PDA

View Full Version : Elections "Spread The Wealth Around"


Pages : 1 [2] 3

KCJohnny
10-13-2008, 09:52 PM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/MFdkTxYrCnQ&hl=ko&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/MFdkTxYrCnQ&hl=ko&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

banyon
10-13-2008, 09:55 PM
Is that supposed to be a response somehow?

Democratic candidates have long been for progressive tax rates. That's no platform difference either.

DaneMcCloud
10-13-2008, 09:56 PM
Iraq will end in a couple of years.

Communist health care will not only never end, it will never stop growing until it bankrupts us.

I don't care who's promoting it: Democrat, Republican, Independent.

National healthcare WILL NOT WORK.

It'd be a gigantic clusterfuck.

GIGANTIC.

banyon
10-13-2008, 09:58 PM
I don't care who's promoting it: Democrat, Republican, Independent.

National healthcare WILL NOT WORK.

It'd be a gigantic cluster****.

GIGANTIC.

Are you being serious?

DaneMcCloud
10-13-2008, 10:00 PM
Are you being serious?

Yes, very serious.

Do you or have you worked in at an insurance company or in a healthcare related field?

If so, would you actually trust the government to provide for healthcare?

I have. My wife does. My Dad was president of several insurance companies before he retired.

There's NO way it'll work.

banyon
10-13-2008, 10:02 PM
Yes, very serious.

Do you or have you worked in at an insurance company or in a healthcare related field?

If so, would you actually trust the government to provide for healthcare?

Well, I've had some cases where people were denied coverage over some pretty asinine things, but that's about as close as I've gotten to it.

Other, than of course when I used to be uninsured and didn't go to the doctor if there was something wrong because I couldn't afford it.

Edit: Also answer to Q2, since I am a big supporter of the idea universal health care. obviously I think it can work.

Logical
10-13-2008, 10:03 PM
I would definitely like to see it sometime.

I would make sure to leave my spray paint and chewing gum at home though.If you get the chance by all means go. Very Western (though the heat and humidity are killer). The seafood is to die for and the people are incredibly nice.

Logical
10-13-2008, 10:20 PM
I don't care who's promoting it: Democrat, Republican, Independent.

National healthcare WILL NOT WORK.

It'd be a gigantic cluster****.

GIGANTIC.Obama is proposing National Health Insurance which is nothing like National Healthcare. Why are we discussing National Healthcare?

CHIEF4EVER
10-13-2008, 11:14 PM
I don't care who's promoting it: Democrat, Republican, Independent.

National healthcare WILL NOT WORK.

It'd be a gigantic cluster****.

GIGANTIC.

QFT

I was under that system when I lived in Germany and it was a shambles.

banyon
10-13-2008, 11:21 PM
QFT

I was under that system when I lived in Germany and it was a shambles.

er 'in shambles' perhaps?

CHIEF4EVER
10-13-2008, 11:22 PM
er 'in shambles' perhaps?

Perhaps 'shambolic'. Yes. I like that.

CHIEF4EVER
10-13-2008, 11:24 PM
Oh, before I forget Counselor..............

sham∑bles (shmblz)
pl.n. (used with a sing. verb)
1.
a. A scene or condition of complete disorder or ruin: "The economy was in a shambles" W. Bruce Lincoln.
b. Great clutter or jumble; a total mess: made dinner and left the kitchen a shambles.
2.
a. A place or scene of bloodshed or carnage.
b. A scene or condition of great devastation.
3. A slaughterhouse.
4. Archaic A meat market or butcher shop.

banyon
10-13-2008, 11:39 PM
Oh, before I forget Counselor..............

sham∑bles (shmblz)
pl.n. (used with a sing. verb)
1.
a. A scene or condition of complete disorder or ruin: "The economy was in a shambles" W. Bruce Lincoln.
b. Great clutter or jumble; a total mess: made dinner and left the kitchen a shambles.
2.
a. A place or scene of bloodshed or carnage.
b. A scene or condition of great devastation.
3. A slaughterhouse.
4. Archaic A meat market or butcher shop.

Nice. I will admit my kitchen is curently a shambles. I award you two points against me in my perpetual struggle for improved internet grammar standards.

CHIEF4EVER
10-13-2008, 11:46 PM
Nice. I will admit my kitchen is curently a shambles. I award you two points against me in my perpetual struggle for improved internet grammar standards.

That would be currently, sir. :evil:

memyselfI
10-14-2008, 05:53 AM
Is Obama's ideology somehow significantly different than the other Democratic candidates you've supported?

His stance on abortion, his stance on 'siding with Muslims' if the political winds blow and how that might translate with his ties to the PLO and Hamas, his religious beliefs and the ties to Black Liberation theology that it represents and his thinly veiled Marxist ideology.

All of these are VERY DIFFERENT than any other POTUS we've ever had and the change to this ideology will not be embraced quietly or peacefully, IMO.

tiptap
10-14-2008, 06:07 AM
Obama is proposing National Health Insurance which is nothing like National Healthcare. Why are we discussing National Healthcare?

Because the legislation will come from Congress and does not have to follow Obama's compromise proposal modeled after the Mass. model.

BucEyedPea
10-14-2008, 06:08 AM
Cut 80 percent of the budget and you just laid off a whole shit load of people

That'd be the bureaucrats mostly, most of whom are useless.
Taxes create govt jobs not private jobs.
Eventually, those jobs would be replaced.

tiptap
10-14-2008, 06:09 AM
His stance on abortion, his stance on 'siding with Muslims' if the political winds blow' and how that might translate with his ties to the PLO and Hamas, his religious beliefs and the ties to Black Liberation theology that it represents and his thinly veiled Marxist ideology.

All of these are VERY DIFFERENT than any other POTUS we've ever had and the change to this ideology will not be embraced quietly or peacefully, IMO.

This is while the Bush administration is buying stakes in banks.

BucEyedPea
10-14-2008, 06:11 AM
Cut and run in the middle east and we're there in 5 years!

Close most foreign bases ( not all) and revise FP and it'd cut even more.

BucEyedPea
10-14-2008, 06:11 AM
This is while the Bush administration is buying stakes in banks.

That Obama voted for.

memyselfI
10-14-2008, 06:12 AM
This is while the Bush administration is buying stakes in banks.

Something I argued against.

BucEyedPea
10-14-2008, 06:14 AM
Because money is god for you.

Sounds like religious fervor there tip. Sure you wanna go there?

banyon
10-14-2008, 09:11 AM
His stance on abortion, his stance on 'siding with Muslims' if the political winds blow and how that might translate with his ties to the PLO and Hamas, his religious beliefs and the ties to Black Liberation theology that it represents and his thinly veiled Marxist ideology.
.

Oh, I see, you are confusing rumormongering and innuendo with policy.
The rumormongering will be gone after the election and then these things will be irrelevant, so if you want to keep your head stuck in a hole for 4-8 years, then fine by me.

Donger
10-14-2008, 09:13 AM
Oh, I see, you are confusing rumormongering and innuendo with policy.
The rumormongering will be gone after the election and then these things will be irrelevant, so if you want to keep your head stuck in a hole for 4-8 years, then fine by me.

No offense, but you don't really know how Barack Hussein will govern, do you? Barack Hussein has asked you "to believe" and you've agreed, right?

banyon
10-14-2008, 09:16 AM
No offense, but you don't really know how Barack Hussein will govern, do you? Barack Hussein has asked you "to believe" and you've agreed, right?

No, the left, unlike the right, has always been interested in good governance. The Right has maintained for years that government is inherently evil and they have kept it as stewards to conform with that belief.

I guess if your question was "Am i familiar with Obama's policy plans, or am I a mindless drone?" Then I guess the answer would be that I am familiar with his policy plans.

Donger
10-14-2008, 09:19 AM
No, the left, unlike the right, has always been interested in good governance. The Right has maintained for years that government is inherently evil and they have kept it as stewards to conform with that belief.

Good governance? I suppose if you feel that the average person is too stupid or lazy to do for themselves, then increased government intervention is a good thing.

The bottom line is that, yes, you've bought what Barack Hussein has sold. Have you ever seen him operate in an executive role? If not, you are going on faith.

RINGLEADER
10-14-2008, 09:24 AM
ďIím paying the lowest tax rate that Iíve ever paid in my life. Now, thatís crazy.Ē --Warren Buffett 2008

:shake:

But good job totally missing the point.

I'd make a bet that taxes go up way north of 40% and we have more welfare spending than before Clinton under an Obama administration. It would be stupid for him politically (and be bad for the economy) but I don't Obama will be able to help himself.

It's too bad most Obama supporters either support this socialism, don't care because they hate Bush, or don't understand the consequences of what it is he wants to do.

:shake:

banyon
10-14-2008, 09:27 AM
Good governance? I suppose if you feel that the average person is too stupid or lazy to do for themselves, then increased government intervention is a good thing.

Right, this is what I was saying. You don't thinkk government can work right in principle and so when entrusted with the reins, it tends to be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The bottom line is that, yes, you've bought what Barack Hussein has sold. Have you ever seen him operate in an executive role? If not, you are going on faith.

I haven't "bought" anything other than I believe Obama will make every effort to carry out the policy plans he has announced. I have seen him operate a massive nationwide campaign and engineer a victory over a virtual incumbent candidate who was supposed to be undefeatable, so there's managerial and bureaucratic similarities there. But otherwise, no, neither Obama nor McCain has any direct executive experience. Of course, that standard hasn't been a very good barometer in the past, so I'm not sure why we'd hold it up again at this point, particularly when it wouldn't apply to either candidate.

Donger
10-14-2008, 09:31 AM
Right, this is what I was saying. You don't thinkk government can work right in principle and so when entrusted with the reins, it tends to be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

As a conservative, I think that government should provide what individual citizens cannot, such as national defense, courts, roads and infrastructure, etc. Everything else should be avoided as much as possible.

I haven't "bought" anything other than I believe Obama will make every effort to carry out the policy plans he has announced.

Thanks. You "believe." That's all I was trying to point out.

tiptap
10-14-2008, 09:40 AM
And in an agricultural setting I would agree. But in an industralized nation that list extends beyond National Defense, courts, roads and infrastructure because the humans is the essential infrastructure that all else is derived.

banyon
10-14-2008, 09:41 AM
As a conservative, I think that government should provide what individual citizens cannot, such as national defense, courts, roads and infrastructure, etc. Everything else should be avoided as much as possible.



