. Your boss gets a tax deduction for the cost of your health insurance. Your brother does not get a tax deduction for the cost of his health insurance. In effect, he is paying much more than you are for the same policy. Not fair. There's a reason for this. For decades government has wanted to coerce you into getting insurance through your employer. This gets you acclimated to the idea of someone else -- someone besides yourself -- is responsible for your health care. The end result is that the government, in effect, subsidizes the cost of your health insurance, but not your brother's. Now McCain has this idea of a $5,000 tax credit for every family to pay for their own health insurance policy. To make this work everyone has to start from the same starting line. Remember, you're subsidized, your brother is not. So McCain takes away the tax deduction your employer gets for your health insurance. There ... now we're all of equal standing when the $5,000 tax credits start coming out.

Now that wasn't too hard, was it?

Now .. just in case you've read something here, heard something on my show or gathered some information from some other source that might cause you to switch your vote from Obama to McCain ... just remember. You're a racist. There is only one reason NOT to vote for Barack Obama, and that's if you're a robe-wearing, cross-burning Klansman. Just so you know. You're going to have that on your conscience.

http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html

You must be dizzy from all that spinning. :rolleyes:

I had to snip as the post was too long.

God's Candidate? Wow. I thought he was Muslim.
Those wonderful schools have been run by the Republican Government for 8 years - I should hope they are wonderful.
Oh. If you're assuming a majority vote for Obama, then the majority of Americans are facile, shallow and stupid. Goodness. Well, you said it, I suppose you would know.
Hang on - one half of Americans don't pay federal income tax. At present. Under the current Government. So I guess that's okay, right? But how can working people benefit in that case? Because of course it's about the workers and not about those who have not earned it.
Sooooooo, all those seem to be about people in work, getting rewarded for making choices that are good for America and good for the world.
Eh? It seems skewed to benefit families, those in work, those paying mortgages, those in education, those making ecological choices... Can't see no benefits fo crack hos there bro.[quote]
Hmmmm. How many people here work for a small business. Raise your hands? New jobs, yes. Because established companies don't create new jobs, they just expand. New businesses are small businesses and they create jobs out of nothing.
What? "Let's say" that this isn't the case at all and play with the figures that way. Let's say does not present any accurate facts, it's supposition.
So the taxes are higher for the most successful businesses. I'm shocked. Bear in mind they are taxed on profits, and salaries are accounted for before profits are calculated. Still, we'll see shall we. If all the small businesses go to the wall if Obama is elected we'll know you were right.
Hang on, we're back to all Americans are stupid again, aren't we?
And now we're back to Let's Say. Ooh I like this game!
No it wasn't, but then I wasn't educated in America, which apparently makes you a moron.
Oh right. Blimey, and I thought you were serious about all the above. Now I realise it was just a joke and that was all a pile of shit. Phew! Thanks!

Just goes to show we each see what we want to see. Yay, 8 days left.

I know.
And I do accept my bias.

But on the flip side I don't watch Michael Moore films now because I know you could drive a bus through his arguments and it annoys me.

OMG - Did you just find that out? He is as full of shit, if not more, than the asshats on the right. The problem is position allows him to reach a lot more people than the others.

I didn't just find that out, no.
I came to that conclusion watching his first film with my right-wing bf.
He was so impressed that I could spot left wing spin we had fantastic sex.

Thanks Mike.

Hey Muslims believe in God, but I believe Obama is a Christian.

Actualy, our republickins don't run the schools, neither do the demoncrats for that matter.

Boortz rocks... :p

Now Bruce, your resolute intellectual dishonesty does you no credit whatsoever.

If you cannot sustain a belief in the Democrats without insisting that clear-eyed analysis of the situation that is unfavorable to the Dem's economic illiteracies must somehow be driven by some hidden agenda and be mendacious, you probably are backing the wrong horse, aren't you?

The Dems aren't good enough for either of us.

