Pete Zicato;720959 wrote:
What Obama has and hasn't done is less troubling to me still than Iraq, Afghanistan, & the Wall Street debacle.
Big Sarge;720997 wrote:I'm glad he pulled us out Iraq. But wait, we have 50,000 troops still there with units scheduled from MS to re-deploy there this fall. At least he kept his promise of closing Gitmo, right?
someliberalguy wrote:Thank goodness McCain has decided to run for re-election. I don't know how many [I]dictators[/I] we might still have if we didn't have a War Veteran at the helm (plus Momma Bear). Plus, he has done miracles with the economy. Why has even been able to hold fuel costs down. The national average was a whopping $1.79 a gallon in 2008. Think how high it would be now if it wasn't for his leadership.
Big Sarge;720944 wrote:Thank goodness Obama has decided to run for re-election. I don't know how many wars/conflicts we might be in if we didn't a Nobel Peace Prize recepient at the helm. Plus, he has done miracles with the economy. Why has even been able to hold fuel costs down. The national average was a whopping $1.79 a gallon in 2008. Think how high it would be now if it wasn't for his leadership.
Big Sarge;721332 wrote:Spexxvet - Of course I'm a Republican! The majoity of troops I serve with are ardent Republicans who strongly support the actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm a veteran law enforcement officer and you sure don't find many liberals in this profession who have worked street level enforcement. I'm a gun collector and hunter. Those don't exactly jeehaw with liberal idealogy. I'm from Mississippi and liberal democrats don't seem to do well down here.
So as a "God-fearing Christian", who has sworn an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States and risked his life to uphold the law, why would you expect me to be anything but a Republican?
theMercenary wrote:Liberals hate the Second Amendment.
plthijinx;722753 wrote:fuck obama.
he rose too fast in the political arena to handle being president. he cannot do the job. bullshit gets you to the top but actions keep you there.
...Simpson really laid into his party, starting with abortion.
"Who the hell is for abortion? I don't know anybody running around with a sign that says 'Have an abortion, they're wonderful.' They're hideous. But they're a deeply intimate and personal decision and I don't think men legislators should even vote on the issue."
Simpson also went off on Republicans for their stance on gay rights, singling out potential 2012 nominee Rick Santorum as the worst offender.
"...We have homophobes in our party. That's disgusting to me. We're all human beings. We're all God's children. Now, if they're going to get off on that stuff...Now, you know, that's the kind of guys that are going to be on my ticket, you know, it makes you sort out hard what Reagan said, you know, 'stick with your folks.' But I'm not sticking with people who are homophobic, anti-women, you know, moral values while you're diddling your secretary, while you're giving a speech on moral values. Come on, get off of it."
http://www.businessinsider.com/alan-simpson-chris-matthews-gop-homophobic-anti-women-video-2011-4
plthijinx;722826 wrote:he rose in Illinois very quickly. he said the right things to the people. basically what people wanted to hear, you know the routine, promise this promise that then don't follow through. typical politician. then he kept on saying what people wanted to hear. now, granted i didn't get to vote against him, and i would have, because of my hiatus from society. but i am able to vote now. i just believe that he hasn't done a very good job as president and believe he will be a one termer. he has done nothing but help gas prices rise for example. cancelling permits and leases like they're going out of style. among other things. i don't expect everyone to accept my views but i sure won't change mine. he sucks. plain and simple. bush wasn't hardly any better. hell i wish we could go back to the clinton era.
BigV;722413 wrote:hey mercy....
*I* am a Liberal, and I'll tell you what *I* hate: useless, overbroad generalizations that do nothing but fuel prejudice and masquerade as understanding. Like, say, :
I refuse to believe you believe that. And yet, you repeat it. I do not hate the Second Amendment. Don't exacerbate our serious problems by perpetuating misinformation.
TheMercenary;723456 wrote:By and large it is quite a true statement. Why would you believe otherwise? Because you are an exception to that rule?????
So you are the exception. Look at only from a legislative point of view and see how many politicians on the Left of center support restrictive gun control. I don't see how you could make such a silly statement.
Fair&Balanced;723550 wrote:I think the legislative records of most liberals would show that they are closer to the mainstream than to the alleged position you ascribe to them. In fact, their "legislative point of view" being that reasonable restrictions, like those in the Brady Law, are not an infringement of Second Amendment rights and that Second Amendment rights are not absolute, a position that has been affirmed by the Supreme Court on several occasions, most recently by the current conservative court.
There are extremists on the far left who would go further than those reasonable and legal restrictions just as there are extremists on the right who would ignore the First Amendment establishment clause.
But sweeping generalizations about liberals or conservatives are just another example of extremism at work and cant be supported by the facts.
Urbane Guerrilla;723532 wrote:V, frankly if you're going to take that attitude and not immediately improve simply everyone's understanding of the liberal mind vis-à-vis the Second, you'll deserve some pretty rough handling. Do you recognize that you are not helping -- only grousing?
I'd have a much better idea you esteem the Second Amendment if I saw you taking up the cudgels in its defense and its propagation, to convert minds away from the criminal, genocidal way. So there's the gauntlet I toss: do it or STFU it. If it's important enough, you won't care about how much attitude I'm giving you, right?
--clip
Fair&Balanced;723550 wrote:snip--
There are extremists on the far left who would go further than those reasonable and legal restrictions just as there are extremists on the right who would ignore the First Amendment establishment clause.
But sweeping generalizations about liberals or conservatives are just another example of extremism at work and cant be supported by the facts.
BigV;723780 wrote:"Liberals hate the second amendment" is a sweeping generalization.
Sweeping generalizations are useless as a means of understanding.
Persisting in the use of sweeping generalizations is to avoid attempting to understand.
I can not, and will not attempt to reach understanding with anyone who would avoid that shared effort.
As long as you believe I hate the second amendment, we have nothing to talk about. I will leave you in peace and ignorance.
TheMercenary;724332 wrote:The web is filled with the congressional voting records, look them up.
The Brady Bill was passed during an overwhelmingly majority of Liberal Dems in Congress, it was nothing more than an ugly gun ban. It was a complete failure and thankfully overturned.
What they have done is to vote to restrict the full rights of the Second Amendment by chipping away at the elements of the Amendment.Fair&Balanced;724335 wrote:The Brady bill simply requires background checks, waiting periods, etc. with overwhelming public support. Hardly an ugly gun ban.How they look:Expired in 2004, congress elected not to renew, same as overturned to me, although technically not overturned.
A semiautomatic rifle that accepts a detachable magazine and has:
(i) a folding or telescoping stock,
(ii) a threaded barrel,
(iii) a pistol grip (which includes ANYTHING that can serve as a grip, see
below),
(iv) a forward grip; or a barrel shroud.
Any semiautomatic rifle with a fixed magazine that can accept more than
10 rounds (except tubular magazine .22 rim fire rifles).
A semiautomatic pistol that has the ability to accept a
detachable magazine, and has:
(i) a second pistol grip,
(ii) a threaded barrel,
(iii) a barrel shroud or
(iv) can accept a detachable magazine outside of the pistol grip, and
(v) a semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10
rounds.
A semiautomatic shotgun with:
(i) a folding or telescoping stock,
(ii) a pistol grip (see definition below),
(iii) the ability to accept a detachable magazine or a fixed magazine capacity
of more than 5 rounds, and
(iv) a shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
Frames or receivers for the above are included, along with conversion kits.
Attorney General gets carte blanche to ban guns at will: Under the proposal, the U.S. Attorney General can add any "semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General."
[quote]I misses that it was overturned. Please cite.
if you are claiming that a majority of liberals in Congress have voted to ban the possession of firearms by lawful citizens, please cite that as well.
Nice try. He can't get it passed and he knows it. So they use other means to make guns un-obtainable. You deny this?Fair&Balanced;724341 wrote:Wait. has Obama ever voted for a federal law that would ban the personal possession of firearms by lawful citizens.
Nope.
It's not about the NRA or background checks, which most people have come to accept and I support. But that does not imply support for the Brady Bill.Fair&Balanced;724341 wrote:The fact is that the NRA doesnt like the Brady Law (which, bwt, was never overturned and has widespread support well beyond the far left), so if you support the Brady Law, then according to the NRA and you, you hate the Second Amendment.
The Brady bill simply requires background checks, waiting periods, etc.You need to do more research.
TheMercenary;724354 wrote:
You need to do more research.
Fair&Balanced;724360 wrote:This from one who said it was overturned?
One section was overturned, requiring the states to do the background checks (on 10th amendment grounds, not Second Amendment) and which became irrelevant a year later when the NICS was implemented.
I didn't say Brady background check, you did.Fair&Balanced;724355 wrote:I am still trying to understand how the Brady background check, which is the guts of the bill, means hating the Second Amendment.
What part of the law dont you like or implies hating the Second Amendment?Ugly gun ban which restricts firearm ownership.
I do not. Could you please cite where the majority of liberal Democrats did not support legislative action which impeded or further restricted gun rights?Fair&Balanced;724370 wrote:I think if you look objectively, this is where you will find most liberals and most Americans.
TheMercenary;724372 wrote:I do not. Could you please cite where the majority of liberal Democrats did not support legislative action which impeded or further restricted gun rights?
It has, I think more so because when Obama made his voice known about what he thinks about gun owners in general, and the backlash that followed, he realized he was going to lose votes from rural Demoncrative voters, ala Deer Hunting for Jesus voters. With other pressing concerns since him taking office he just has not gotten to it yet. All the more reason it is imperative that he become a One Term President. But the undercurrent and plans to alter gun rights in this country is an undercurrent that has not gone un-noticed by those of us who are committed to their preservations. Great question...Undertoad;724376 wrote:Is it just me, or has gun control as a topic of legislation really faded away since Brady?
Ok, so you didn't look at a single link I posted. I get your schtick now...Fair&Balanced;724394 wrote:I would, but there is no (zero, nada) legislation in the last 10 years where a majority of liberal Democrats supported legislative action to further restrict gun rights.
The only laws that even made it out of committee (and passed) in recent years was the NICS Improvement Act to improve the instant check system. Passed by voice vote and Bush signed into law.Tell us again why you ignore that Brady was not renewed in toto?