Thanks. You "believe." That's all I was trying to point out.

Yes, I guess in the sense that I "believe" I am seated in a chair and there are four walls around me, you would be correct there.

Donger
10-14-2008, 09:42 AM
And in an agricultural setting I would agree. But in an industralized nation that list extends beyond National Defense, courts, roads and infrastructure because the humans is the essential infrastructure that all else is derived.

The vast majority of citizens can take care of themselves. You think otherwise?

Donger
10-14-2008, 09:43 AM
Yes, I guess in the sense that I "believe" I am seated in a chair and there are four walls around me, you would be correct there.

You wrote it, and it's true/accurate. All you have to go by at this point in time is what Barack Hussein has sold.

banyon
10-14-2008, 09:45 AM
You wrote it, and it's true/accurate. All you have to go by at this point in time is what Barack Hussein has sold.

It's not accurate at all because you've played on an equivocation to try to make your point.

Donger
10-14-2008, 09:48 AM
It's not accurate at all because you've played on an equivocation to try to make your point.

You just wrote: "I believe Obama will make every effort to carry out the policy plans he has announced."

You believe because you don't have any knowledge of how he will actually govern.

banyon
10-14-2008, 09:49 AM
You just wrote: "I believe Obama will make every effort to carry out the policy plans he has announced."

You believe because you don't have any knowledge of how he will actually govern.

Sentence 2 does not follow from sentence 1.

Donger
10-14-2008, 09:51 AM
Sentence 2 does not follow from sentence 1.

Sure it does. If not, why didn't you write "I know Obama will make every effort to carry out the policy plans he has announced."?

banyon
10-14-2008, 09:58 AM
Sure it does. If not, why didn't you write "I know Obama will make every effort to carry out the policy plans he has announced."?

Because, in the context of the sentence I employed the term in, "believe" is synonymous with "know".

Of course, if you truly enjoy the linguistic subtleties of these terms, I would heartily recommend you take up Wittgenstein's On Certainty, or Philosophical Investigations.

Donger
10-14-2008, 09:59 AM
Because, in the context of the sentence I employed the term in, "believe" is synonymous with "know".

Of course, if you truly enjoy the linguistic subtleties of these terms, I would heartily recommend you take up Wittgenstein's On Certainty, or Philosophical Investigations.

.

Garcia Bronco
10-14-2008, 10:06 AM
I dont have the statistics to prove or disprove your statement. I just know I am good with what medicare, SS and Medicaid accomplish while I am not OK with 10 billion a month for the Occupation of Iraq.

Medicare, SS, and Medicaid are doomed to fail because they rob one generation and give the money to another so to say. Those 3 take up almost 1.5 trillion of our 2.5 trillion dollar budget. They need to be stopped an the money returned to the people. And while the money spent on Iraq is a waste in it's own, it pales in comparison to the money spent on these wasteful programs.

MahiMike
10-14-2008, 10:28 AM
I don't care who's promoting it: Democrat, Republican, Independent.

National healthcare WILL NOT WORK.

It'd be a gigantic cluster****.

GIGANTIC.

Explain.

Brock
10-14-2008, 10:29 AM
Explain.

Take a look at what is about to happen to social security.

MahiMike
10-14-2008, 10:30 AM
QFT

I was under that system when I lived in Germany and it was a shambles.

Interesting. So was I and I LOVED IT! Went to the emergency room and didn't pay a dime. Went to the dentist and didn't pay a dime.

Yeah, I could see where you'd hate that...)

Brock
10-14-2008, 10:32 AM
Interesting. So was I and I LOVED IT! Went to the emergency room and didn't pay a dime. Went to the dentist and didn't pay a dime.

Yeah, I could see where you'd hate that...)

It was FREE!!

MahiMike
10-14-2008, 10:35 AM
Take a look at what is about to happen to social security.

I see your point. But there are really 2 issues; cost of care and how to pay for it. The cost in this country is ridiculous no matter who pays. Try to watch the nightly news without seeing a drug advertised. Those drugs cost 1,000 more than what they should. By having national healthcare, we'll actually bring the cost of those drugs down.

And if we still run out of money, we can always take it from the military's budget...

Brock
10-14-2008, 10:40 AM
Nothing has ever gotten cheaper because the government is paying for it.

Donger
10-14-2008, 10:42 AM
Nothing has ever gotten cheaper because the government is paying for it.

Health care costs are going to drop because Barack Hussein is going to digitalize records. Haven't you heard?

StcChief
10-14-2008, 10:49 AM
Health care costs are going to drop because Barack Hussein is going to digitalize records. Haven't you heard?ROFL
we don't need him to implement something that should have been done years ago. The technology has been around for quite some time.

tooge
10-14-2008, 10:50 AM
Ad hominem attack. It is the second weakest form of debate next to name calling.

Actually, since he didn't actually attack Buffet, it is not an Ad Hominem attack. Had he said "quoting Warren Buffet, one of the largest tax evaders of our era, and Obama supporter", it would be an ah hominem attack. Sorry

dirk digler
10-14-2008, 10:50 AM
Health care costs are going to drop because Barack Hussein is going to digitalize records. Haven't you heard?

McCain is proposing that as well or maybe you didn't know that.

dirk digler
10-14-2008, 10:52 AM
Here is the full exchange and I thought it was an interesting discussion

Judge for yourself -- here's the exchange.

Outside Toledo, Ohio, on Sunday, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was approached by plumber Joe Wurzelbacher, a big, bald man with a goatee who asked Obama if he believes in the American dream.

"I'm getting ready to buy a company that makes 250 to 280 thousand dollars a year," Wurzelbacher said. "Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it?"

Obama said, "First off, you would get a 50% tax credit so you'd get a tax cut for your healthcare costs….. if your revenue is above 250 – then from 250 down, your taxes are going to stay the same. It is true that from 250 up – from 250 – 300 or so, so for that additional amount, you’d go from 36 to 39%, which is what it was under Bill Clinton. And the reason why we’re doing that is because 95% of small businesses make less than 250. So what I want to do is give them a tax cut. I want to give all these folks who are bus drivers, teachers, auto workers who make less, I want to give them a tax cut. And so what we’re doing is, we are saying that folks who make more than 250 that that marginal amount above 250 – they’re gonna be taxed at a 39 instead of a 36% rate.”

Responded Wurzelbacher, "the reason I ask you about the American dream, I mean I've worked hard. I'm a plumber. I work 10-12 hours a day and I'm buying this company and I'm going to continue working that way. I'm getting taxed more and more while fulfilling the American dream."

"Well," said Obama, "here's a way of thinking about it. How long have been a plumber?"

Wurzelbacher said 15 years.

Obama says, “Over the last 15 years, when you weren’t making 250, you would have been given a tax cut from me, so you’d actually have more money, which means you would have saved more, which means you would have gotten to the point where you could build your small business quicker than under the current tax code. So there are two ways of looking at it – I mean one way of looking at it is, now that you’ve become more successful through hard work – you don’t want to be taxed as much.”
“Exactly," Wurzelbacher said.

Obama continued, “But another way of looking at it is 95% of folks who are making less than 250, they may be working hard too, but they’re being taxed at a higher rate than they would be under mine. So what I’m doing is, put yourself back 10 years ago when you were only making whatever, 60 or 70. Under my tax plan you would be keeping more of your paycheck, you’d be paying lower taxes, which means you would have saved…Now look, nobody likes high taxes."

"No," said Wurzelbacher.

"Of course not," said Obama. "But what’s happened is that we end up – we’ve cut taxes a lot for folks like me who make a lot more than 250. We haven’t given a break to folks who make less, and as a consequence, the average wage and income for ordinary folks, the vast majority of Americans, has actually gone down over the last eight years. So all I want to do is – I’ve got a tax cut. The only thing that changes, is I’m gonna cut taxes a little bit more for the folks who are most in need and for the 5% of the folks who are doing very well - even though they’ve been working hard and I appreciate that – I just want to make sure they’re paying a little bit more in order to pay for those other tax cuts. Now, I respect the disagreement. I just want you to be clear – it’s not that I want to punish your success – I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you – that they’ve got a chance at success too.”

Wurzelbacher said it seemed as though Obama might support a flat tax.
Obama says, “you know, I would be open to it except here’s the problem with a flat tax is that if you actually put a flat tax together, in order for it to work and replace all the revenue that we’ve got, you’d probably end up having to make it like about a 40% sales tax. I mean that’s the value added, making it up. Now some people say 23 or 25, but in truth when you add up all the revenue that would need to be raised, you’d have to slap on a whole bunch of sales taxes on. And I do believe for folks like me who have worked hard, but frankly also been lucky, I don’t mind paying just a little bit more than the waitress that I just met over there who’s things are slow and she can barely make the rent."

Obama said, "My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody. If you’ve got a plumbing business, you’re gonna be better off if you’re gonna be better off if you’ve got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you, and right now everybody’s so pinched that business is bad for everybody and I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody."

That's the key moment McCain is jumping out…"when you spread the wealth around it's good for everybody."

"But listen," Obama said, shaking Wurzelbacher's hand, "I respect what you do and I respect your question, and even if I don’t get your vote, I’m still gonna be working hard on your behalf, because small businesses are what creates jobs in this country and I want to encourage it.”

"Guys I gotta get out of here and go prepare for the debate," Obama said, "but that was pretty good practice right there."

Chiefshrink
10-14-2008, 10:54 AM
When in the history of our country has a 'tax increase' EVER prospered the "American taxpayer"????? Notice I said, "taxpayer" not "govt". That's right! Never has and never will!!!

banyon
10-14-2008, 10:58 AM
When in the history of our country has a 'tax increase' EVER prospered the "American taxpayer"????? Notice I said, "taxpayer" not "govt". That's right! Never has and never will!!!

I guess that's right, there wasn't the largest peacetime expansion of the economy after Clinton's tax bill.

And, of course, "taxpayers" are a homogeneous group. If you raise taxes on any of them, you've raised taxes on all of them. And also why is McCain proposing to raise taxes on all of these people to pay for his health care plan? Does he not know that Armageddon will ensue?