I'll vote for anyone you're not.:p

And the Republicans aren't good for anyone, anywhere...except for rich people. The rest of us are cannon fodder and cows to be milked.

Face it...they all suck.

I have to say that I find it pretty funny when UG talks about the Dems being illiterate. He obviously hasn't heard Sarah Palin try and make a speech yet...and let's not forget Georgies oratory skills. lol

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi says after the election she would like to see Congress back in session to pass a second stimulus package.

"will do better job" This is the kind of stuff that really pisses me off. Her congress has done the worst job of any congress in history - How could they possibly do any worse? Oh notice that she trots out another "stimulus package" READ PORK that can't wait till January? Gee - congress created this mess and it took 115+ in pork and bribes to pass that - How much is this next one gonna cost?

Let's see. She is only doing what then entire George Jr administration has been doing for eight years to create this problem. Oh. The Republican Congress also eliminated the regulations that made this whole meltdown possible. But somehow the people who created this meltdown by also lowering the American income by 2% - they don't quality as a 'worst Congress ever'? Your wacko extremist bias is showing again. Put down your skirt.

tw, which regulations did the republican congress eliminate that caused the current mess?

Brother, if Obama is elected you are about to get milked like a fucking whore with triplets. Let the milking begin and don't tell me I didn't tell ya so.

Some of the so many posted previously in other threads.

Others not mentioned. Basel 1 that defines equity required to be held. Investment banks were exempted from this international standard by the George Jr administration. Where did the liquidity crisis hit hardest? Where the exemptions were was most aggressively flaunted.

Basel 2 which addressed these stability threats to include the latest investment vehicles. Basel 2 is standard throughout the world. Large American (international) banks that also had to meet Basel 2 remained stable. But George Jr refused to implement Basel 2. After all, with higher debt to equity ratios, then profits can be higher. Basel 2 would only harm profits - and those campaign contributions.

Previously noted: the 1990s Republican Congress threatened to eliminate all SEC funding if Clinton tried to increase SEC enforcement. We liked spread sheets myths in Waste Management, Tyco, and later in Enron. We liked letting them create a mythical CA energy crisis - and no one gets investigated. Clinton administration was forced to have an SEC without any funding increases - a compromise with the Republicans who threatened to eliminate the SEC. Oklahoma had to prosecute before George Jr would consider prosecuting Enron.

Suddenly mortgages are issued with virtually no underwriting? This all happened because no regulations were changed? No. This happened with S&L style changes combined with diminished regulation enforcement. No wonder Harvey Pitts, doing the party agenda, refused to accept more money for the SEC even after Enron.

These stories are long, numerous, AND explain why, during the current meltdown, nobody can trust the fiscal stability of their counter parties - the freezing of credit markets.

Not that I expect loyal Republican extremist to admit to any of this. In fact, Republican extremists will even deny that investment banks were permitted by George Jr's administration to increase debt to equity ratios from 12:1 to 30:1. Or that AIG's ratio may be $1trillion to $67billion. Clearly the meltdown is only the usual cyclic market activity.

One would expect the Congress and administration to crack down on equity rating agencies after Long Term Capital Management. Nope. Another precursor to what has now happened – ignored because we did not want to regulate our financial firms. After LTCM, little was done. Finance corporations that most need more regulation and have a long history of deserving such regulation. Finance industry does not create American wealth – too often leaches on what creates American wealth.

What do we do? Predicted long ago by this poster - the government will put out something under $2trillion in corporate welfare. Instead of eliminating the biggest reason for our meltdown - top management - instead we are rewarding this nation's least productive companies.

Well GM will get another $10billion for being one of the most anti-American companies in this country. How do they qualify? First they must become more of a finance company. Why do we not reward productive companies with $2trillion? Instead we reward the companies who get the most regulation? Instead we protect the management most responsible for this meltdown? Yes, that is what the Republicans did for over a decade and now what some Democrats are doing in a desperate (and somewhat misguided) attempt to fix the damage.