TheMercenary;724434 wrote:Ok, so you didn't look at a single link I posted. I get your schtick now...
Tell us again why you ignore that Brady was not renewed in toto?
As stated previously I have no problem with the background check provisions.
Fair&Balanced;724448 wrote:What schtick?
There was no Democratic or liberal majority voting in favor of any restrictions on gun ownership.
TheMercenary;724458 wrote:Again you fail to follow the links I have posted. I am done with your cowardliness to address the issues at hand. Enjoy your conversation.
Why didn't you follow any of my links again? Please explain?Fair&Balanced;724459 wrote:Ah.
So there is no legislative record that you point to that would demonstrate factually that liberals in Congress would restrict gun ownership.
Its been fun.
Show me one with false information on voting records and defend it.Fair&Balanced;724463 wrote:Show me one of your links that had factual information on voting records and we can discuss it.
BigV;723780 wrote:"Liberals hate the second amendment" is a sweeping generalization.
Sweeping generalizations are useless as a means of understanding.
Persisting in the use of sweeping generalizations is to avoid attempting to understand.
I can not, and will not attempt to reach understanding with anyone who would avoid that shared effort.
As long as you believe I hate the second amendment, we have nothing to talk about. I will leave you in peace and ignorance.
Pico and ME;723972 wrote:Big V --->:thumb:
Merc ---> :brikwall:
"I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes." - President Obama, Sept. 12, 2008.
Beginning in January of 2012, ObamaCare imposes a 3.8% Medicare tax on unearned income, including the sale of single family homes, townhouses, co-ops, condominiums, and even rental income. This tax covers all income levels.
In reality, this is sadly similar to a "good news / bad news" joke.
The bad news is that the President is going to make you pay capital gains on any profit you make selling your home.
The good news is that during Obama's watch, the value of your house has fallen significantly.
In fairness, we hasten to add that this is not all his fault. The Bush Administration and Republicans and Democrats alike are also to blame.
The UIMCT broadens the Medicare tax base for higher-income taxpayers by imposing a 3.8% surtax on the lesser of: (1) "net investment income"; or (2) the excess of adjusted gross income [AGI], increased by any foreign earned income otherwise excluded from AGI, over the taxpayer's threshold amount. For single and head-of-household taxpayers the threshold amount is $200,000. For married couples filing a joint return, and surviving spouses, the threshold amount is $250,000. For a married person filing a separate return the threshold amount is $125,000.
http://research.lawyers.com/blogs/archives/5798-New-3.8-Medicare-Surtax-on-Unearned-Income.html
THRESHOLD AMOUNT.—For purposes of this chapter, the
term ‘threshold amount’ means—
‘‘(1) in the case of a taxpayer making a joint return under section 6013 or a surviving spouse (as defined in section 2(a)), $250,000, ‘‘(2) in the case of a married taxpayer (as defined in section 7703) filing a separate return, 1⁄2 of the dollar amount determined under paragraph (1), and ‘‘(3) in any other case, $200,000.
http://www.healthcare.gov/center/authorities/section1402_unearnedincomemedicarecontribution.pdf
Fair&Balanced;725656 wrote:Dont you think the column is misleading, or more to the point, factually incorrect, by saying that it "covers all income levels" (it does not) and not mentioning the income threshold?
President Obama declared today's 41st annual Earth Day proof of America's ecological and conservation spirit—then completed a three-day campaign-style trip logging 10,666 miles on Air Force One, eating up some 53,300 gallons at a cost of about $180,000. And that doesn't include the fuel consumption of his helicopter, limo, or the 29 other vehicles that travel with that car.
TheMercenary;726004 wrote:No.
Fair&Balanced;726240 wrote:(still laughing at the claim the Brady bill was an ugly gun ban).
Happy Monkey;726838 wrote:Nothing more than... x ... among other things.
Does not compute.
Fair&Balanced;726884 wrote:Perhaps he is referring to barrel length, muzzle velocity, penis envy and conserative manhood.
TheMercenary;724921 wrote:Can't agree with it all but there are some really good points here....
http://www.thedemocrat.com/site/news.cfm?BRD=1867&dept_id=124331&newsid=20460109&PAG=461&rfi=9
Fair&Balanced;725656 wrote:What the above column does not mention is that the tax only applies to higher income taxpayers.
--missing--
added:
From the text of the law on the Unearned Income Medicare Contribution:
--missing--
Dont you think the column is misleading, or more to the point, factually incorrect, by saying that it "covers all income levels" (it does not) and not mentioning the income threshold?
Big Sarge;720997 wrote:I'm glad he pulled us out Iraq. But wait, we have 50,000 troops still there with units scheduled from MS to re-deploy there this fall. At least he kept his promise of closing Gitmo, right?
TheMercenary;727068 wrote:All of them are biased to some degree. Everyone should read as much as they can and make their own decisions based on the information they can gather. IMHO Obamy Rhamed through a program that favored the insurance companies.
TheMercenary;727068 wrote:All of them are biased to some degree. Everyone should read as much as they can and make their own decisions based on the information they can gather. IMHO Obamy Rhamed through a program that favored the insurance companies.
The reason gas prices of $4.00+ a gallon in 2011 feel so painful, is because wealth disparity has been widening exponentially over the past several decades, where the rich are getting filthy rich and the poor and middle class have seen their incomes stagnate or even be lowered. Incomes aren't keeping pace with inflation, so even though today's gas prices are on par with 1970s gas prices in equivalent dollar value, the middle class don't have as many dollars to spend.infinite monkey;721133 wrote:
2008 gas prices?
If it doesn't blow your mind and/or piss you off, you have no concern about the future of this nation.
One thing I've never been accused of is being shy. :DBigV;727496 wrote:
come on, don't be shy. You're among friends.
tell us how you *really* feel.
:)
Don't jump! Don't jump! Call your Senators instead! Make them want to jump -- through hoops, to get us what we demand!! :thumb2:infinite monkey;727499 wrote:
I love it jill!
Wow..."insuring that we have a strong working and middle class" and "this path is unsustainable."
So what I've said and thought for so long.
It makes me sick that robots don't see this to be true.
I don't even think I love my country anymore. It's just a bad relationship, abused by the more powerful and expected to love it because I "love my country." While the powerful sip congnac and do whatever the hell they want.
It's NOT sustainable, and I really don't even want to be a part of it anymore.
Hallelujah troops and all that aside. You've been snowed.
As to this:
Many are way more concerned about being "correct." Bring on the breadlines and the starvation, just so they can stand with some sort of "I told you so" that they won't even remember ever actually telling us.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to jump off the Brooklyn Bridge. ;)
Welcome back jill.
The best way to address the debt is to reinstate PAYGO -- and this time, mean it. No more of these freaking loopholes that allow bullshit like the Bush/Republican tax cuts, which didn't have to be paid for because they were only "temporary" and set to expire in 10 years -- the outside window for being allowed to be left out of the budget.Fair&Balanced;727766 wrote:Jill:
I agree with much of what you say, particularly the growing income disparity and the lost decade (2001-2010) for the middle class resulting in large part from a shift in policies that made it more advantageous for the wealthy to be able to acquire more wealth by producing nothing rather than focusing on innovation and productivity.
And I agree that the current slash and burn mentality of many of the proposed spending cuts will lead to even greater income disparity and the further stagnation of the middle class as well as limiting the US ability to retool the economy in a way that will restore US competitiveness.
But we do need to address the debt. It is unsustainable and will continue to be a drag on any economic growth and/or prosperity for the middle class. And it will require shared sacrifices, including some programs that may be hard to let go.
The problem is building consensus in an atmosphere of extremism. I dont have the answer of how to achieve that.
We agree on nearly every count. I apologize for not being more clear in my post.Fair&Balanced;727848 wrote:
I dont dispute any of the above....until your conclusion.
PAYGO,if implemented fully and honestly, will prevent any future growth in the debt; it wont help pay down the current debt.
The Bush tax cuts for the top bracket are a significant contributing factor to both present and future debt and should be restored to pre-2001 levels.
The Bush Medicare Prescription Drug reform costs the taxpayers more than the Affordable Care Act ever will.
I'm all for getting out of Iraq immediately and finding the best way to transition out of Afghanistan asap.
Cuts to programs like Planned Parenthood, Head Start, education, workforce investment, etc. are ideological and counter-productive.
We should also eliminate corporate tax subsidies and corporate welfare to big oil, big agriculture, etc.
We should cut defense spending significantly.
We should raise the income base for FICA so that those making over $106K pay the same percentage as those under $106K.
We should reduce the rate paid to providers of Medicare Advantage.
All of the above would certainly prevent the debt from continuing to grow by $trillions/year and would even make a big dent in the current debt level.
We also need to continue to invest in education, health care, job training, transportation and infrastructure, alternative energy, r&d, etc all of which contribute to economic growth.
We cant continue to fund housing assistance programs at current levels that reward people (middle class) who made bad decisions in the past and/or programs that are ineffective.
AND we also need to make fiscally justifiable cuts to other non-defense discretionary spending and that means cutting some popular programs and eliminating others.
IMO, the choice is not between spending cuts or tax increases. It is a combination of both.
Eh. I'm not worried. I can hold my own. Or choose to ignore them if I want. Don't forget, I've debated here before. And not without success. :)Spexxvet;727885 wrote:
Nasty, demeaning comment by lookout123, followed by a dogpile of flint, merc, ug, classic, et al, on Jill in 3.....2....1......
Oh yay, another conspiracy theory! I was hoping we'd get another one of those!Happy Monkey;727979 wrote:
Heh, I wonder if Obama deliberately timed the release of his birth certificate to after this book went to the printer.
Jill;727994 wrote:As for those making $10,000, they pay plenty of taxes,
BigV;727063 wrote:Hey mercy--
which of these three sources is the most credible with respect to facts about the Affordable Care Act? If you please, I'd also like to know why you prefer the one you choose.
number one: http://www.thedemocrat.com/site/news.cfm?BRD=1867&dept_id=124331&newsid=20460109&PAG=461&rfi=9
number two: http://research.lawyers.com/blogs/ar...ed-Income.html
number three: http://www.healthcare.gov/center/aut...ntribution.pdf
BigV;727059 wrote:Hey mercy
Do you understand that the Federal Reserve doesn't work for "Obamy"? He doesn't permit or prohibit any of the actions of the Federal Reserve.