Amnorix
10-14-2008, 11:06 AM
For the record, I work hard for my money and have managed to put myself in a reasonably successful position economically.

And I"m a Democrat.

And I think we need higher taxes (if/when it won't exacerbate the looming/current recession), to help balance the budget.

I also believe in fixing the entitlement programs which are heading off the track at warp speed, fwiw.

Newsflash to the right -- not all Democrats are slackers, addicts or idiots. Just for the record... I'll try to believe with all of my might that those on the right aren't all bigots or religious lunatics that want to micromanage every aspect of my personal life if you can extend the same type of courtesies.

Amnorix
10-14-2008, 11:10 AM
Here is the full exchange and I thought it was an interesting discussion


I can't say I disagree with a single word of it.

Amnorix
10-14-2008, 11:12 AM
Medicare, SS, and Medicaid are doomed to fail because they rob one generation and give the money to another so to say. Those 3 take up almost 1.5 trillion of our 2.5 trillion dollar budget. They need to be stopped an the money returned to the people. And while the money spent on Iraq is a waste in it's own, it pales in comparison to the money spent on these wasteful programs.

So SS isn't "money returned to the people"? ROFL

All of them need revamping/fixing because demographics have changed, unfortunately. They are/were great programs with systemic problems.

MahiMike
10-14-2008, 05:32 PM
For the record, I work hard for my money and have managed to put myself in a reasonably successful position economically.

And I"m a Democrat.

And I think we need higher taxes (if/when it won't exacerbate the looming/current recession), to help balance the budget.

I also believe in fixing the entitlement programs which are heading off the track at warp speed, fwiw.

Newsflash to the right -- not all Democrats are slackers, addicts or idiots. Just for the record... I'll try to believe with all of my might that those on the right aren't all bigots or religious lunatics that want to micromanage every aspect of my personal life if you can extend the same type of courtesies.

What he said goes ditto for me. Conservatives have been brainwashed into thinking you're either w/them or you're a liberal commie. Guys, we all have to pay the piper eventually. Either us or your kids. Thanks to George W, our grandkids will still be paying.

Programmer
10-14-2008, 06:02 PM
For the record, I work hard for my money and have managed to put myself in a reasonably successful position economically.

And I"m a Democrat.

And I think we need higher taxes (if/when it won't exacerbate the looming/current recession), to help balance the budget.

I also believe in fixing the entitlement programs which are heading off the track at warp speed, fwiw.

Newsflash to the right -- not all Democrats are slackers, addicts or idiots. Just for the record... I'll try to believe with all of my might that those on the right aren't all bigots or religious lunatics that want to micromanage every aspect of my personal life if you can extend the same type of courtesies.

I'm interested in what it is that made you write the statement in bold. The concept you are trying to put out seems to be exceptionally short sighted. If all democrats were slackers, etc. there would never be any democrats in places of responsibility. Most people understand political party has little to do with business acumen or wealth. Based on much of the posts on this board it seems the democrats are most likely to think the worst of the conservatives, not vice versa.

Higher taxes to fix the problem would be OK if the massive waste of funds could be eliminated. Bills that have riders/earmarks that are nothing more than pork. An amendment to allow a single bill, no riders and no earmarks needs to be put into effect. The line item veto was the nearest we had to a tool to eliminate waste and it was determined to be illegal.

Eliminating the IRS and instituting a fair or flat tax would be a beginning to save. Forcing able bodied recipients of welfare to work for the gov, whether state or federal, would encourage freeloaders to look for actual employment, I've seen that concept work.

There is much that can be done, but to do it will cause some to call out for revolution. The fed is not the solution to all problems.

kcpasco
10-14-2008, 06:06 PM
That'd be the bureaucrats mostly, most of whom are useless.
Taxes create govt jobs not private jobs.
Eventually, those jobs would be replaced.


Well I happen to like my goverment job, it pays well and has good benefits.
And since McCain basically said he wants to take it away from me, I want to punch him in the face.

And no I'm not a bureaucrat, I clean up nucleur waste. Which I think is kinda important.

Sully
10-14-2008, 06:48 PM
Here is the full exchange and I thought it was an interesting discussion

It sounds good to me.
It's nice to see one of the candidates talk about himself, rather than try nd smear the other guy.

***SPRAYER
10-14-2008, 06:50 PM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/bbUej2HRKaY&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/bbUej2HRKaY&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Donger
10-14-2008, 06:52 PM
Obama says, ďOver the last 15 years, when you werenít making 250, you would have been given a tax cut from me, so youíd actually have more money, which means you would have saved more, which means you would have gotten to the point where you could build your small business quicker than under the current tax code.

So it basically boils down to: "Well, your timing sucks. If we had a time machine, you could have saved more in preparation for being ass-raped by me."

Lovely.

Sully
10-14-2008, 06:55 PM
Ass raped=paying 3% more on only the money above the $250,000 you make a year.

StcChief
10-14-2008, 06:56 PM
Well I happen to like my goverment job, it pays well and has good benefits.
And since McCain basically said he wants to take it away from me, I want to punch him in the face.

And no I'm not a bureaucrat, I clean up nucleur waste. Which I think is kinda important.if we wanna flat tax the need for a Gov't IRS will be signficantly reduced. As many other jobs, some will shift to other areas.

Your gov't job is going private sector?? you'd likely be better there in the long run.... this gov't gravy train benefits is part of the problem.

When you job is outsourced to India get back with me and we will all have a good whine together.

Programmer
10-14-2008, 06:58 PM
Ass raped=paying 3% more on only the money above the $250,000 you make a year.

Who was it making comments about the way I presented myself on this board?

I forget who it was, but this might be a case of you trying to play both sides of the street.

Nice job btw. You have proven that you are not what you claim.

Sully
10-14-2008, 06:59 PM
Who was it making comments about the way I presented myself on this board?

I forget who it was, but this might be a case of you trying to play both sides of the street.

Nice job btw. You have proven that you are not what you claim.

That was me. I was asking you if the way you post fits into your idea of faith. You never gave me a straight answer on that.

However, I can't for the life of me figure out what the hell that has to do with what I posted, here. Any clues?

***SPRAYER
10-14-2008, 07:01 PM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/sPBCo3WQRjY&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sPBCo3WQRjY&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

It's gonna be so exciting!

:whackit:

Donger
10-14-2008, 07:01 PM
Ass raped=paying 3% more on only the money above the $250,000 you make a year.

That's not an insignificant amount. However, I was referring more to the concept.

kcpasco
10-14-2008, 07:13 PM
if we wanna flat tax the need for a Gov't IRS will be signficantly reduced. As many other jobs, some will shift to other areas.

Your gov't job is going private sector?? you'd likely be better there in the long run.... this gov't gravy train benefits is part of the problem.

When you job is outsourced to India get back with me and we will all have a good whine together.

I'm pretty sure my job can't be outsourced since it requires a Q level clearance. I'm just worried about funding.

BucEyedPea
10-14-2008, 10:41 PM
And in an agricultural setting I would agree. But in an industralized nation that list extends beyond National Defense, courts, roads and infrastructure because the humans is the essential infrastructure that all else is derived.

Only per certain ideologies...the control ones that don't like freedom.

Logical
10-14-2008, 11:43 PM
So it basically boils down to: "Well, your timing sucks. If we had a time machine, you could have saved more in preparation for being ass-raped by me."

Lovely.I think this may already have been said, but an extra 3% is really an ass raping? Get serious.

Logical
10-14-2008, 11:46 PM
What I know, most everyone dislikes taxes.

Most everyone is irrational when it comes to taxes.

People you really are not going to be starving in the streets over and extra 1 to 3% above what you pay now.

SBK
10-14-2008, 11:51 PM
What I know, most everyone dislikes taxes.

Most everyone is irrational when it comes to taxes.

People you really are not going to be starving in the streets over and extra 1 to 3% above what you pay now.

That little 1-3% is going to cost people jobs. Not the evil rich company owner, but the guy working in the back, or the person that answers phones.

Mecca
10-14-2008, 11:53 PM
Bill Clintons tax plan really killed our country didn't it, it was way worse than the Bush one.....oh wait.

Logical
10-14-2008, 11:59 PM
That little 1-3% is going to cost people jobs. Not the evil rich company owner, but the guy working in the back, or the person that answers phones.I really wanted to use the rofl smiley but I thought I would try being polite.

Programmer
10-15-2008, 05:41 AM
That was me. I was asking you if the way you post fits into your idea of faith. You never gave me a straight answer on that.

However, I can't for the life of me figure out what the hell that has to do with what I posted, here. Any clues?

That's the point. You can see sin in every post I make and are quick to judge but are blind to your own actions and words.

Standard hypocritical attitude.

tiptap
10-15-2008, 05:43 AM
Only per certain ideologies...the control ones that don't like freedom.


It is the people involved that is most important. Add to that that this country does have a "binding" referendum on who are the ruling government entities and then the choises of which direction the country runs is a product of the freedom of choice.

Yes if you'd live in USSR with its political history of tyranny from the Czars, then you'd expect more of a "Divine" Right to rule, under the guise of Marxists proletariat rule. Or one could suggest a Divine Right argument for a capitalist system in the US.

In Western Europe, Australia and lately Japan, you see that socialistic choices are possible by a democratic vote. Your argument is that capitalism is freedom only works if those who have amassed assets do not abuse that position. And those people have no democratic referendum.

Sully
10-15-2008, 08:30 AM
That's the point. You can see sin in every post I make and are quick to judge but are blind to your own actions and words.

Standard hypocritical attitude.

ROFL
I've simply asked if you think your faith is lived out in your posts.

irishjayhawk
10-15-2008, 08:42 AM
That little 1-3% is going to cost people jobs. Not the evil rich company owner, but the guy working in the back, or the person that answers phones.

I'm perhaps jumping into a split of the conversation but do the guys working in back or the person answering the phones make over $250,000?

***SPRAYER
10-15-2008, 08:47 AM
I'm perhaps jumping into a split of the conversation but do the guys working in back or the person answering the phones make over $250,000?


One day when you're all grown up you'll understand how it works.