What created the S&L crisis? Deregulation. What created this current economic meltdown? Insufficient regulation and so little enforcement that everyone rewrote contract to be 'regulated' by the Feds - not by the states where regulations were not diminished or eliminated.

Even the unibomber has more education than TheMercenary. Even the unibomber does not worship what George Jr tells him to think. So which one is crazier - TheMercenary or the unibomber? Good question.

Point to ONE. Just ONE.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122403045717834693.html

. . .

[citation needed]

Meanwhile at the liberal thugocracy front,

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content...0.html?sid=101

"Joe the Plumber": whatever you think of him, he has now been searched for by public officials at four Ohio databases, including welfare, child support, and unemployment compensation.

Their defense: such searches are routine when somebody is thrust into a public spotlight. :eek: :mad2:

Lesson learned: it's dangerous to speak politically in public.

Welcome to the new liberal Government of the US. Motto: "Trust us, we know what is best for you."

Here is another one, "If we don't like what you have to say we will make laws to muzzle you":

http://www.nypost.com/seven/10202008...399.htm?page=2

I really do feel for this guy. I know he was probably a plant at the Obama rally, but I doubt he was prepared to be under this much scrutiny. If he was a plant, shame on the republicans for shoving him into the limelight...and whether he was or not, shame on the rest for pursuing him.

Oh don't feel sorry for the man. He's gotten himself an agent!

"Bush Did It!" - tw

TheMercenary could not even graduate from college. Even the unibomber did that. Even George Jr did that. Even Sarah Palin is rumored to have done that.

I graduated from college 2 times! :D So why did you delete your multi-paragraph rambling's on tw. Does it make you angry when I make fun of how you blame everything on Bush and make completely false claims without any footnotes or citations?

That looks like a hypocritical statement. IS that tw attacking or mocking or disparaging another poster? Is that not what tw claims to dislike abhor and accuse others for doing? Seems like it to me.

Where does the FDIC legislation make Enron accounting illegal? It does not. The 1991 legislation addresses principles from Basel 1 - an international standard for how much equity a bank must hold. Equity in banking – not public corporation accounting standards.

BTW, the US is the only nation that does not comply to the International standards for accounting? The US standards are different from the rest of the world.

Only American banks required to meet Basel 2 are those who operate internationally. And those are the banks that have been so stable during this meltdown. Where did George Jr implement Basel 2? He did not even do that.

Enron style accounting remains so common as to even be evident in AIG just before its collapse. The detail cited in numerous other posts. Yes, the auditor had doubts. But today's deregulated accounting and near zero SEC enforcement made it difficult even for the internal auditor or PriceWaterhouse to see that AIG was collapsing.

Fortunately we have the accounting that a business school graduate - George Jr - wants. So what happened to all that cash in the Highway Trust Fund that the spread sheets say is still there? Sabanes-Oxley does not even require the president to sign off on the accounting.

UT tells us that the new American deregulated accounting standards are good? UT - show me where Enron style accounting practices were made illegal. You cannot. AIG was fully involved in hiding losses even just before the collapse. So what are these 'surprise' AIG losses that have already consumed $120billion? UT tells us everyone knew about these losses? Hardly. Due to today's deregulated accounting, nobody knows how much more AIG will lose.

So you are a liar as well as a poster of insults and mockery. How curious that right wing wacko extremists are perverse liars.

Why do you want to turn the Cellar into a playground of insult and mockery?

I don't know anything about Merc's truthiness, but I know liars attract liars, and they run in packs. I hope it's not catching.

It's pretty simple, someone lies once about something major, they'll lie about everything else too.

Sad, ain't it? :headshake

:D

:D 2 times! :D

TW #82: The Republican Congress also eliminated the regulations that made this whole meltdown possible.

L123 #83: tw, which regulations did the republican congress eliminate that caused the current mess?

TW #85: Some of the so many posted previously in other threads.