It's true, they both have the best interest of the country at heart, so, often their interests and actions are aligned.
TheMercenary;728392 wrote:You can't run up the credit cards and then cry fowl because you don't have enough money in the bank.
Would you care to point to anywhere in any of my posts where I suggested we just "spend, spend, spend", then "tax"?TheMercenary;728392 wrote:
You can't run up the credit cards and then cry fowl because you don't have enough money in the bank. It is a typical Demoncrat ploy, spend, spend, spend.... tax. Sounds like the days where the Airforce would build a base and put in elaborate quarters and a great O'Club and then cry off because they didn't have enough money for the runway. Blaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.....
Jill;727492 wrote:The reason gas prices of $4.00+ a gallon in 2011 feel so painful, is because wealth disparity has been widening exponentially over the past several decades, where the rich are getting filthy rich and the poor and middle class have seen their incomes stagnate or even be lowered. Incomes aren't keeping pace with inflation, so even though today's gas prices are on par with 1970s gas prices in equivalent dollar value, the middle class don't have as many dollars to spend.
When I started driving in 1977, gas was between $0.35 and $0.45 a gallon. When gas rose to over $1 a gallon in the 90s, no one complained because everyone could afford it. Look at the chart on this site. Note that gas prices didn't start exploding until we started 2 wars in the largest oil-producing region in the world. And so it continues now with Libya, not to mention all the political unrest in several countries throughout the region.
Now look at the graph showing wealth disparity here, and scroll through the next 15 screens. This one is the most sickening.
If it doesn't blow your mind and/or piss you off, you have no concern about the future of this nation.
Guns, abortion, homosexuality -- those are all nothing more than distractions from the real problem this country faces, and that's ensuring that we have a strong and solid middle and working class. The more the wealthy Republicans fight to strip workers of their piddly benefits by comparison to what they're raking in, the more people will be forced into reliance on Government programs. The more people relying on Government programs, the more the Republicans fight to eliminate those programs as too costly. The only place this can lead us is into Third World status, as poverty rises and the government leaves people to fend for themselves on the streets. Don't tell me it can't happen. It's happening right now!
It's an ugly, vicious attack on the very people who have literally built this nation with their blood, sweat and tears. Real Average Earnings have not increased in 50 YEARS! But the best compensated 400 Americans earned on average, $345 MILLION per year!
Republican tax cuts have SIGNIFICANTLY increased the wealth gap.
And it should be no surprise that income inequality is worst in the areas around Wall Street and oil producing states.
This path is unsustainable. Cutting and gutting government services is a make-believe "solution" that will actually only make the problem worse, leading to increased poverty, more unwanted babies whose mothers cannot afford to feed them and nowhere to go to find food or shelter. Private charities could never hope to raise the kinds of funds needed to take care of the volumes of indigent families that will need these services, mostly because there'll be far fewer people with enough disposable income to give.
We need someone in the White House with some common sense on this issue. I'm deeply disappointed that President Obama has fallen prey to the machinations of the Republicans, who have been guiding the narrative in the wrong direction. If we want to stop the bleeding, we need to participate in our government by calling and writing our Representatives and making it clear that we want them and the President to stop being dragged around by the nose and to start exposing the destructive path Republicans are taking us down.
I don't give a shit about guns. Keep all you want. Shoot all the Bambis you want. I don't care if you hate gays, just don't expect our laws to enshrine your personal hatred in it. I don't care if you want to teach and preach abstinence and "the right to life" (even if I find it grossly hypocritical), just don't elevate it to the level of distraction from what's really endangering this country in the here and now.
We have to get real, people!
(Whew! How's that for a first post following my long hiatus? :p: )
There have been some Democrats who have contributed to many of the problems we face. I would never deny that. I don't think I'll ever forgive Bill Clinton for signing Graham-Leach-Bliley and destroying Glass-Steagall. But my recollection is that Republicans had a veto-proof majority in Congress, so his signature was moot anyway (though I'm happy to be corrected if that memory is incorrect).TheMercenary;728411 wrote:
Good post. Although your agnst for one party while ignoring what the other has done or not done over the last 15 or 20 years is a bit over the top.
We can fix a lot of these problems with a flat or fair tax. You could take 100% of the money from the top 1 or 2 percent and it would not finance us out of our problems for a month. Spending has to be cut, period. The deficit needs to be addressed for the long term but not the short term. First cut spending.
TheMercenary;728411 wrote:Good post. Although your agnst for one party while ignoring what the other has done or not done over the last 15 or 20 years is a bit over the top.
We can fix a lot of these problems with a flat or fair tax. You could take 100% of the money from the top 1 or 2 percent and it would not finance us out of our problems for a month. Spending has to be cut, period. The deficit needs to be addressed for the long term but not the short term. First cut spending.
I can't agree. Look what we got for our money. How many jobs were created? At what cost? Many went to pet projects for the Dem majority. Look at the millions spent and the product we got from them.Jill;728422 wrote:And although President Obama had to continue the Republican bailout programs, unfortunately to a greater degree, as more and more devastation to our economy was exposed, it was an absolute necessity to avoid a massive Depression. If John McCain had been elected, he would have been forced to do the exact same thing, and make no mistake, he absolutely would have.
TheMercenary;728429 wrote:I can't agree. Look what we got for our money. How many jobs were created? At what cost? Many went to pet projects for the Dem majority. Look at the millions spent and the product we got from them.
Look at the graph.Fair&Balanced;728423 wrote:Sorta like you forgetting that the biggest deficit spenders over the past 30 years were Bush (#1) and Reagan (#2)
I havent seen any flat or "fair" tax proposal where the numbers work or that is not highly regressive.That is progressive talking points for "make everyone pay something" towards the Federal Income tax.
But, in the meantime, both the CBO and the Joint Econ Committee have found that extending the Bush tax cuts on the top bracket will cost $3-4 billion over the next 10 years.Cut spending.
Fair&Balanced;728433 wrote:Over 1 million private sector jobs created last year; an additonal 250,000+ in each of the first three months of this year. (BLS stats)
After seven straigth quarters of GDP decline in 078-08, seven straight quarters of GDP growth starting when the stimulus program began:
TheMercenary;728435 wrote:At what cost? It was a fucking boondoggle. Not a complete waste, but waste never the less.
Fair&Balanced;728423 wrote:But, in the meantime, both the CBO and the Joint Econ Committee have found that extending the Bush tax cuts on the top bracket will cost $3-4 billion over the next 10 years.
Fair&Balanced;728433 wrote:Over 1 million private sector jobs created last year; an additonal 250,000+ in each of the first three months of this year (BLS stats). Many resutling directly and indirectly from stimulus projects.
After seven straight quarters of GDP decline in 07-08, seven straight quarters of GDP growth starting when the stimulus program kicked in.
What was the probability that would have actually happened? Not every thing that was bailed out needed to be bailed out.Fair&Balanced;728438 wrote:At the cost of avoiding an economy in free fall and a depression that would have been much deeper and lasted much longer.
Also, dont forget that 2/3 of the stimulus funding was for tax cuts and tax relief, mostly for small businesses and middle class, along with increased benefit for large number of unemployed in the preceeding 2-3 years ....the kind of tax cuts that Republicans generally like (maybe not the increased benefits part) but refused to support in the stimulus bill for political reasons.Under TARP or the Stimulus #1 and #2?
TheMercenary;728456 wrote:Under TARP or the Stimulus #1 and #2?
glatt;728442 wrote:Really? That's all? I though it was much more than that.
TheMercenary;728434 wrote:...
That is progressive talking points for "make everyone pay something" towards the Federal Income tax.
Cut spending.
I don't buy that argument at all. Men wouldn't know they have erectile dysfunction? People wouldn't know they have arthritis or asthma?glatt;728464 wrote:
The advertisements for drugs is pretty weird, and I would prefer it if they weren't on tv, but the argument in favor of them is that some consumers won't even know there is a drug that can help them unless those commercials exist.
You missed the point of the linked story. That company didn't invent or create that drug. They hadn't even been manufacturing it. It was being done "on the side" by compounding pharmacies for $10 a pop. Then the government came in (with the support of March of Dimes, ftr) and assigned a drug company to start manufacturing that drug, prohibited the compounding pharmacies from doing it anymore, and the drug company, who had nothing whatsoever to do with developing that drug, jacked up the price to $1,500 a shot. How is that "free market"? How is that in any way, shape or form "fair"? Especially to the American taxpayer who's going to have to start picking up the $30 million dollar tab for this??glatt;728464 wrote:
I disagree with you on patents. The idea of a patent is that you invent something and then it's yours. You can keep other people from making that item until the patent expires. The tradeoff is that in the patent, you tell the world how you did it, so that once the patent has expired, human knowledge is advanced, and other people can build upon that invention. The term of a patent is only 20 years. If you take patent protection away from some people or companies, why in the world would they bother to invent anything? People are just going to steal their invention.
There are lots of drugs out there that are no longer covered by patents. I take generic claritin this time of year because my allergies act up. That patent expired a few years ago and that drug, which is quite helpful to me, is now available for my use for a very low price.
Jill;728508 wrote:You missed the point of the linked story.
Fair&Balanced;728481 wrote:
Strictly ARRA (stimulus) - 1/3 tax cuts and tax relief (middle class and small business), 1/3 benefit increases (UI, COBRA extensions, etc) and 1/3 grants/contracts (job creation)
Great, dispute the assumptions. I mean since "every thing you have seen" and a number of major economies have failed at this attempt. Can you ID those countries and exactly how they failed compared to the proposals you have read?Fair&Balanced;728506 wrote:
I would suggest the talking is from the supporters of a flat or fair tax who are never able to provide details on request, bit only offer unrealistic economic assumptions.