Donger
10-15-2008, 08:47 AM
I'm perhaps jumping into a split of the conversation but do the guys working in back or the person answering the phones make over $250,000?

No, they don't. But, if you think business owners are just going to take a hit on their profits just because Barack Hussein says they should, you are mistaken. They'll cut costs in order to cover the increased taxation.

SBK
10-15-2008, 08:55 AM
I really wanted to use the rofl smiley but I thought I would try being polite.

Lets make a bet, Obama gets in office and enacts his tax plan unemployment numbers go up.

Perhaps you can get some of that casino cash back I took from you (which was easier than taking candy from a kid). :D

SBK
10-15-2008, 08:57 AM
I'm perhaps jumping into a split of the conversation but do the guys working in back or the person answering the phones make over $250,000?

The guy that makes too much according to Obama is the guy that pays the salary of the guy in the back. Since he now has to pay the government more he has less to pay the guy in the back. Guy in the back now is looking for work because company no longer has funds to afford him.

People love to act like 'taxing the rich' doesn't have any effect on them, until it does.

Duck Dog
10-15-2008, 09:11 AM
I'm perhaps jumping into a split of the conversation but do the guys working in back or the person answering the phones make over $250,000?

Seriously. Put down the political science book and pick up a business manual.

Duck Dog
10-15-2008, 09:13 AM
The guy that makes too much according to Obama is the guy that pays the salary of the guy in the back. Since he now has to pay the government more he has less to pay the guy in the back. Guy in the back now is looking for work because company no longer has funds to afford him.

People love to act like 'taxing the rich' doesn't have any effect on them, until it does.


Liberals don't get that. They still think that worker will be better off if minimum wage is increased. They don't understand that by taxing the employer or by raising MW, they are actually putting that worker at risk of losing his/her job.

Duck Dog
10-15-2008, 09:16 AM
Bill Clintons tax plan really killed our country didn't it, it was way worse than the Bush one.....oh wait.


Not sure if you are being sarcastic but here's a Clinton tax plan refresher.

http://www.cbpp.org/clinttax.htm

Duck Dog
10-15-2008, 09:18 AM
What I know, most everyone dislikes taxes.

Most everyone is irrational when it comes to taxes.

People you really are not going to be starving in the streets over and extra 1 to 3% above what you pay now.

People will however lose jobs over it. But that's OK because Hussain Obama wants to redistribute money anyway.

ChiTown
10-15-2008, 09:20 AM
Seriously. Put down the political science book and pick up a business manual.

:clap:

No shit.

I often wonder if any of these idealist actually have ANY real business experience other than what they have "learned" from their Liberalnomics 101 handbook.

ROYC75
10-15-2008, 11:29 AM
What do you want in life ?

Wealth Redistribution > Obama
or
Wealth Creation > McCain

HC_Chief
10-15-2008, 11:32 AM
What do you want in life ?

Wealth Redistribution > Obama
or
Wealth Creation > McCain

Talk about misleading.

Obama will most certainly redistribute wealth, but McCain will most certainly NOT "create" wealth. Government cannot create wealth; best it can do is get the *#$%& out of the way so that WE, the CITIZENS, create wealth. Government CAN redistribute wealth. That's pretty much all government has done.

ROYC75
10-15-2008, 11:46 AM
Talk about misleading.

Obama will most certainly redistribute wealth, but McCain will most certainly NOT "create" wealth. Government cannot create wealth; best it can do is get the *#$%& out of the way so that WE, the CITIZENS, create wealth. Government CAN redistribute wealth. That's pretty much all government has done.

Creating jobs by lowering taxes on business's to to increase, add, create new jobs, come back home from afar .

I don't see it as " misleading ".

Amnorix
10-15-2008, 11:57 AM
What do you want in life ?

Wealth Redistribution > Obama
or
Wealth Creation > McCain

And if this were 1992, I'm about 100% sure you would have said the same about Clinton v. Bush1. And in 1996, Clinton v. Dole.

And check your latest 401(k) and other invetsment statements to see how your boy BushBaby is doing on "wealth creation" these days.

Amnorix
10-15-2008, 12:05 PM
Creating jobs by lowering taxes on business's to to increase, add, create new jobs, come back home from afar .

I don't see it as " misleading ".

Ok, how about just flat, freaking "wrong"? Is that better? Oh, and gee, I can even prove it.

For the forty years from 1961 to 2000, the president was from the Democratic Party half of the time and from the Republican Party for the rest. Each side had four presidents in those 40 years. During the administrations of the four Democrats, real GDP expanded 4.1% per annum, 1.2 percentage points faster than the average growth during Republican administrations of 2.9% per annum. Growth over the 7.5 years that George W. Bush has been president has averaged just 2.3% per annum.

The Democrat administrations achieved the three fastest rates of growth and four of the top five on that ranking. Real GDP advanced at an annualized rate of 5.2% during the Kennedy years, 5.1% during the Johnson years, and 3.6% when the Clinton administration was in power. GDP rose 3.5% per annum in the Reagan years despite a severe recession in 1981-2. Growth averaged a respectable 3.2% per annum when the Carter administration governed — and yes, some people no doubt were better off in 1980 than 1976 — and the Nixon years experienced growth of 3.0% per annum. In none of these presidential periods was growth substantially less than the 3.4% average pace for the whole second half of the 20th century.


http://currencythoughts.com/2008/09/26/us-gdp-growth-under-different-presidencies/

Amnorix
10-15-2008, 12:13 PM
Not sure if you are being sarcastic but here's a Clinton tax plan refresher.

http://www.cbpp.org/clinttax.htm

That's not the 1993 plan, however. That is the one that everyone talks about.

And it raised taxes on the top tier of income earners.

http://www.allbusiness.com/personal-finance/individual-taxes/392324-1.html

Amnorix
10-15-2008, 12:13 PM
:clap:

No shit.

I often wonder if any of these idealist actually have ANY real business experience other than what they have "learned" from their Liberalnomics 101 handbook.

Yes.

Amnorix
10-15-2008, 12:14 PM
Lets make a bet, Obama gets in office and enacts his tax plan unemployment numbers go up.

Perhaps you can get some of that casino cash back I took from you (which was easier than taking candy from a kid). :D

Unemployment is going up regardless. Nobody is going to stop 2009 from being a bad year.

Amnorix
10-15-2008, 12:14 PM
The guy that makes too much according to Obama is the guy that pays the salary of the guy in the back. Since he now has to pay the government more he has less to pay the guy in the back. Guy in the back now is looking for work because company no longer has funds to afford him.

People love to act like 'taxing the rich' doesn't have any effect on them, until it does.

Truly brilliant analysis. We shouldn't tax people who make more so they can give more to their employees and the other little people in their lives!

Brilliant!

Amnorix
10-15-2008, 12:19 PM
No, they don't. But, if you think business owners are just going to take a hit on their profits just because Barack Hussein says they should, you are mistaken. They'll cut costs in order to cover the increased taxation.

First, you're assuming they are in a position to cut costs without hurting their business. They will not cut off their noses to spite their faces.

Second, you're assuming that they can immediately pass through 100% of cost cut savings into increased profits into their own pockets. That often isn't necessarily the case.

Third, you're assuming that all business owners operate with one sole goal -- absolute maximum profits in pocket. While that is the largest long-term motivator, there may be many other short and medium term motivators that overrule that consideration, such as business growth, market share, etc.

Don't pretend for a second that if someone does a back of the envelope calculation and figured they're going to be out another $30K in profit this year due to tax changes, that Charlie line-worker will automatically buy it.

And fourth, you're ignoring the vast number of people who work for large corporations who aren't goign to change their hiring/firing practices or have their proftiability greatly affected by changes to individual tax rates. General Electric doesn't really care if Joe Senior Vice President is taxed at 35% or 40%, and neither does Skadden Arps or PricewaterhouseCoopers fire partners because tax rates went up.

Amnorix
10-15-2008, 12:21 PM
I think this may already have been said, but an extra 3% is really an ass raping? Get serious.

Hey look. Charlie Wall Street making a half-million a year is going to have to pony up another $7,500 per year. That's about 10% of the cost of his daughter's Sweet 16 party you know!

Donger
10-15-2008, 12:28 PM
First, you're assuming they are in a position to cut costs without hurting their business. They will not cut off their noses to spite their faces.

Second, you're assuming that they can immediately pass through 100% of cost cut savings into increased profits into their own pockets. That often isn't necessarily the case.

Third, you're assuming that all business owners operate with one sole goal -- absolute maximum profits in pocket. While that is the largest long-term motivator, there may be many other short and medium term motivators that overrule that consideration, such as business growth, market share, etc.

Don't pretend for a second that if someone does a back of the envelope calculation and figured they're going to be out another $30K in profit this year due to tax changes, that Charlie line-worker will automatically buy it.

And fourth, you're ignoring the vast number of people who work for large corporations who aren't goign to change their hiring/firing practices or have their proftiability greatly affected by changes to individual tax rates. General Electric doesn't really care if Joe Senior Vice President is taxed at 35% or 40%, and neither does Skadden Arps or PricewaterhouseCoopers fire partners because tax rates went up.

Yes, unfortunately due to the vagueness of Barack Hussein's plan (besides "get those rich f*ckers!"), we must make a lot of assumptions.

Donger
10-15-2008, 12:29 PM
Hey look. Charlie Wall Street making a half-million a year is going to have to pony up another $7,500 per year. That's about 10% of the cost of his daughter's Sweet 16 party you know!

As you know, for me it's more of the opposition to the Robin Hood nature of Barack Hussein's fiscal philosophy that I consider to be ass-raping.

Now, however, it's called "giving it to the man."

Amnorix
10-15-2008, 12:31 PM
Yes, unfortunately due to the vagueness of Barack Hussein's plan (besides "get those rich f*ckers!"), we must make a lot of assumptions.

I also wish for more specifics. Unfortunately, all candidates for all parties avoid specifics like the plague, especially if they're ahead.

ChiTown
10-15-2008, 12:34 PM
Hey look. Charlie Wall Street making a half-million a year is going to have to pony up another $7,500 per year. That's about 10% of the cost of his daughter's Sweet 16 party you know!

How much does one have to make to be officially declared a "Charlie Wall Street".