UT #88: Point to ONE. Just ONE.

TW #97: (doesn't point to one)

Question is repeated for clarity:

tw, which regulations did the republican congress eliminate that caused the current mess?

adult is to go and find the previously posted replies
childish is to yell and scream in bold letters

i really regret losing the password for tw. any chance you could reset that and set it to a new email for me?

its the same as anonymous now

uh oh - this sounds dangerous.

yes, no good can possibly come of it.

If you're wanted for breaking the law, it's dangerous to do a lot of things that might let the authorities know where to find you.

Oh yeah - the R's picked HIM as a plant - hardly. But I agree with you on the shame on the D's for hounding the living shit out of Joe NOBODY.

It's like this:

You take off your shirt and wave your titties all over the place. Then you say "STOP LOOKING AT MY TITTIES!"

If you believe that he wasn't planted, you're more oblivious than I could have believed. Even the Rs aren't denying that.

Shove your "hard working American family man downtrodden business owner who doesn't really own a business" in people's face, then people get to gawk at the hard working titties.

Currently there is absolutely no evidence to prove or support the notion that Joe the Plumber was a plant. If there is I would like someone to show it.

Except that he hadn't broken the law Clod, so S123's analogy is kind of like getting your titties put up on the Internet by your doctor when you announced to the public that you have a broken toe. If you don't want your titties on the Internet, don't complain about a broken toe.

Now the official who looked into the database -- a maxed-out Obama donor, according to public record that anybody can look up -- that was breaking the law.

I say let her go if she puts up her titties on the net.

I want to see them first. Then you can fire her.

I'll agree that the employee was way out of line. When I read that I thought "Uh, privacy laws, folks."

The initial act of putting him out there, unless you're completely naive about this campaign process, was so freaking obvious. Come on.

You want to believe it is true. But really no one has any evidence that it is the case. How about this? The guy is just some joe who asks an honest question that totally catches Obamy and his handlers off guard. Obamy steps on it big time wth his response and the repubs exploit it. Much more logical and believable.

No Merc, the simplicity & logic of your reasoning makes me incredulous. Its far more believable that there is a grand conspiracy.

What I love is how t-dub has you two pegged! :lol: Silly young lovers.

I could write your posts before you do. I'm more inclined to actually listen to Merc, because he does tend to say more than "look at how you suck...your posts suck, hey everyone can I get some validation that t-dub sucks because I am like a little dog in the tall grass always jumping up to see what everyone else is doing."

A short liar AND a boring jellyfish. Seriously, you should reconsider your existence.

:lol2:

Now that right there is some funny shite. :lol2: :lame: :fumette:

Time for the chime in:

C: Yes, you're right about the shite!

Wait for it...

Kind of like Steve and Edie being Sinatra's puppies.

It really bothers you that people agree on something you and others may disagree on. It's not that big of a deal. This is just a conversation. I mean you don't have to join in it if you don't want to, I would rather you did join the conversation. But if you don't understand the subject you don't need to join it if you choose not to, I don't think anyone is going to think less of you. I don't fully understand it all either, but I am trying. And the more I educate myself the more I realize if Obamy gets elected this country may get something they didn't bargin for in the long run. Hey I am good for it. Be careful what you wish for. I think post election we are going to go through some serious economic hardships, significant lay offs, corprate flight, followed by more lay offs, and more people who can't pay the bills or feed their families. Hey that's just me MHO. Good luck.

Right, he hadn't broken the law (i.e., been behind on child support payments or received welfare when he had demonstrable income) which means he wasn't in the databases to find in the first place. From your article:

Furthermore, it's not illegal to search for someone in the database, that's what they're there for. When you are pulled over for speeding, they check you in the outstanding warrants database too. It would have been illegal to publicly release someone's welfare or unemployment status, but they didn't do that--and in the case of child support, there's nothing private about it in the first place. The dollar amounts are part of public court proceedings, and if you don't pay you have committed a crime which is also public information.