And I can't agree with you. Using your site, and clicking the tab for where the highest stimulus spending occurred, we find this:TheMercenary;728429 wrote:
I can't agree. Look what we got for our money. How many jobs were created? At what cost? Many went to pet projects for the Dem majority. Look at the millions spent and the product we got from them.
http://stimuluswatch.org/2.0/
Pelosi, Reid, and Obama rammed programs through without being to explain their costs to the people, and when they did so, they used smoke and mirrors. They controlled congress for 4 years and the spending has gone up astronomically.
I'm none too happy with the number of WS guys in the Obama cabinet, but it wasn't Obama who gave out bonuses, it was the bailed out businesses. And Obama's response was to rescind them.TheMercenary;728429 wrote:
They bailed out Goldman, gave out the bonus money to the top execs and then Obama hired a bunch of them into the government. Fannie and Freddy were pushed by the dems and pressure came down for them to make more and more loans.
I'd like a cite for this, please.TheMercenary;728429 wrote:
But I would agree that no one party is to blame for the housing mess. They should have taken all that money and just paid off the banks for the bad loans, then re-vamped the whole thing. Obama forced large banks to take bail outs they did not want or need, why? So they could impose greater regulations on them. And then when they tried to pay back the money the administration refused it. Why? because they want control.
Suffice it to say, I don't agree with this contention, either. I don't like everything I see with this Administration, but I don't find them untrustworthy, and I see enormous improvement over the Bush years.TheMercenary;728429 wrote:
Obama and this administration are not to be trusted any more than people didn't and shouldn't have trusted what went on when Bush was in office.
Really? BS, they got them and Obama hired them.Jill;728631 wrote:. I'm none too happy with the number of WS guys in the Obama cabinet, but it wasn't Obama who gave out bonuses, it was the bailed out businesses. And Obama's response was to rescind them.
Suffice it to say, I don't agree with this contention, either. I don't like everything I see with this Administration, but I don't find them untrustworthy, and I see enormous improvement over the Bush years.Really? An exponential increase in the deficit since 2009 and a downgrade in our credit rating? Really? What happens to us when the world drops the dollar and the source of the world's reserve currency?
TheMercenary;728613 wrote:Great, dispute the assumptions. I mean since "every thing you have seen" and a number of major economies have failed at this attempt. Can you ID those countries and exactly how they failed compared to the proposals you have read?
Compare and contrast your observations. Thanks.
Who gives a shit? How many shovel ready jobs were created at that time and how many exist today? Any clue? When the Stimulus money runs out who pays for it? Any clue? The states? The taxpayers are just suppose to pick up the slack? Are people not already being laid off as the Stimulus dollars fade away? Get a grip.Jill;728631 wrote:And I can't agree with you. Using your site, and clicking the tab for where the highest stimulus spending occurred, we find this:
Fair&Balanced;728642 wrote:...after several EU countries gave it a look....
Cite.Fair&Balanced;728423 wrote:I havent seen any flat or "fair" tax proposal where the numbers work or that is not highly regressive.
In fact in the few highly industrialized countries where they were attempted, they failed miserably in meeting revenue projections.Cite.
Fair&Balanced;728646 wrote:If you want to defend a flat or fair tax, do it with a real example with real numbers and not some undefined economic theory like it will "trickle down" and create more jobs than ever.
That is all I am asking.
TheMercenary;728647 wrote:And all I am asking is that you defend your assertions. I will wait. Go!
Fair&Balanced;728648 wrote:Mercenary....you do that all the time.
You make a claim, wont defend it with facts or a real example and say prove me wrong.
Nope. You claim it would fairer and better. Provide an example that works.
Fair&Balanced;728653 wrote:...... I prove it wont work.
Jill;727900 wrote:Eh. I'm not worried. I can hold my own. Or choose to ignore them if I want. Don't forget, I've debated here before. And not without success. :)
Fair&Balanced;728665 wrote:When they (Mercenary) default to their defensive "I dont have to prove I am right or provide a cite, you have to prove I am wrong" mode, ignoring is ultimately where it ends. :D
Who is they? The Illuminati? The Republickins? The Zombies? The Boggie Men under your bed? I knowwwww! Fox News!!!!!Fair&Balanced;728665 wrote:When they (Mercenary)....
But yet I did. (Hint: there's a scroll bar on the code box. Try using it next time before making unfounded accusations.)TheMercenary;728638 wrote:
But yet you did not site or copy and paste the millions of dollars where no jobs were created. Why?
Yes, really. Although "rescinded" was the wrong word to use. I should have said "restricted".TheMercenary;728641 wrote:
Really? BS, they got them and Obama hired them.
Why do you refuse to acknowledge that this investment in our economy was critical to avoid a complete collapse into a full on Depression?TheMercenary;728641 wrote:
Really? An exponential increase in the deficit since 2009 and a downgrade in our credit rating? Really? What happens to us when the world drops the dollar and the source of the world's reserve currency?
I see that as you find yourself losing ground in a debate, you resort to anger and personal attacks. Trust me, you'll never get anywhere with me with that tack.TheMercenary;728643 wrote:
Who gives a shit? How many shovel ready jobs were created at that time and how many exist today? Any clue? When the Stimulus money runs out who pays for it? Any clue? The states? The taxpayers are just suppose to pick up the slack? Are people not already being laid off as the Stimulus dollars fade away? Get a grip.
I find it comical that you are so demanding for cites, when you ignore requests for you to provide cites for your own claims. Let me remind you:TheMercenary;728645 wrote:
Cite.
Cite.
Jill wrote:[quote=TheMercenary]
But I would agree that no one party is to blame for the housing mess. They should have taken all that money and just paid off the banks for the bad loans, then re-vamped the whole thing. Obama forced large banks to take bail outs they did not want or need, why? So they could impose greater regulations on them. And then when they tried to pay back the money the administration refused it. Why? because they want control.
You fail to understand how debate works. You make a claim, it is incumbent upon you to back it up. Your debate partner is not responsible for refuting your claims.TheMercenary;728652 wrote:
Ok, got it. You can't dispute my statements. You have no citations. You can't prove it won't work. All I did was ask you to back up your statements. You can't discuss it because you still have not backed up your previous statements.
Good night.... loser.
Jill wrote:
You fail to understand how debate works. You make a claim, it is incumbent upon you to back it up. Your debate partner is not responsible for refuting your claims.
Jill;728876 wrote:But yet I did. (Hint: there's a scroll bar on the code box. Try using it next time before making unfounded accusations.) Yes, really. Although "rescinded" was the wrong word to use. I should have said "restricted".
[INDENT]"President Barack Obama will announce today that he’s imposing a cap of $500,000 on the compensation of top executives at companies that receive significant federal assistance in the future, responding to a public outcry over Wall Street excess.
Any additional compensation will be in restricted stock that won’t vest until taxpayers have been paid back. . ."[/INDENT] Why do you refuse to acknowledge that this investment in our economy was critical to avoid a complete collapse into a full on Depression?
Were you this angry when Ronald Reagan bailed out the failed Savings and Loans in the '80s that ultimately cost the taxpayers over $124 BILLION that was never repaid by the banks (or weren't you alive to remember that bloody fiasco?) I see that as you find yourself losing ground in a debate, you resort to anger and personal attacks. Trust me, you'll never get anywhere with me with that tack. I find it comical that you are so demanding for cites, when you ignore requests for you to provide cites for your own claims. Let me remind you: Yet, still no cite. Why is that? You fail to understand how debate works. You make a claim, it is incumbent upon you to back it up. Your debate partner is not responsible for refuting your claims.
But I'll tell you what; I'll humor you just this once on behalf of friend Fair&Balanced.
[INDENT]IMF and Romania tackle flat tax failure
"Yet more evidence that flat taxes do not deliver. The government of Romania, which adopted the idea of flat taxes in 2005, has called in the International Monetary Fund to provide a €20 billion rescue package to stem a massive deficit in its public finances. The government is now in discussion with IMF officials and others to consider radical tax reform. Amongst the measures under discussion is abandoning flat tax and restoring progressive taxes on personal income and corporate profits."[/INDENT]
[INDENT]The Flat Tax Is Flat-Lining
"Posted Tuesday, March 31, 2009 - 4:09pm
Over the last decade, Eastern European countries became darlings of the far right by instituting free-market economic policies designed to break convincingly from their Communist past. The so-called Baltic Tigers—Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia—garnered worldwide plaudits for a number of free-market reforms, led by the imposition of a flat-rate income tax, especially from the American right. "The flat tax is making a comeback," trumpeted the conservative National Review. The three nations are "leading a global tax reform revolution," said the right-leaning Heritage Foundation.
The idea behind a flat tax is deliciously simple: Charge one uniform rate of income tax for all payers, regardless of their relative wealth. That, say its advocates, will end tax cheating and bring in higher revenues than the usual graduated tax system used in the United States and most other countries. Before the Eastern European "revolution," the loudest proponent of the flat tax was Steve Forbes, a former Republican presidential candidate and the editor-in-chief of Forbes. Of course, thus far American policymakers have not shown much more appetite for the flat tax than American voters did for Steve Forbes' candidacy, which is why the right was so excited that the idea took hold abroad.
Too bad for them that it hasn't worked out. Latvia, which has a flat tax of 25 percent, and Lithuania and Estonia, which have 21 percent tax rates, are all in deep economic trouble. . ."[/INDENT]
So, there are your cites. I trust this meets satisfactorily with your demands.
BigV;728903 wrote:... mercy, please understand I don't intend this to be a criticism of you personally. I think this is important enough to be enshrined in a (to-be-created,-but-probably-won't-and-even-if-it-does-it-will-be-ignored-and-mocked-shut-up-never-mind-the-contradiction) Cellar Rules of Debate thread....
Yet, it is quite obvious that the public got ripped off. Considering the amount of money spent and the number of jobs produced. Or the Millions spent on single projects and no jobs were produced. Maybe you believe this to be a good use of taxpayer dollars. I do not.Jill;728876 wrote:But yet I did. (Hint: there's a scroll bar on the code box. Try using it next time before making unfounded accusations.)
Yes, really. Although "rescinded" was the wrong word to use. I should have said "restricted".Again the government has no business imposing caps on any private business, that smacks of a socialist view of government control. I can't support that. This has become ripe within this Demoncratically controlled government.