Amnorix
10-15-2008, 12:35 PM
As you know, for me it's more of the opposition to the Robin Hood nature of Barack Hussein's fiscal philosophy that I consider to be ass-raping.

Now, however, it's called "giving it to the man."

I suppose. I think some degree of wealth redistribution is necessary in any society. Once wealth is overconcentrated, the economy is much less efficient overall, and you have a resentful lower class that is bad for society in many ways (crime, unrest, etc.).

The questions are how do you do it -- both balancing the economic efficiencies and the need to properly reward superior performance.

Donger
10-15-2008, 12:36 PM
I suppose. I think some degree of wealth redistribution is necessary in any society. Once wealth is overconcentrated, the economy is much less efficient overall, and you have a resentful lower class that is bad for society in many ways (crime, unrest, etc.).

The questions are how do you do it -- both balancing the economic efficiencies and the need to properly reward superior performance.

Barack Hussein seems to view it as Halloween for adults.

***SPRAYER
10-15-2008, 12:36 PM
Truly brilliant analysis. We shouldn't tax people who make more so they can give more to their employees and the other little people in their lives!

Brilliant!


I guess the American dream stops at $250,000.

Amnorix
10-15-2008, 12:38 PM
I guess the American dream stops at $250,000.

Don't be absurd. For most of our history the top marginal rate was much higher than where it stands now.

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

<TABLE class=wikitable style="TEXT-ALIGN: center"><TBODY><TR><TH colSpan=5>Partial History of
U.S. Federal Income Tax Rates
Since 1913</TH></TR><TR><TH>Applicable
Year</TH><TH>Income
brackets</TH><TH>First
bracket</TH><TH>Top
bracket</TH><TH>Source</TH></TR><TR><TH>1913-1915</TH><TD>-</TD><TD>1%</TD><TD>7%</TD><TD>Census</TD></TR><TR><TH>1916</TH><TD>-</TD><TD>2%</TD><TD>15%</TD><TD>Census</TD></TR><TR><TH>1917</TH><TD>-</TD><TD>2%</TD><TD>67%</TD><TD>Census</TD></TR><TR><TH>1918</TH><TD>-</TD><TD>6%</TD><TD>73%</TD><TD>Census</TD></TR><TR><TH>1919-1920</TH><TD>-</TD><TD>4%</TD><TD>73%</TD><TD>Census</TD></TR><TR><TH>1921</TH><TD>-</TD><TD>4%</TD><TD>73%</TD><TD>Census</TD></TR><TR><TH>1922</TH><TD>-</TD><TD>4%</TD><TD>56%</TD><TD>Census</TD></TR><TR><TH>1923</TH><TD>-</TD><TD>3%</TD><TD>56%</TD><TD>Census</TD></TR><TR><TH>1924</TH><TD>-</TD><TD>1.5%</TD><TD>46%</TD><TD>Census</TD></TR><TR><TH>1925-1928</TH><TD>-</TD><TD>1.5%</TD><TD>25%</TD><TD>Census</TD></TR><TR><TH>1929</TH><TD>-</TD><TD>0.375%</TD><TD>24%</TD><TD>Census</TD></TR><TR><TH>1930-1931</TH><TD>-</TD><TD>1.125%</TD><TD>25%</TD><TD>Census</TD></TR><TR><TH>1932-1933</TH><TD>-</TD><TD>4%</TD><TD>63%</TD><TD>Census</TD></TR><TR><TH>1934-1935</TH><TD>-</TD><TD>4%</TD><TD>63%</TD><TD>Census</TD></TR><TR><TH>1936-1939</TH><TD>-</TD><TD>4%</TD><TD>79%</TD><TD>Census</TD></TR><TR><TH>1940</TH><TD>-</TD><TD>4.4%</TD><TD>81.1%</TD><TD>Census</TD></TR><TR><TH>1941</TH><TD>-</TD><TD>10%</TD><TD>81%</TD><TD>Census</TD></TR><TR><TH>1942-1943</TH><TD>-</TD><TD>19%</TD><TD>88%</TD><TD>Census</TD></TR><TR><TH>1944-1945</TH><TD>-</TD><TD>23%</TD><TD>94%</TD><TD>Census</TD></TR><TR><TH>1946-1947</TH><TD>-</TD><TD>19%</TD><TD>86.45%</TD><TD>Census</TD></TR><TR><TH>1948-1949</TH><TD>-</TD><TD>16.6%</TD><TD>82.13%</TD><TD>Census</TD></TR><TR><TH>1950</TH><TD>-</TD><TD>17.4%</TD><TD>84.36%</TD><TD>Census</TD></TR><TR><TH>1951</TH><TD>-</TD><TD>20.4%</TD><TD>91%</TD><TD>Census</TD></TR><TR><TH>1952-1953</TH><TD>-</TD><TD>22.2%</TD><TD>92%</TD><TD>Census</TD></TR><TR><TH>1954-1963</TH><TD>-</TD><TD>20%</TD><TD>91%</TD><TD>Census</TD></TR><TR><TH>1964</TH><TD>-</TD><TD>16%</TD><TD>77%</TD><TD>Census</TD></TR><TR><TH>1965-1967</TH><TD>-</TD><TD>14%</TD><TD>70%</TD><TD>Census</TD></TR><TR><TH>1968</TH><TD>-</TD><TD>14%</TD><TD>75.25%</TD><TD>Census</TD></TR><TR><TH>1969</TH><TD>-</TD><TD>14%</TD><TD>77%</TD><TD>Census</TD></TR><TR><TH>1970</TH><TD>-</TD><TD>14%</TD><TD>71.75%</TD><TD>Census</TD></TR><TR><TH>1971-1981</TH><TD>15 brackets</TD><TD>14%</TD><TD>70%</TD><TD>IRS</TD></TR><TR><TH>1982-1986</TH><TD>12 brackets</TD><TD>12%</TD><TD>50%</TD><TD>IRS</TD></TR><TR><TH>1987</TH><TD>5 brackets</TD><TD>11%</TD><TD>38.5%</TD><TD>IRS</TD></TR><TR><TH>1988-1990</TH><TD>3 brackets</TD><TD>15%</TD><TD>33%</TD><TD>IRS</TD></TR><TR><TH>1991-1992</TH><TD>3 brackets</TD><TD>15%</TD><TD>31%</TD><TD>IRS</TD></TR><TR><TH>1993-2000</TH><TD>5 brackets</TD><TD>15%</TD><TD>39.6%</TD><TD>IRS</TD></TR><TR><TH>2001</TH><TD>5 brackets</TD><TD>15%</TD><TD>39.1%</TD><TD>IRS</TD></TR><TR><TH>2002</TH><TD>6 brackets</TD><TD>10%</TD><TD>38.6%</TD><TD>IRS</TD></TR><TR><TH>2003-2008</TH><TD>6 brackets</TD><TD>10%</TD><TD>35%</TD><TD>IRS</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

HC_Chief
10-15-2008, 12:39 PM
I guess the American dream stops at $250,000.

Nope, that's simply where one is "liberated" from the state's teat and officially becomes bourgeoisie.

Amnorix
10-15-2008, 12:41 PM
Barack Hussein seems to view it as Halloween for adults.

We'll see what happens. I would like nothing better than to see Rubin or Summers back at Treasury under his administration, thoguh I'm doubtful that that will occur.

Nevertheless, the economic pressures of the deficit and debt greatly constrain his ability to do whatever he wants.

Donger
10-15-2008, 12:44 PM
So, has anyone done the math on how this measly increase (as some are suggesting it is) on "the rich" is going to pay for all Barack Hussein's new spending?

Someone just threw out $7,500/year. How many people is it going to take to come up with ~$1 trillion in new spending that Barack Hussein proposes?

Donger
10-15-2008, 12:44 PM
We'll see what happens. I would like nothing better than to see Rubin or Summers back at Treasury under his administration, thoguh I'm doubtful that that will occur.

Nevertheless, the economic pressures of the deficit and debt greatly constrain his ability to do whatever he wants.

We should form our own party.

HC_Chief
10-15-2008, 12:49 PM
So, has anyone done the math on how this measly increase (as some are suggesting it is) on "the rich" is going to pay for all Barack Hussein's new spending?

Someone just threw out $7,500/year. How many people is it going to take to come up with ~$1 trillion in new spending that Barack Hussein proposes?

Maybe he'll cut DHS and DEA?

Make that promise and follow through, I'll vote for you. :D

Donger
10-15-2008, 01:00 PM
Maybe he'll cut DHS and DEA?

Make that promise and follow through, I'll vote for you. :D

Well, he's got to cut something else. Running the numbers, he better hope we have 133,000,000 "rich" people in this country.

Amnorix
10-15-2008, 01:11 PM
So, has anyone done the math on how this measly increase (as some are suggesting it is) on "the rich" is going to pay for all Barack Hussein's new spending?

Someone just threw out $7,500/year. How many people is it going to take to come up with ~$1 trillion in new spending that Barack Hussein proposes?

My number was, o fcourse, a hypohtetical based on a 500K AGI on an assume 3% increase in top marginal rates above $250K. It's not a real number for any practical purpose.

$1 Trillion over how long? I skimmed some articles showing both candidates ratcheting up spending. :doh!:

Donger
10-15-2008, 01:13 PM
My number was, o fcourse, a hypohtetical based on a 500K AGI on an assume 3% increase in top marginal rates above $250K. It's not a real number for any practical purpose.

$1 Trillion over how long? I skimmed some articles showing both candidates ratcheting up spending. :doh!:

From what I've read, Barack Hussein proposes that much over his first term. So, yes, we need to take that 133 million and divide by 4.

HC_Chief
10-15-2008, 01:13 PM
My number was, o fcourse, a hypohtetical based on a 500K AGI on an assume 3% increase in top marginal rates above $250K. It's not a real number for any practical purpose.

$1 Trillion over how long? I skimmed some articles showing both candidates ratcheting up spending. :doh!:

Yep. We are f*@&ed.

Amnorix
10-15-2008, 01:14 PM
We should form our own party.

Seriously. Truth be told, I'm not exactly thrilled with Obama, and I"m taking alot on faith in the economic realm.

But I have no more confidence in McCain. Less, actually, and in the other areas (individual rights, etc.) I tend to favor Democrats anyway, so it's not like it's a hard decision for me.

But honestly, we'd be a much better combo candidate than these guys. If nothing else, we'd give the American people honest governance.

Amnorix
10-15-2008, 01:14 PM
Yep. We are f*@&ed.

We'll see. In the short run, we're more or less forced to cut taxes, increase spending or both to help with the recessionary environment we're in.

In the long run, however. :shake:

Amnorix
10-15-2008, 01:15 PM
From what I've read, Barack Hussein proposes that much over his first term. So, yes, we need to take that 133 million and divide by 4.

:shrug: And Bush promised to half the deficit -- first in raw numbers and then as a percentage of GDP, by the end of whichever term it was. Campaign promises sometimes run into hard reality. Clinton's campaign also made promises it could not deliver when the reality of the economic circumstances set in.

Donger
10-15-2008, 01:18 PM
Seriously. Truth be told, I'm not exactly thrilled with Obama, and I"m taking alot on faith in the economic realm.

But I have no more confidence in McCain. Less, actually, and in the other areas (individual rights, etc.) I tend to favor Democrats anyway, so it's not like it's a hard decision for me.

But honestly, we'd be a much better combo candidate than these guys. If nothing else, we'd give the American people honest governance.

You got a fancy, lawyer-type thing around the native-born issue?

HC_Chief
10-15-2008, 01:20 PM
We'll see. In the short run, we're more or less forced to cut taxes, increase spending or both to help with the recessionary environment we're in.

In the long run, however. :shake:

I disagree. The government needs to get the hell out of the way and allow the market to correct itself. If that means a prolonged recession, so be it. In the long run it is the natural market correction which will provide for greater stability. All the government can do is make a greater mess.

Donger
10-15-2008, 01:21 PM
:shrug: And Bush promised to half the deficit -- first in raw numbers and then as a percentage of GDP, by the end of whichever term it was. Campaign promises sometimes run into hard reality. Clinton's campaign also made promises it could not deliver when the reality of the economic circumstances set in.

You you think that Barack Hussein will be able to keep his promise about not raising taxes on the other 95%?

He's setting himself up for either a reversal on that or he's going to deficit spend.

***SPRAYER
10-15-2008, 01:22 PM
Don't be absurd. For most of our history the top marginal rate was much higher than where it stands now.

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

<TABLE class=wikitable style="TEXT-ALIGN: center"><TBODY><TR><TH colSpan=5>Partial History of
U.S. Federal Income Tax Rates
Since 1913</TH></TR><TR><TH>Applicable
Year</TH><TH>Income
brackets</TH><TH>First
bracket</TH><TH>Top
bracket</TH><TH>Source</TH></TR><TR><TH>1913-1915</TH><TD>-</TD><TD>1%</TD><TD>7%</TD><TD>Census</TD></TR><TR><TH>1916</TH><TD>-</TD><TD>2%</TD><TD>15%</TD><TD>Census</TD></TR><TR><TH>1917</TH><TD>-</TD><TD>2%</TD><TD>67%</TD><TD>Census</TD></TR><TR><TH>1918</TH><TD>-</TD><TD>6%</TD><TD>73%</TD><TD>Census</TD></TR><TR><TH>1919-1920</TH><TD>-</TD><TD>4%</TD><TD>73%</TD><TD>Census</TD></TR><TR><TH>1921</TH><TD>-</TD><TD>4%</TD><TD>73%</TD><TD>Census</TD></TR><TR><TH>1922</TH><TD>-</TD><TD>4%</TD><TD>56%</TD><TD>Census</TD></TR><TR><TH>1923</TH><TD>-</TD><TD>3%</TD><TD>56%</TD><TD>Census</TD></TR><TR><TH>1924</TH><TD>-</TD><TD>1.5%</TD><TD>46%</TD><TD>Census</TD></TR><TR><TH>1925-1928</TH><TD>-</TD><TD>1.5%</TD><TD>25%</TD><TD>Census</TD></TR><TR><TH>1929</TH><TD>-</TD><TD>0.375%</TD><TD>24%</TD><TD>Census</TD></TR><TR><TH>1930-1931</TH><TD>-</TD><TD>1.125%</TD><TD>25%</TD><TD>Census</TD></TR><TR><TH>1932-1933</TH><TD>-</TD><TD>4%</TD><TD>63%</TD><TD>Census</TD></TR><TR><TH>1934-1935</TH><TD>-</TD><TD>4%</TD><TD>63%</TD><TD>Census</TD></TR><TR><TH>1936-1939</TH><TD>-</TD><TD>4%</TD><TD>79%</TD><TD>Census</TD></TR><TR><TH>1940</TH><TD>-</TD><TD>4.4%</TD><TD>81.1%</TD><TD>Census</TD></TR><TR><TH>1941</TH><TD>-</TD><TD>10%</TD><TD>81%</TD><TD>Census</TD></TR><TR><TH>1942-1943</TH><TD>-</TD><TD>19%</TD><TD>88%</TD><TD>Census</TD></TR><TR><TH>1944-1945</TH><TD>-</TD><TD>23%</TD><TD>94%</TD><TD>Census</TD></TR><TR><TH>1946-1947</TH><TD>-</TD><TD>19%</TD><TD>86.45%</TD><TD>Census</TD></TR><TR><TH>1948-1949</TH><TD>-</TD><TD>16.6%</TD><TD>82.13%</TD><TD>Census</TD></TR><TR><TH>1950</TH><TD>-</TD><TD>17.4%</TD><TD>84.36%</TD><TD>Census</TD></TR><TR><TH>1951</TH><TD>-</TD><TD>20.4%</TD><TD>91%</TD><TD>Census</TD></TR><TR><TH>1952-1953</TH><TD>-</TD><TD>22.2%</TD><TD>92%</TD><TD>Census</TD></TR><TR><TH>1954-1963</TH><TD>-</TD><TD>20%</TD><TD>91%</TD><TD>Census</TD></TR><TR><TH>1964</TH><TD>-</TD><TD>16%</TD><TD>77%</TD><TD>Census</TD></TR><TR><TH>1965-1967</TH><TD>-</TD><TD>14%</TD><TD>70%</TD><TD>Census</TD></TR><TR><TH>1968</TH><TD>-</TD><TD>14%</TD><TD>75.25%</TD><TD>Census</TD></TR><TR><TH>1969</TH><TD>-</TD><TD>14%</TD><TD>77%</TD><TD>Census</TD></TR><TR><TH>1970</TH><TD>-</TD><TD>14%</TD><TD>71.75%</TD><TD>Census</TD></TR><TR><TH>1971-1981</TH><TD>15 brackets</TD><TD>14%</TD><TD>70%</TD><TD>IRS</TD></TR><TR><TH>1982-1986</TH><TD>12 brackets</TD><TD>12%</TD><TD>50%</TD><TD>IRS</TD></TR><TR><TH>1987</TH><TD>5 brackets</TD><TD>11%</TD><TD>38.5%</TD><TD>IRS</TD></TR><TR><TH>1988-1990</TH><TD>3 brackets</TD><TD>15%</TD><TD>33%</TD><TD>IRS</TD></TR><TR><TH>1991-1992</TH><TD>3 brackets</TD><TD>15%</TD><TD>31%</TD><TD>IRS</TD></TR><TR><TH>1993-2000</TH><TD>5 brackets</TD><TD>15%</TD><TD>39.6%</TD><TD>IRS</TD></TR><TR><TH>2001</TH><TD>5 brackets</TD><TD>15%</TD><TD>39.1%</TD><TD>IRS</TD></TR><TR><TH>2002</TH><TD>6 brackets</TD><TD>10%</TD><TD>38.6%</TD><TD>IRS</TD></TR><TR><TH>2003-2008</TH><TD>6 brackets</TD><TD>10%</TD><TD>35%</TD><TD>IRS</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Wow. That is interesting. But it only gives the highest and lowest. Adjusted for inflation, what was $250K worth in 1950 and what was the tax rate?

Amnorix
10-15-2008, 01:27 PM
You got a fancy, lawyer-type thing around the native-born issue?

MEMORANDUM

TO: Client
FROM: High Priced Lawyer
DATE: October 15, 2008
RE: Analysis of Constitutional Requirements of Place of Birth of Presidential Candidates

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

You have requested that we analyze the Constitutional requirement that individuals aspiring to the office of President of the United States ("POTUS") be individuals born within the United States. Specifically, Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution states:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

We understand in this regard that you were born in the United Kingdom and now desire to aspire to the office of POTUS.

We regret to inform you that you are f**ked. You might as well seek to become Shogun of Japan. In summary, fuhgetaboutit.

If you have any questions regarding any of the issues set forth in this memorandum, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Amnorix
10-15-2008, 01:29 PM
You you think that Barack Hussein will be able to keep his promise about not raising taxes on the other 95%?

He's setting himself up for either a reversal on that or he's going to deficit spend.

Yeah, I'll take Deficit Spending for a thousand, Jack.

Amnorix
10-15-2008, 01:29 PM
Wow. That is interesting. But it only gives the highest and lowest. Adjusted for inflation, what was $250K worth in 1950 and what was the tax rate?

Good question. Let me look that up for you. Can I get you a cup of coffee while you wait?

Donger
10-15-2008, 01:30 PM
MEMORANDUM

TO: Client
FROM: High Priced Lawyer
DATE: October 15, 2008
RE: Analysis of Constitutional Requirements of Place of Birth of Presidential Candidates

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

You have requested that we analyze the Constitutional requirement that individuals aspiring to the office of President of the United States ("POTUS") be individuals born within the United States. Specifically, Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution states:



We understand in this regard that you were born in the United Kingdom and now desire to aspire to the office of POTUS.

We regret to inform you that you are f**ked. You might as well seek to become Shogun of Japan. In summary, fuhgetaboutit.

If you have any questions regarding any of the issues set forth in this memorandum, please do not hesitate to contact us.



So, you're saying I've got a chance?!

ROFL

***SPRAYER
10-15-2008, 01:31 PM
Good question. Let me look that up for you. Can I get you a cup of coffee while you wait?

Don't be absurd.