[INDENT]"President Barack Obama will announce today that he’s imposing a cap of $500,000 on the compensation of top executives at companies that receive significant federal assistance in the future, responding to a public outcry over Wall Street excess.
Any additional compensation will be in restricted stock that won’t vest until taxpayers have been paid back. . ."[/INDENT] Why do you refuse to acknowledge that this investment in our economy was critical to avoid a complete collapse into a full on Depression?It was dire, but to use the boogeyman of a "Depression" was not a completely agreed notion.
Were you this angry when Ronald Reagan bailed out the failed Savings and Loans in the '80s that ultimately cost the taxpayers over $124 BILLION that was never repaid by the banks (or weren't you alive to remember that bloody fiasco?)No, I didn't give a shit back then. Different time of my life. I was in the middle of an active duty career in the military and after we finally got ride of the crap of a President Carter, Reagan was a breath of fresh air.
I see that as you find yourself losing ground in a debate, you resort to anger and personal attacks. Trust me, you'll never get anywhere with me with that tack.Were you insulted by something I said to you?
You fail to understand how debate works. You make a claim, it is incumbent upon you to back it up. Your debate partner is not responsible for refuting your claims.Oh contare, if someone disagrees with something I stated and make counter claims against it, I am perfectly within my right to ask them to prove me wrong. Who made you some overlord of how one may debate? UT? Did he give you some special disposition? I am not impressed.
But I'll tell you what; I'll humor you just this once on behalf of friend Fair&Balanced.There is part of your problem.
[INDENT]IMF and Romania tackle flat tax failureNow let me get this straight. Romania's flat tax system required bailout but our progressive system did not? Ours doesn't work either. How is this an argument against a flat tax when maybe all that needs to happen is that it needs to be administered differently? Our current system is certainly a failure or we would not be discussing it.
[i]"Yet more evidence that flat taxes do not deliver. The government of Romania, which adopted the idea of flat taxes in 2005, has called in the International Monetary Fund to provide a €20 billion rescue package to stem a massive deficit in its public finances. The government is now in discussion with IMF officials and others to consider radical tax reform. Amongst the measures under discussion is abandoning flat tax and restoring progressive taxes on personal income and corporate profits."
I trust this meets satisfactorily with your demands.
This is a common attempt by progressives to cite classwarfare and demonize a radical change where everyone pays some Federal Income tax. As long as 47% of the citizens do not pay tax the system will fail. Further spending must be cut. You can't run up the credit cards and then cry off because you don't have the money to pay for your boondoggle expenses.Fair&Balanced;728905 wrote:A common demoninator of every flat or fair tax proposal is that they lowers the tax obligations of the top taxpayers at the expense of the middle class.
On the other side of the equation, such taxes never generate the level of revenue projected because they are based on ideological assumptions of economic growth (voodoo economics) at unrealistic levels with no basis in fact.I have not read that. Maybe you could point to one of your opinion pieces that makes this claim. And then I could point to an opinion piece that disagrees with it. And round and round we could go.
The current fair tax proposal that is floating around calls for a 23% VAT (sales tax). Independent analyses of the proposal suggest that it would take a VAT tax of at least 34% to be revenue neutral.This is contrary to the things I have read. In fact the only people who I have heard propose a flat tax are the Demoncrats.
TheMercenary;728962 wrote:This is a common attempt by progressives to cite classwarfare and demonize a radical change where everyone pays some Federal Income tax. As long as 47% of the citizens do not pay tax the system will fail. Further spending must be cut. You can't run up the credit cards and then cry off because you don't have the money to pay for your boondoggle expenses.
I have not read that. Maybe you could point to one of your opinion pieces that makes this claim. And then I could point to an opinion piece that disagrees with it. And round and round we could go.
We wrote that the bipartisan Advisory Panel on Tax Reform had “calculated that a sales tax would have to be set at 34 percent of retail sales prices to bring in the same revenue as the taxes it would replace, meaning that an automobile with a retail price of $10,000 would cost $13,400 including the new sales tax.” A number of readers pointed out that H.R. 25, the specific bill mentioned by Gov. Huckabee, calls for a 23 percent retail sales tax and not the 34 percent used by the Advisory Panel on Tax Reform. That 23 percent number, however, is misleading and based on some extremely optimistic assumptions. We found that while there are several good economic arguments for the FairTax, unless you earn more than $200,000 per year, fairness is not one of them...
...With the prebate program in effect, those earning less than $15,000 per year would see their share of the federal tax burden drop from -0.7 percent to -6.3 percent. Of course, if the poorest Americans are paying less under the FairTax plan, then someone else pays more. As it turns out, according to the Treasury Department, “someone else” is everybody earning between $15,000 and $200,000 per year. The chart below compares the share of the federal tax burden for different income groups under the current system and under the FairTax. Those in the highest and the lowest brackets will see their share decrease, while everyone else will see their share of taxes increase.
(see the charts from Classicman's post that come right out of Bush's Treasury Dept.)...
...it is revenue-neutral only through an accounting trick. It will collect more money from those earning between $15,000 and $200,000 per year and less from those earning more than $200,000 per year. It is possible that the FairTax would make most people better off, but much of that gain would be a direct result of making the tax code less fair.
http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/unspinning_the_fairtax.html
This is contrary to the things I have read. In fact the only people who I have heard propose a flat tax are the Demoncrats.
TheMercenary;728958 wrote:Oh contare, if someone disagrees with something I stated and make counter claims against it, I am perfectly within my right to ask them to prove me wrong. Who made you some overlord of how one may debate? UT? Did he give you some special disposition? I am not impressed.
Well that explains why 47% of the nations earners paid NO taxes. Not. This is just about class warfare right? That dude over there makes more than me so he should pay my way?Fair&Balanced;728974 wrote:The top taxpayers are currently paying the lowest rate they have in more than 30 years. Restoring the rate to the pre-2001 rate is more equitable to me than taxing folks living at the poverty level.
Fair&Balanced;728974 wrote:The fair or flat tax proposals I have seen have several things in common:
1) they lower the tax obligation of the top bracket at the expense of the middle class
2) they take away incentives to middle class taxpayers, re: home ownership, retirement planning, etc.
3) revenue projections rely on unsubstantiated ideological (overly optimistic) economic assumptions that they cant support.
it is unfortunate that you are apparently unwilling to take to heart the comments of Jill, BigV and others (not just me) in recent posts on your "debating" style.I don't give a shit what you think about me or my "debating style". :D
IMO, discussions here would be much more informative if you were to do so but I guess we will play the cards we're dealt and do the best we can to have honest discussions despite the obstacles of having requirements demanded of others that you refuse to accept for yourself.
I love you back. :Dinfinite monkey;728878 wrote:
I think I'm in love. :lol:
You flatterer, you. :blush:BigV;728903 wrote:
Understandable.
This is what did it for me:
It isn't obvious to me that the public got ripped off. I do not think this is always a good use of taxpayer dollars. I think this was a bitter pill to swallow, yet a necessary use of taxpayer dollars as a result of the clearly failed policies of 6 years of Republican rule that caused the economic crash.TheMercenary;728958 wrote:
Yet, it is quite obvious that the public got ripped off. Considering the amount of money spent and the number of jobs produced. Or the Millions spent on single projects and no jobs were produced. Maybe you believe this to be a good use of taxpayer dollars. I do not.
I understand why you would disagree with that policy. I, on the other hand, would not want to see that as a policy under any and all circumstances, but I don't find it so egregious to impose certain constraints on businesses we've lent money to, that are to remain in force only until that money is repaid. I think if we give taxpayer money to 'Company A' to use to cover failed assets, we have a right to say, ". . . and you must use them on failed assets only, and not to give yourselves outrageous personal bonuses. In order to ensure the lenders (IOW, the taxpayers) that you are being fiscally responsible with their money, for the time that you are using their money to "right your ship", compensation to senior executives will be capped at X."TheMercenary;728958 wrote:
Again the government has no business imposing caps on any private business, that smacks of a socialist view of government control. I can't support that. This has become ripe within this Demoncratically controlled government.
"Not a completely agreed [upon] notion" /= "wouldn't or couldn't have happened."TheMercenary;728958 wrote:
It was dire, but to use the boogeyman of a "Depression" was not a completely agreed notion.
Ah, I see. So when I Republican president does it, you "don't give a shit," but when a Democratic president does it, you care mightily. I'm afraid that given the economic disasters that occurred under Reagan's tenure, not to mention Iran/Contra and CIA drug smuggling operations, we're going to have to agree to disagree on him being a "breath of fresh air." I found him to be a "breath of foul stench." YMOV.TheMercenary;728958 wrote:
No, I didn't give a shit back then. Different time of my life. I was in the middle of an active duty career in the military and after we finally got ride of the crap of a President Carter, Reagan was a breath of fresh air.
Yes, actually. You responded to a post of mine by telling me you didn't "give a shit," alleged I was clueless by asking multiple times if I had "any clue," and closed with the snotty remark, "get a grip."TheMercenary;728958 wrote:
Were you insulted by something I said to you?
Stop with the hyperbole. It's really annoying.TheMercenary;728958 wrote:
Oh contare, if someone disagrees with something I stated and make counter claims against it, I am perfectly within my right to ask them to prove me wrong. Who made you some overlord of how one may debate? UT? Did he give you some special disposition? I am not impressed.
Romania's (and Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia's) flat tax system didn't work because a single tax rate spread amongst all individuals was insufficient to support the countries' needs.TheMercenary;728958 wrote:
Now let me get this straight. Romania's flat tax system required bailout but our progressive system did not? Ours doesn't work either. How is this an argument against a flat tax when maybe all that needs to happen is that it needs to be administered differently? Our current system is certainly a failure or we would not be discussing it.
This lie has been disproven. 47% of Americans didn't pay and FEDERAL INCOME tax last year, but they did pay taxes. They pay sales tax, social security tax, gas tax and state taxes, just like everyone else. And the percentage of Americans who don't pay Federal Income tax changes as people rise out of poverty and into the middle class. Unfortunately, Republican policies have widened the income disparity in this country exponentially. The poor are poorer than they've been in half a century and the wealthy are wealthier than they've ever been in our nation's entire history.TheMercenary;728983 wrote:
Well that explains why 47% of the nations earners paid NO taxes. Not. This is just about class warfare right? That dude over there makes more than me so he should pay my way?