Amnorix
10-15-2008, 01:37 PM
Don't be absurd.

You're the one asking ridiculous questions. Do your own damn internet research.

***SPRAYER
10-15-2008, 01:40 PM
You're the one asking ridiculous questions. Do your own damn internet research.

In other words, you couldn't find something off wikepedia to cut and paste that you think will impress everybody.

Amnorix
10-15-2008, 01:44 PM
In other words, you couldn't find something off wikepedia to cut and paste that you think will impress everybody.

Better than spouting directly from my sphincter, which is your standard approach.

EDIT: And, P.S., I'm sorry my posts rely on facts and figures which often disprove your sphincter-inspired ramblings. I see it's made you very sensitive.

***SPRAYER
10-15-2008, 02:02 PM
Better than spouting directly from my sphincter, which is your standard approach.

EDIT: And, P.S., I'm sorry my posts rely on facts and figures which often disprove your sphincter-inspired ramblings. I see it's made you very sensitive.

What does a chart showing that the highest tax rate in 1918 was 77% have to do with anything? What exactly was your point? Right, you didn't have one.

Amnorix
10-15-2008, 02:17 PM
What does a chart showing that the highest tax rate in 1918 was 77% have to do with anything? What exactly was your point? Right, you didn't have one.

I'll spell it out for you.

S-L-O-W-L-Y

You stated that the American Dream stops at $250,000 because Obama is apparently planning to increase the top marginal tax rate on individuals earning above such figures. Those individuals are currently taxed at the highest individual rate, which is 35%.

Unless you think that the American Dream did not exist for the years 1932-1986 (inclusive) where the top marginal rate was never less than 50%, then my post goes to show that there is a HELL of a lot of room to move that top rate up without exceeding what has historically been the range of top rates in the US.

Your statement regarding the death of the American Dream was foolish and juvenile, and I easily destroyed it by noting that we are FAR UNDER the historical average of top marginal rate. It did require a bit of thinking to connect the dots, and I'm sorry I assumed you could make those links.

Please note that while I'm willing to spoon feed you this time around, I don't plan to make a habit of it.

***SPRAYER
10-15-2008, 03:35 PM
You stated that the American Dream stops at $250,000 because Obama is apparently planning to increase the top marginal tax rate on individuals earning above such figures. Those individuals are currently taxed at the highest individual rate, which is 35%..

And the rate will rise to 60% after B.O. takes over. There will be no incentive to earn more than that if the tax is almost half that at $249 K.



Unless you think that the American Dream did not exist for the years 1932-1986 (inclusive) where the top marginal rate was never less than 50%,

Means nothing. What incomes (adjusted for inflation) were taxed at the top marginal rate? For example, I bet very few if any people in 1918 earned the amount that would have put them in the 77% bracket.

Your chart, in and of itself MEANS NOTHING.

then my post goes to show that there is a HELL of a lot of room to move that top rate up without exceeding what has historically been the range of top rates in the US.

No it doesn't. It just shows that the "top marginal rate" was 77% of income (in 1918) but doesn't say what incomes qualified for that distinction.



Your statement regarding the death of the American Dream was foolish and juvenile,

No, your response was.

and I easily destroyed it by noting that we are FAR UNDER the historical average of top marginal rate.

You're an idiot. How many millionaires were there in the USA in each era? There are far more millionaires in the USA today BUT ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION they are being taxed ON AVERAGE more than in any of those other eras.



It did require a bit of thinking to connect the dots, and I'm sorry I assumed you could make those links.


Terrific, Billy.

You didn't state the incomes, you didn't adjust for inflation, you didn't mention the tax revenue to demonstrate whether or not those were even ideal rates, you didn't mention avg per capita income etc etc etc

You just cut and pasted a chart that says the USA at one time taxed the highest marginal income 77%, therefore it is perfectly fine and acceptable and economically SMART POLICY to do it again.

Were you born and as*hole or do you just practice alot?

Please note that while I'm willing to spoon feed you this time around, I don't plan to make a habit of it

The moral of the story here Billy, is don't cut and paste some chart off Wikipedia and act like you made a point.

YOu jackass.

BucEyedPea
10-15-2008, 03:41 PM
Means nothing. What incomes (adjusted for inflation) were taxed at the top marginal rate? For example, I bet very few if any people in 1918 earned the amount that would have put them in the 77% bracket.

Your chart, in and of itself MEANS NOTHING.
Iirc it was the top 2% or something like that. I'd have to check it. Your premise is essentially correct though.

SBK
10-15-2008, 03:48 PM
Truly brilliant analysis. We shouldn't tax people who make more so they can give more to their employees and the other little people in their lives!

Brilliant!

That's not at all what I said, but go ahead and run with it.

***SPRAYER
10-15-2008, 03:49 PM
Iirc it was the top 2% or something like that. I'd have to check it. Your premise is essentially correct though.

Right, you know what I'm talking about. Clean it up for me, BEP! :thumb:

***SPRAYER
10-15-2008, 08:00 PM
I'll spell it out for you.

S-L-O-W-L-Y

Dickbag. :rolleyes:

***SPRAYER
10-16-2008, 05:24 AM
BUMP

Amnorix
10-16-2008, 06:51 AM
I may follow up later, but time is scarce today.

Go to this website and you'll see that back in the "good old days", there were alot more than the 3-4 brackets we have now.

http://www.stanford.edu/class/polisci120a/immigration/Federal%20Tax%20Brackets.pdf

FOR EXAMPLE -- anyone making over the sum of $24,000 in 1950 was paying MORE IN FEDERAL TAXES THAN THE HIGHEST RATE today. Anything over $40,000 per year was taxed at 50%.

Anyone making more than a measly $20,000 in 1960 was paying MORE IN FEDERAL TAXES THAN THE HIGHEST RATE TODAY. Anything over $32,000 was at 50%.

Roughly the same hting in 1970 and 1980.

I cannot begin to imagine that there were nearly as many exemptions, credits and deducts as there are today either, though for all I know certain types of income were exempt altogether.

I also note that it is my understanding that the capital gains rate was usually not set at a different rate from the rate on other types of income.

There's a hell of a lot more to it than just the maximum rate.

I hadn't planned to get into all this level of detail, but since you appear to be asking for it...

And yes, I practice being an ahole frequently. I even get to play one in real life too!

Now then -- back to the kiddie pool with you.



:D :p

Amnorix
10-16-2008, 06:53 AM
That's not at all what I said, but go ahead and run with it.

Right. I just took your statement to it's ultimate and illogical end game result. Obviously, at some point taxing the wealthy / corporate taxes hurts growth and the economy, but some tax is needed, so where do you draw the line becomes the question.

Amnorix
10-16-2008, 06:58 AM
Means nothing. What incomes (adjusted for inflation) were taxed at the top marginal rate? For example, I bet very few if any people in 1918 earned the amount that would have put them in the 77% bracket.

Your chart, in and of itself MEANS NOTHING.


I answered most of the junk in this post in my prior post, but I wanted to point out that your silly obsession with 1918 is irrelevant. As my subsequent post/link clearly shows, marginal tax rates that were higher than the highest current rate were in effect right through to the 1980s, and at incomes that were much lower than the obscenely wealthy or the top 2% that BEP cited, etc.

I'll leave it to you to look up something (For a change) to prove me wrong if I am that 2% or less of the population made more than $29,900 in 1980, etc.

***SPRAYER
10-16-2008, 07:08 AM
I may follow up later, but time is scarce today.

Go to this website and you'll see that back in the "good old days", there were alot more than the 3-4 brackets we have now.

http://www.stanford.edu/class/polisci120a/immigration/Federal%20Tax%20Brackets.pdf

FOR EXAMPLE -- anyone making over the sum of $24,000 in 1950 was paying MORE IN FEDERAL TAXES THAN THE HIGHEST RATE today. Anything over $40,000 per year was taxed at 50%.

Anyone making more than a measly $20,000 in 1960 was paying MORE IN FEDERAL TAXES THAN THE HIGHEST RATE TODAY. Anything over $32,000 was at 50%.

Roughly the same hting in 1970 and 1980.

I cannot begin to imagine that there were nearly as many exemptions, credits and deducts as there are today either, though for all I know certain types of income were exempt altogether.

I also note that it is my understanding that the capital gains rate was usually not set at a different rate from the rate on other types of income.

There's a hell of a lot more to it than just the maximum rate.

I hadn't planned to get into all this level of detail, but since you appear to be asking for it...

And yes, I practice being an ahole frequently. I'm a corporate lawyer, after all, so I get to play one in real life too!

Now then -- back to the kiddie pool with you.



:D :p


You're still an idiot. First of all, for most of our history, America was an Agricultural society. We didn't become an industrial superpower until after WWII, when we recruited thousands of German scientists and engineers.

You compare the 50's to now when back then families lived on one income.

$25,000.00 in 1950 had about the same buying power as $224,553.19 in 2008.

Annual inflation over this period was about 3.86%.

What was the price of a house? What was the price of a car? A college education?

Instead of using one variable and saying because the highest marginal rate was some arbitrary amount in 1962 or whatever and saying that proves that we can tax the same rate today is mindless. You need more than one variable.

For example, make GDP the X variable and highest marginal tax rate the Y variable and see if there is a correlation between increasing GDP with decreasing tax rates.

I bet there is.

Moron.

King_Chief_Fan
10-16-2008, 07:18 AM
<OBJECT height=344 width=425>

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/OoqI5PSRcXM&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></OBJECT></P>
Distribution of wealth. What a handout for the people who choose not to improve their position by increasing their skill set, their education etc. Taking from those who have worked hard to earn what they have and then turn around and give part of that to those who don't have what I have? Absolutely socialistic and wrong.

Amnorix
10-16-2008, 07:26 AM
You're still an idiot. First of all, for most of our history, America was an Agricultural society. We didn't become an industrial superpower until after WWII, when we recruited thousands of German scientists and engineers.

You compare the 50's to now when back then families lived on one income.

$25,000.00 in 1950 had about the same buying power as $224,553.19 in 2008.

Annual inflation over this period was about 3.86%.

What was the price of a house? What was the price of a car? A college education?

Instead of using one variable and saying because the highest marginal rate was some arbitrary amount in 1962 or whatever and saying that proves that we can tax the same rate today is mindless. You need more than one variable.