Please explain how it is equally "painful" for the person making $1,000,000 per year to pay, say, $230,000 in taxes, leaving them with $770,000 in disposable income, as it is for the person making $10,000 to pay $2,300 in taxes, leaving them with only $7,700 in disposable income?TheMercenary;728984 wrote:
1)No, this is more progressive speak to generate class warfare for between those who pay the majority of all the Federal Income Tax and those who pay nothing. It is called a Fair Tax because it spreads the pain evenly.
No, that is your OPINION. I don't give a shit. Bush did what he thought was right at the time IN COMPLETE coordination with Obama and the on coming team. The whole thing was planned in consultation with the obvious winner of the election. This was not some BUSH plan... that is BS. It was completely coordinated out of deference to the new President.Jill;729079 wrote:You're forgetting that the first round of bailouts started with President Bush and T.A.R.P. I find it disingenuous in the extreme to lambaste Democrats for continuing the recovery methods started by the Republicans. The fact that we ended up needing more than what Bush allowed for is not a reflection of Barack Obama or Democratic policies.
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that your spelling of 'Democratically' as 'Demoncratically' was a typo.Fuck that, it is totally and completely on purpose...
"Not a completely agreed [upon] notion" /= "wouldn't or couldn't have happened." Ah, I see. So when I Republican president does it, you "don't give a shit," but when a Democratic president does it, you care mightily.No, as I said, back then I did not give a shit as I was on AD? Did you miss that part or you purposefully ignoring it?
I'm afraid that given the economic disasters that occurred under Reagan's tenure, not to mention Iran/Contra and CIA drug smuggling operations, we're going to have to agree to disagree on him being a "breath of fresh air." I found him to be a "breath of foul stench."Yea, and ole Carter was crap as a president, wishy washy and responsible for the failed Iran Hostage Rescue.
Yes, actually. You responded to a post of mine by telling me you didn't "give a shit," alleged I was clueless by asking multiple times if I had "any clue," and closed with the snotty remark, "get a grip."No, get over yourself.
You don't find that insulting? Stop with the hyperbole. It's really annoying.
There actually are "rules of debate" that exist in formal debate procedures. Now, I understand this is an informal debate, as there are no "teams" or judges. However, the basics should be held to or no light can be shed and no genuine discourse can evolve.Fuck that. You don't get to define them.
Again, that does not mean that they effectively put the into a working process. Ever been to Eastern Bloc countries? I have. They are RIPE with corruption. Don't try to hold up some POS newly birthed Democracy as some form or example of what works or does not work. It is a inherently corrupt system....
Romania's (and Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia's) flat tax system didn't work because a single tax rate spread amongst all individuals was insufficient to support the countries' needs.
The U.S. tax system worked perfectly well at the rates that existed throughout the 1990s. Where we got in trouble was when Republicans regained control, and both lowered tax rates for only the wealthiest Americans and spent billions of dollars outside the budget, abandoning PAYGO rules. This lie has been disproven. 47% of Americans didn't pay and FEDERAL INCOME tax last year, but they did pay taxes.Bull shit. They did not pay FEDERAL INCOME TAX, and I have not varried from that assertion.
They pay sales tax, social security tax, gas tax and state taxes, just like everyone else.As do most illegal aliens, but that does not make them legal. It has nothing to do with what I was saying....
And the percentage of Americans who don't pay Federal Income tax changes as people rise out of poverty and into the middle class.I don't care. When nearly 50% of the population are Zero Liability Voters we have a problem.
Unfortunately, Republican policies have widened the income disparity in this country exponentially. The poor are poorer than they've been in half a century and the wealthy are wealthier than they've ever been in our nation's entire history. Please explain how it is equally "painful" for the person making $1,000,000 per year to pay, say, $230,000 in taxes, leaving them with $770,000 in disposable income, as it is for the person making $10,000 to pay $2,300 in taxes, leaving them with only $7,700 in disposable income?which is why every one should pay the same percent of their income in FEDERAL TAXES and eliminate the loop holes and Deductions for everyone!
How much "pain" does the millionaire feel when he has more than three quarters of a million dollars a year to do with as he pleases?Completely shows your bias and that this is nothing more than class warfare because you don't think someone should make more money than you, and if they do, they should give some to you to make your life better. What a load of crap.
How much pain does the man trying to live on $7,700 a year feel, when he has to stand in line at food kitchens, collect food stamps, shop for clothes in thrift shops and try to find section 8 housing in order to merely survive?Been there done it....
[/INDENT]Okay, done with you now. You clearly have no interest in a reasonable discussion of the issues, you just want to resort to ad hominem attacks, name-calling and cussing. Rather uncouth, I must say. Too bad for you.TheMercenary;729086 wrote:
No, that is your OPINION. I don't give a shit. Bush did what he thought was right at the time IN COMPLETE coordination with Obama and the on coming team. The whole thing was planned in consultation with the obvious winner of the election. This was not some BUSH plan... that is BS. It was completely coordinated out of deference to the new President.
Fuck that, it is totally and completely on purpose...
No, as I said, back then I did not give a shit as I was on AD? Did you miss that part or you purposefully ignoring it?
Yea, and ole Carter was crap as a president, wishy washy and responsible for the failed Iran Hostage Rescue.
No, get over yourself.
Fuck that. You don't get to define them.
Again, that does not mean that they effectively put the into a working process. Ever been to Eastern Bloc countries? I have. They are RIPE with corruption. Don't try to hold up some POS newly birthed Democracy as some form or example of what works or does not work. It is a inherently corrupt system....
Bull shit. They did not pay FEDERAL INCOME TAX, and I have not varried from that assertion.
As do most illegal aliens, but that does not make them legal. It has nothing to do with what I was saying....
I don't care. When nearly 50% of the population are Zero Liability Voters we have a problem.
which is why every one should pay the same percent of their income in FEDERAL TAXES and eliminate the loop holes and Deductions for everyone!
Completely shows your bias and that this is nothing more than class warfare because you don't think someone should make more money than you, and if they do, they should give some to you to make your life better. What a load of crap.
Been there done it....
Jill;729101 wrote:Okay, done with you now. You clearly have no interest in a reasonable discussion of the issues, you just want to resort to ad hominem attacks, name-calling and cussing. Rather uncouth, I must say. Too bad for you.
Jill;729101 wrote:...ad hominem attacks, name-calling and cussing. Rather uncouth....
Is this where you cry or call me a racist?Fair&Balanced;729108 wrote:Compassionate conservatism?
On a more serious note, I think it was Warren Buffet, in explaining why the US system of progressive taxation is best for the country, who said (paraphrasing) that the wealthy like himself who benefited from the system that provides for the common good have a moral obligation to sustain it and support it so others have the opportunity to do the same (not to get even richer at the expense of the worker poor and middle class)
Or maybe it was Jimmy Buffet or Warren G Harding.
But in any case, I hope you stick around!
Or, as I quoted quite extensively above (and which our friend TheMercenary conveniently ignored), Theodore Roosevelt (Republican).Fair&Balanced;729108 wrote:
Compassionate conservatism?
On a more serious note, I think it was Warren Buffet, in explaining why the US system of progressive taxation is best for the country, who said (paraphrasing) that the wealthy like himself who benefited from the system that provides for the common good have a moral obligation to sustain it and support it so others have the opportunity to do the same (not to get even richer at the expense of the worker poor and middle class)
Or maybe it was Jimmy Buffet or Warren G Harding.
But in any case, I hope you stick around!
HAAAAAA! Oh yea, Republickins during the time of TR were just like they are today!Jill;729111 wrote:Or, as I quoted quite extensively above (and which our friend TheMercenary conveniently ignored), Theodore Roosevelt (Republican).
Of course I'll stick around. Thanks! :)
Jill;729101 wrote:Okay, done with you now. You clearly have no interest in a reasonable discussion of the issues, you just want to resort to ad hominem attacks, name-calling and cussing. Rather uncouth, I must say. Too bad for you.
TheMercenary;729112 wrote:HAAAAAA! Oh yea, Republickins during the time of TR were just like they are today!
What a tool. :lol:
He'll have to get a LOT worse for me to hide all of his posts from view. I like knowing what arguments are being put forward by those on the other side of the political spectrum me. What I don't like is being cussed at and called names. For that reason, I won't engage him in debate because I know he's incapable of being reasonable. I might occasionally see fit to post a reply in order to debunk some crap he's posted, but beyond that, he won't get my ongoing attention, as I now know what it will devolve into.Spexxvet;729152 wrote:
Pssst: use the ignore list. You'll enjoy the Cellar more.:blush:
TheMercenary;729109 wrote:I don't owe you or anyone else anything. And you are not entitled to a damm thing, other than your ability to "Pursue happiness", but it is not a Right.
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.At what point do extremists know more than the rest of us?
It's quite stunning how many of these extremists know so little of our nation's laws and so little about our nation's history, yet bloviate as if not only are they (and only they) right, but that we must be stupid and unpatriotic.tw;729235 wrote:
At what point do extremists know more than the rest of us?
Jill - he will reply only when he has insults. Apparently he has a problem with "Truths that are self-evident" when truths contradict a political agenda.
There are only moderates and extremists. Latter driven by a political agenda. So he would rewrite a fundamental American document to promote what?
How dare we seek Happiness. We must be liberals.
Jill;729218 wrote:I like knowing what arguments are being put forward by those on the other side of the political spectrum me.
infinite monkey;730063 wrote:Just when you thought it was safe...more drivel arrives on the scene.
How far down do you have to bury drivel to keep it from coming back up?
Urbane Guerrilla;732858 wrote:Very simply put, and cutting through all the verbiage and felgercarb:
Do not increase taxation. Instead reduce the spending, including and in especial the entitlement programs. Without entitlements, we'd retire the entire national debt in five to ten years. Not too different from what we did after World War Two in retiring the war debt.
What is "irrationational?" The portmanteau does not seem quite to close. "Chauvinism" is already a word.
Urbane Guerrilla;732858 wrote:Very simply put, and cutting through all the verbiage and felgercarb:
Do not increase taxation. Instead reduce the spending, including and in especial the entitlement programs. Without entitlements, we'd retire the entire national debt in five to ten years. Not too different from what we did after World War Two in retiring the war debt.
What is "irrationational?" The portmanteau does not seem quite to close. "Chauvinism" is already a word.
The total tax burden — for all federal, state and local taxes — dropped to 23.6% of income in the first quarter, according to Bureau of Economic Analysis data.
By contrast, individuals spent roughly 27% of income on taxes in the 1970s, 1980s and the 1990s — a rate that would mean $500 billion of extra taxes annually today, one-third of the estimated $1.5 trillion federal deficit this year.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2011-05-05-tax-cut-record-low_n.htm
DanaC;732901 wrote:I don't think anybody sees you as a right-wing nutjob. A heartless capitalist who leaves a trail of broken workers and weary orphans, sure...
But not a nutjob :p
lookout123;732880 wrote:Ideology? Not at all. Waste. Waste. Waste.
I'm a strong proponent of making dead certain that each one of our military branches is the strongest of type in the world BUT the R&D process is so full of waste it is obscene. Lobbiests and backslapping politicians have spent decades creating processes that are less focused on introducing the best technology to the field than they are on enriching themselves. For a very good example of the excesses read the book Boyd.
In regards to the flat tax, I firmly believe absolutely every single person living legally in the US should pay income tax or no one should. As I've described in the past, my view on a flat tax isn't really flat but I truly believe 1% on every single dollar up to $50-60K and 20%(ish) on every dollar of personal income over with no deductions beyond first home mortgage interest would solve many problems.
lookout123;732880 wrote:Ideology? Not at all. Waste. Waste. Waste.
I'm a strong proponent of making dead certain that each one of our military branches is the strongest of type in the world BUT the R&D process is so full of waste it is obscene.
I'm a strong proponent for killing deductions. If you kill the ascending tax rate plan there is no need/room for deductions.infinite monkey;732962 wrote:Stop deductions for popping out kids. Zero tax liability? Fine. Negative 3000 dollars tax liability? No.
Problem solved.
I understand the ideology of wanting to tax everyone equally, but taxing those on the margin at the same rate as those at the top just doesnt make economic sense to me. Again, taxpayers will end up paying more as those on the margin are forced to turn to other programs just to survive.As I said I believe everyone should pay something. I don't even believe 10% on the first $50-60K is necessary. 1% is a symbolic gesture that everyone pays their share. 20-25-30%... I don't really care what it is, so long as there aren't loopholes and shelters the money will come in. The mega rich have massive tax games to avoid paying at their current marginal rates and they already payin excess of 70% of every tax dollar collected. Eliminate the shell game, lower the rate, and actually collect more money. My problem is we seem to have this misguided idea that we should develop a giant system of all the things we want to do and then go taxing to try to pay for it all. Try doing that in your own life. Get the house, car, clothes, education, meal plans, medical care, retirement, toys, and while you're at it adopt a few of your neighbors needs as your own... then go tell your boss how much he needs to pay you. Let me know how that works for you.
lookout123;732969 wrote:I'll assume you didn't read any of my posts before responding with some witty comment so you can skip this before going on to crafting your reply.
This is the kind of comment that causes unpleasant forum "discussions".
Spexxvet;732927 wrote:That sounds ideological, to me. There's a whole lot of waste in the military, but, because of your ideology, you don't want to cut there.
The US military is more powerful than the next (is it) eight countries combined? That is ridiculous. US military secret arms budget (that Congress is not permitted to study) is larger than something like the entire military of the next three largest countries combined.lookout123;732880 wrote:I'm a strong proponent of making dead certain that each one of our military branches is the strongest of type in the world BUT the R&D process is so full of waste it is obscene.
lookout123;732969 wrote:F&B, I said nothing about killing R&D but gutting it like a fish is a good place to start. There is a vast difference between not researching and developing new technologies and letting R&D be driven by political forces. There is so much fraud, waste, and abuse in military R&D it would make an Enron executive blush.
So you want this to be about your intelligence. I have no problem discussing you and UG as the same intellectual micro-brains. You make it so easy.lookout123;733070 wrote:Would you care to address that or do you want to educate us on the 70 hp/L engine for awhile?
The trouble is, as far as I can see, that as soon as you start trying to zero in on waste and unnecessary expenditure, vested interests in some service areas are so powerful that the spotlight just kind of glides over them ...That problem exists only when Congress is dominated by extremists rather than pragmatists. When the political agenda is more important than the nation.
tw;733073 wrote:However only an Enron executive (or business school graduate) would solve problems by cutting spending. That never addresses the problem.
tw;733082 wrote:So you want this to be about your intelligence. I have no problem discussing you and UG as the same intellectual micro-brains. You make it so easy.
You can stop being a scumbag now because numbers such as the 70 Hp/l engine were too complicated for you. Best you stop the cheapshot and deal with facts as posted.
Ridiculous is a military where the world's largest Air Force is the US Air Force. And the world's second largest Air Force is the US Navy. At what point do our allies start contributing to world stability? We have no business being the world's only policeman. And that is exactly what the Project for a New American Century (and the George Jr administration) wants. After all, we must protect 'our' oil in Iraq.OK, now can you find in this thread where I said we should have the 2 largest air forces in the world? Next can you find in this thread where I've said we should be the world's police force? After you're done with that can you find where I've said it is our job to maintain global stability?
Only those who love excessive military and who invent enemies need a military that massive. Only dying empires maintain a military that excessive.
The question is about where we waste our resources. Two perfectly ideal example are the US military and the paper dollar bill. Perfect examples because extremists do not want to address these major problems.
When the political agenda is more important than the nation.For bonus points I'd like you to cite something that would make you believe I disagree with this.
On that we agree. But anything you might say is not the point. I deal with the realities. The topic is waste and excessive spending. No problem. I gave two simple examples of why even what you have posted cannot happen.lookout123;733076 wrote:Cutting costs would be a welcome and needed byproduct of cutting out the fraud, waste, and abuse in the R&D process.
extremistPete Zicato;733085 wrote:Unless the problem is overspending.
The tangent is the real problem and the only viable solution.DanaC;733091 wrote:For goodness sake, tw. You really are arguing at a tangent from
lookout123;732969 wrote:I'm a strong proponent for killing deductions. If you kill the ascending tax rate plan there is no need/room for deductions.
As I said I believe everyone should pay something. I don't even believe 10% on the first $50-60K is necessary. 1% is a symbolic gesture that everyone pays their share. 20-25-30%... I don't really care what it is, so long as there aren't loopholes and shelters the money will come in. The mega rich have massive tax games to avoid paying at their current marginal rates and they already payin excess of 70% of every tax dollar collected. Eliminate the shell game, lower the rate, and actually collect more money.
DanaC;733098 wrote:...
[eta] hang on what? Wtf has eliminating paper money got to do with anything?
tw;733092 wrote:But anything you might say is not the point.
Either you believe the very wealthy are paying taxes at 35%+ right now or you don't. If you don't then by eliminating the loopholes the treasury must receive more money. If they are paying 35% I'd like to quit hearing about the very wealthy paying nothing.Fair&Balanced;733107 wrote:Ah. there's the rub.
Proposals like the flat tax, Ryan's budget or yours assume they will result in more money coming into the treasury.
But they are based on economic growth assumptions that the incentives will be so great for consumers and businesses to spend and invest that the economy will grow faster and higher than any time in recent history, at rates of 7% or more annually. I think we've only seen a 7% growth rate once in the last 30-40 years.
Reagan's former budget director recently described it as Alice in Wonderland economic assumptions.
Oh and everyone does pay something into the federal treasury, in the form of federal excise taxes (eg gas tax) and payroll taxes (FICA), in which those with wages under $100K pay a higher percentage than those over $100K (since payroll taxes are only on the first $100K).
lookout123;733119 wrote:Either you believe the very wealthy are paying taxes at 35%+ right now or you don't. If you don't then by eliminating the loopholes the treasury must receive more money. If they are paying 35% I'd like to quit hearing about the very wealthy paying nothing.
Personally, I believe the very wealthy pay significantly less than 35% because they have shelters and loopholes. Therefore, I believe 1% on every dollar up to $X0,000 and 25/35/39?% on every dollar over MUST generate more income than 0%on the first $40-50K and Less than 39 on everything over, regardless of the growth rate of the economy.
No troops can be brought home if something so simple - elimiante the paper dollar bill - cannot even be done. Why is that so difficult? Why do extremists want more than 20,000 American soldiers stationed permanently in Iraq? They cannot even eliminate the dollar bill. That says why other more difficult solutions cannot happen.DanaC;733098 wrote:Wtf has eliminating paper money got to do with anything?
tw;733124 wrote:No troops can be brought home if something so simple - elimiante the paper dollar bill - cannot even be done.
I am trying to identify the real problem. What DanaC only calls a tangent. To step back and see why these details are not solvable, often ignored, and lost in the bickering.Pete Zicato;733118 wrote:So.... You discount prima facie anything lookout might ever say? You might want to clarify your meaning.
Undertoad;733129 wrote:Paper money's status will be moot soon enough, as the majority converts to card and electronic payments for everything in the next ten years.
I can appreciate your logic. But the problem remains spending money we do not have. Not about solving impossible social problems (where your quoted argument was often found). The 'we can put a man on the moon... " argument justified spending on other things that were not solvable by government. Our government spending problems are solvable only when we address obvious and simple government inaction first. Like the silly paper dollar bill and the penny.Pete Zicato;733126 wrote:Same thing.
There has to be a balance there and I couldn't begin to tell you what the percentage should be. (as I've also tried to be clear I don't know what the percentage should be for personal income)Pete Zicato;733123 wrote:How about corporations, lookout?
lookout123;733090 wrote:For the record, Spexx - this is the type of post that interferes with discussion on the issues.
lookout123;733070 wrote:Would you care to address that or do you want to educate us on the 70 hp/L engine for awhile?
lookout123;733090 wrote:I'll wait.
That is a problem. However it is not the IRS that makes things complex. IRS only execute the laws. Laws that create 10,000+ pages. Nobody in the IRS can understand it. Congressmen cannot even understand their own taxes.lookout123;733133 wrote:For me the discussion is less about the percentage charged than it is the game that is played. The elected, the IRS, and the accounting industry have a vested interest in keeping things complex.
Undertoad;733137 wrote:Corporate tax loopholes for political $upport is driving politics the wrong way. As long as we're throwing shit out there, let's have zero corporate tax, zero personal income tax, and 20% federal sales tax or VAT. Leave in place capital gains, as a form of VAT on investments.
And there you go with your selective reading again. I would rather have a discussion about the issue. You'll note that TW is discussing the issue rather than insulting the other poster now. With that I'll walk away from what will be pointless bickering with you.Spexxvet;733136 wrote:Dude, what do expect when you post something like:
Again: the above statement is the kind of comment that starts a flame war. It's your style. You can't seem to help yourself. Someone posts some benign comment, and there you are with a snide
You recently pointed the finger at me for causing the problems. Look at yourself.
lookout123;732880 wrote:As I've described in the past, my view on a flat tax isn't really flat but I truly believe 1% on every single dollar up to $50-60K and 20%(ish) on every dollar of personal income over with no deductions beyond first home mortgage interest would solve many problems.
lookout123;732969 wrote:I don't even believe 10% on the first $50-60K is necessary. 1% is a symbolic gesture that everyone pays their share. 20-25-30%... I don't really care what it is,
Spexxvet;733161 wrote:I think you need to be specific. How much income and what tax rate, specifically?
lookout123;733162 wrote:The very least amount necessary to cover the expenses. Of course, those expenses should be lowered as we cut unnecessary programs and fraud, waste, and abuse from the budget. I'm fairly certain I've convered that somewhere.
lookout123;733160 wrote:With that I'll walk away from what will be pointless bickering with you.
lookout123;733162 wrote:The very least amount necessary to cover the expenses. Of course, those expenses should be lowered as we cut unnecessary programs and fraud, waste, and abuse from the budget. I'm fairly certain I've convered that somewhere.
ZenGum;733178 wrote:DNA "sample"?
Spexxvet;733157 wrote:What I don't like about that is that you and I, probably, will be taxed on 100% of our income, because we spend it all. Someone else, who makes a lot of money, may on spend, and be taxed on, half of their income. I can't say that it's good or bad, it just makes me uncomfortable.
lookout123;733173 wrote:I'll give you an autograph but I will not give you any scraps of my hair or fingernails regardless how much you stalk me. It is flattering though.
Edit: I've now gone back and re-read that 3 1/2 year old thread and I got a good chuckle. Spexx, in that thread you had established some nebulous value as "enough" but you wouldn't say what "enough" was. In this thread I have repeatedly stated I don't know what the "number" should be as I'm not the guy who has torn apart all the raw numbers. I do believe the clearly addressed the concept though and you're just playing another of your passive aggressive games. It really is pretty funny that in a thread where you're being an ass you link to a 3 and a half year old thread where you were being an ass. Probably not the strongest case you could have made in your favor.
lookout123;733173 wrote:I'll give you an autograph but I will not give you any scraps of my hair or fingernails regardless how much you stalk me. It is flattering though.
Edit: I've now gone back and re-read that 3 1/2 year old thread and I got a good chuckle. Spexx, in that thread you had established some nebulous value as "enough" but you wouldn't say what "enough" was. In this thread I have repeatedly stated I don't know what the "number" should be as I'm not the guy who has torn apart all the raw numbers. I do believe the clearly addressed the concept though and you're just playing another of your passive aggressive games. It really is pretty funny that in a thread where you're being an ass you link to a 3 and a half year old thread where you were being an ass. Probably not the strongest case you could have made in your favor.
Spexxvet;733249 wrote:Again, everybody: this is why the politics forum gets ugly. Want it to stop? Tell LO to stop. Nip it in the bud.
Pete Zicato;733254 wrote:Not from what I've seen in this thread. Lookout seems pretty reasonable to me. You seem to be the one on the attack.
tw wrote:Every Senator and Congressman must fill out his own tax returns by hand and without assistance. Currently tax accountants do it for them because they do not even understand the tax laws they have created.
Fair&Balanced wrote:Oh and everyone does pay something into the federal treasury, in the form of federal excise taxes (eg gas tax) and payroll taxes (FICA), in which those with wages under $100K pay a higher percentage than those over $100K (since payroll taxes are only on the first $100K).
Spexxvet;733255 wrote:So you're ok with his demeaning, snide, provocative comments?
Spexxvet;733249 wrote:More name calling and ridicule. Again, everybody: this is why the politics forum gets ugly. Want it to stop? Tell ME to stop. Nip it in the bud.
glatt;733251 wrote:Didn't you call him a hammer in the post just before that?:rolleyes:
Pete Zicato;733254 wrote:You seem to be the one on the attack.
Spexxvet;733255 wrote:So you're ok with his demeaning, snide, provocative comments?
Spexxvet;733271 wrote:Really, Classic?
Pico and ME;733279 wrote:Pete, back in the day Lookout use to tag team with Merc in the nastiness department of the politics threads. This is probably what is fueling Spex's 'vendetta'.
I have to say, though, he has seriously cleaned up his act this go 'round.
Spexxvet;733157 wrote:What I don't like about that is that you and I, probably, will be taxed on 100% of our income, because we spend it all. Someone else, who makes a lot of money, may on spend, and be taxed on, half of their income. I can't say that it's good or bad, it just makes me uncomfortable.
Bullshit. Tag teaming has never been my style and certainly not with Merc.Pico and ME;733279 wrote:Pete, back in the day Lookout use to tag team with Merc in the nastiness department of the politics threads. This is probably what is fueling Spex's 'vendetta'.
I have to say, though, he has seriously cleaned up his act this go 'round.
I don't support a VAT because lower income households really do spend every dollar they earn and will be taxed on every dollar UNLESS we create more deductions, credits, and loopholes to help them out. More deductions, credits, and loopholes will be written by politicians and paid for by lobbiests. Who do you think they will really benefit.Fair&Balanced;733286 wrote:I think the uncomfortable feeling associated with the flat tax has something to do with the "marginal utility of the dollar" or the fact that a dollar for the worker living on a minum age has more value to him in terms of purchasing power than a dollar to the millionaire.
There is also a psychological barrier assoicated with the flat tax. One might tend to have second thoughts when faced with paying $1.40 (30 cent VAT and 10 cent state sales tax) for a product worth $1.00 that you dont experience when you are only paying $1.10 (along with the current income tax that you dont see on each purchase).
Pete Zicato;733273 wrote:'ll give you an example. In post #183 Lookout includes defense as one of the departments that needs to be cut. In post #185 he specifically says that military R&D should be cut.
Then in #189 you say "There's a whole lot of waste in the military, but, because of your ideology, you don't want to cut there." Clearly you did not read or did not understand his posts.
Lookout calls you on it in post #191. Which you complain about in post #192.
I'll assume you didn't read any of my posts before responding with some witty comment so you can skip this before going on to crafting your reply.
you must have misunderstood, since i said [QUOTE]citation[/QUOTE]
This is the kind of comment that causes unpleasant forum "discussions".
Pete Zicato;733273 wrote:Really? Seriously? All the UG, tw, and Merc posts on this board you've got to work with and this is what you want to complain about for meanness?
lookout123;733291 wrote:
Interest on a owner occupied home should be deducted from gross income.
Spexxvet;733255 wrote:So you're ok with his demeaning, snide, provocative comments?
Maybe they don't, but someone is backing all those negative thousands tax liabilities. It might be me.
infinite monkey;733631 wrote:Do you drink? How's the liver?
infinite monkey;733622 wrote:I get that kids cost money. I'm not going to be even slightly popular when I say it wasn't my choice that others have those kids, so I don't know why the refunds increase with every decision someone makes to have kids.
lookout123;733291 wrote:... After that a simple 1% up to $XX,000 and 20/25/30% across the board on every dollar beyond that. 1 form, done and dusted.
Fair&Balanced;733768 wrote:
Either revenue would be significantly reduced or the middle class taxpayers would have to pay significantly more than they presently pay.
lookout123;733771 wrote:Define middle class. I haven't put a fixed number on it because I don't know what it will actually have to be. I believe it will be lower than you actually do if everyone is actually paying on it.
You want to extend the 1% rate out to $65, 70, 80? I don't really care. I care that everyone pays something and that the new system is simple, easy to understand, and impossible to manipulate.
So if a family earning $75K now pays out an average of 10% that is $7,500. That same family if the cutoff is at $60K would pay $3,600 at the 20% rate or $5,100 at the 30% rate. Either way, I don't really care because they'll be using the same scale as their neighbor regardless of kids, retirement plans, or any other tax deductions.
infinite monkey;733622 wrote:
I won't even get into the whole overpopulation thing.
Griff;733828 wrote:Then I will. ;) All the deductions should go out the window if we're serious about this.
Fair&Balanced;733791 wrote:......but I dont think you will find a groundswell of support among most working families.
The controversy over the new film rose after New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd reported on Sunday that Ms. Bigelow’s film would be released in October 2012, just before the presidential election. She also wrote that Mr. Boal and Ms. Bigelow had been given “top-level access to the most classified mission in history,” and that the movie was “perfectly timed to give a home-stretch boost” to President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign.
WASHINGTON — Employment growth ground to a halt in August, as sagging consumer confidence discouraged already skittish U.S. businesses from hiring, keeping pressure on the Federal Reserve to provide more monetary stimulus to aid the struggling economy.
Nonfarm payrolls were unchanged last month, the Labor Department said Friday. It was the first time since 1945 that the government has reported a net monthly job change of zero. The August payrolls report was the worst since September 2010, while nonfarm employment for June and July was revised to show 58,000 fewer jobs.
Happy Monkey;754129 wrote:Who would have thought that cuttting government spending and jobs would have been bad for the jobs numbers?
while nonfarm employment for June and July was revised to show 58,000 fewer jobs.
while nonfarm employment for June and July was revised to show 58,000 fewer new jobs.