For example, make GDP the X variable and highest marginal tax rate the Y variable and see if there is a correlation between increasing GDP with decreasing tax rates.

I bet there is.

Moron.


FTR, I was never hanging my hat on the highest rate alone. It was a simplified short-cut. The follow-on post showed all rates at the decades mark. I love how you ALWAYS glom onto the oldest data and dispute that, while ignoring the more recent data that would be harder to refute. Clever.

I at least congratulate you on looking something up for a change. Links would be even better, so I can confirm you are not cherry-picking statistics.

Obviously the world has changed -- no one is disputing that -- but your silly statement that the American Dream dies under Obama if the tax rate goes up a little for people who make $250,000 is beyond ridiculous.

Amnorix
10-17-2008, 10:00 AM
Bump.

While you continue to spin, I note that all I was doing was quickly disproving your absurd statement regarding the American Dream being capped at $250,000. If you're willing to admit that it was a very silly statement by you, then this can all go away.

***SPRAYER
10-17-2008, 10:06 AM
FTR, I was never hanging my hat on the highest rate alone. It was a simplified short-cut. The follow-on post showed all rates at the decades mark. I love how you ALWAYS glom onto the oldest data and dispute that, while ignoring the more recent data that would be harder to refute. Clever..

I was NOT "glomming". :rolleyes:




I at least congratulate you on looking something up for a change. Links would be even better, so I can confirm you are not cherry-picking statistics.

Obviously the world has changed -- no one is disputing that -- but your silly statement that the American Dream dies under Obama if the tax rate goes up a little for people who make $250,000 is beyond ridiculous

Posting a chart with Data from the Taft Administration and then complaining about ignoring recent data is pretty f'n stupid.

***SPRAYER
10-17-2008, 10:07 AM
Bump.

While you continue to spin, I note that all I was doing was quickly disproving your absurd statement regarding the American Dream being capped at $250,000. If you're willing to admit that it was a very silly statement by you, then this can all go away.

I'm not "admitting" anything. Feel free not to go away.

'Hamas' Jenkins
10-17-2008, 10:12 AM
They learned (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/16/joe-in-the-spotlight/?scp=2&sq=joe%20the%20plumber&st=cse) a couple of things, like (1) his name is Sam, not Joe, (2) he does not have a plumbing or contractor's license, items required by city ordinance, (3) the taxable income from his plumbing business would qualify him for a tax cut under the Obama plan, not an increase, and (4) he has an outstanding lien for over $1000 in backtaxes he owes. Maybe he wasn't such a great choice as role model for McCain after all.

Amnorix
10-17-2008, 10:14 AM
I'm not "admitting" anything. Feel free not to go away.

Ok. Take your ball and go home. The result is the same. Game over.

Amnorix
10-17-2008, 10:16 AM
FTR, here's your silly post that started this whole thing, and which apparently you still suggest is true.

The American dream lives at a 36% tax rate for $250,000+, but dies at a 39% rate. And, apparently, there was no American dream available from about 1932 all the way to 1980.

I guess the American dream stops at $250,000.<!-- / message --><!-- attachments -->

Chief Henry
10-17-2008, 10:39 AM
</P>
Distribution of wealth. What a handout for the people who choose not to improve their position by increasing their skill set, their education etc. Taking from those who have worked hard to earn what they have and then turn around and give part of that to those who don't have what I have? Absolutely socialistic and wrong.

spot on

Chief Henry
10-17-2008, 10:43 AM
They learned (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/16/joe-in-the-spotlight/?scp=2&sq=joe%20the%20plumber&st=cse) a couple of things, like (1) his name is Sam, not Joe, (2) he does not have a plumbing or contractor's license, items required by city ordinance, (3) the taxable income from his plumbing business would qualify him for a tax cut under the Obama plan, not an increase, and (4) he has an outstanding lien for over $1000 in backtaxes he owes. Maybe he wasn't such a great choice as role model for McCain after all.

His middle name is Joe and he alot of people I know prefer to go by they're middle name. I just talked to one this morning.

He is a plumber and he wants to buy the business.

Tell me something, why do the liberal DEMS want to destroy this mans life ?

What is it about Joe the Plumber that gets under your skin ?

Who cares if he owes back taxs ?

***SPRAYER
10-17-2008, 12:14 PM
Ok. Take your ball and go home. The result is the same. Game over.


I'm not going anywhere.:shake:

Amnorix
10-17-2008, 12:16 PM
I'm not going anywhere.:shake:


:shrug: You already have.

J Diddy
10-17-2008, 12:19 PM
His middle name is Joe and he alot of people I know prefer to go by they're middle name. I just talked to one this morning.

He is a plumber and he wants to buy the business.

Tell me something, why do the liberal DEMS want to destroy this mans life ?

What is it about Joe the Plumber that gets under your skin ?

Who cares if he owes back taxs ?

You repubs are big on peoples middle names that's for sure.

I am short and I want to be tall, probably never happen

If he can't handle the backlash of being in the spotlight he probably should have never went there in the first place.

I do however find it ironic that Joe is bitching about not being able to buy a business when he obviously can't even handle his finances now or his taxes would be current. Or his bitching about paying taxes when he hasn't. Since Joe isn't licensed as a plumber how can Joe be called Joe the plumber. Maybe he should be called Joe the illegal plumber--that would kind of go hand in hand with the not paying taxes thing.

Maybe if Joe had Barack's plan all along he wouldn't owe $1000 in back taxes.

Mecca
10-17-2008, 12:21 PM
Joe the Plumber thinks he's in the rich guy Republican club when he's really not...ah well alot of people like that around.

Amnorix
10-17-2008, 12:36 PM
His middle name is Joe and he alot of people I know prefer to go by they're middle name. I just talked to one this morning.

He is a plumber and he wants to buy the business.

Tell me something, why do the liberal DEMS want to destroy this mans life ?

Because Obama wants to raise taxes on amounts earned ABOVE $250,000 from 36% to 39% is ruining this man's life? He doesn't even make that much. He might never make that much.

Who cares if he owes back taxs ?

I f'n care. Why the **** should I pay my full taxes while others commit tax fraud? Why the hell shouldn't he pay what he owes under the law? What if everyone did that? How do you think we pay the military? How do we pay the $400 billion per year in interest payments on our absurd debt levels? How do we buy Palin's bridge to nowhere?

So pay your frigging taxes, or go to goddamn jail.

tiptap
10-17-2008, 12:48 PM
I want him to pay taxes but I don't want him to go to jail. He costs me more in that case.

Amnorix
10-17-2008, 12:55 PM
I want him to pay taxes but I don't want him to go to jail. He costs me more in that case.

True. Garnish his wages. I'm with you. Should also pay court costs for going through that procedure, though I'm reasonably confident that that doesn't happen.

RaiderH8r
10-17-2008, 12:55 PM
Why is this all about Joe the Plumber and not about Barry-O's obvious Neo-Communist philosophy? After election day Joe the Plumber will still be a plumber while the other guy will presumably be leading the nation. Seems that Joe the Plumber's taxes are less the issue than Obama's agenda. But I could be wrong, you guys could totally be talking about the most relevant thing here. Like totally. I wonder if the lefty blogosphere and their MSM minions could do me the service of actually sifting through Joe's trash and really getting some dirt on him...or just make shit up, that would be fine too.

***SPRAYER
10-17-2008, 01:22 PM
If he can't handle the backlash of being in the spotlight he probably should have never went there in the first place.

Like he knew he was gonna become a household name. :rolleyes:
You have to be a complete asshole to blame this all on him.




I do however find it ironic that Joe is bitching about not being able to buy a business when he obviously can't even handle his finances now or his taxes would be current.

I thought you libs cared about the "littel guy" trying to make ends meet? All those idiots that signed on for subprime mortgages can't handle their finances either.

This just goes to show that your narrative about caring about people is BS but we already knew that.

You're a phony, elitist prick.

***SPRAYER
10-17-2008, 01:25 PM
Joe the Plumber thinks he's in the rich guy Republican club when he's really not...ah well alot of people like that around.

Mecca who pays for your college tuition?

***SPRAYER
10-17-2008, 01:26 PM
True. Garnish his wages. I'm with you. Should also pay court costs for going through that procedure, though I'm reasonably confident that that doesn't happen.

What about all the "poor victims" of subprime mortgages?

Bill Parcells
10-17-2008, 01:27 PM
Joe the Plumber thinks he's in the rich guy Republican club when he's really not...ah well alot of people like that around.

Like what? like who? your retarded musings don't make any sense.

***SPRAYER
10-17-2008, 01:29 PM
:shrug: You already have.

I know you are but what am I.

J Diddy
10-17-2008, 02:08 PM
Like he knew he was gonna become a household name. :rolleyes:
You have to be a complete asshole to blame this all on him.




I do however find it ironic that Joe is bitching about not being able to buy a business when he obviously can't even handle his finances now or his taxes would be current.

I thought you libs cared about the "littel guy" trying to make ends meet? All those idiots that signed on for subprime mortgages can't handle their finances either.

This just goes to show that your narrative about caring about people is BS but we already knew that.

You're a phony, elitist prick.


well, well
somebody didn't have their metamucil today

He asked a question Obama answered the question. Did he take interviews after that: YES
It was his choice to not fade from the spotlight

Furthermore, this wasn't about "ends meeting" this was about him "trying to buy a business"
Complaining about a tax that wouldn't affect him at all especially in his current situation.

Show me a person who needs help and I'll give it to them. Seems to me all Joe the plumber needs is 1) a license 2) an accountant to teach him about tax liability 3) the money to buy the business (which under Obamas plan he would get more of)

Complaining about hypothetical tax situations consisting of what ifs is putting the cart before the horse.

You can continue your regularly scheduled ignorance now, fluffer.

Chief Henry
10-17-2008, 02:18 PM
Because Obama wants to raise taxes on amounts earned ABOVE $250,000 from 36% to 39% is ruining this man's life? He doesn't even make that much. He might never make that much.



I f'n care. Why the **** should I pay my full taxes while others commit tax fraud? Why the hell shouldn't he pay what he owes under the law? What if everyone did that? How do you think we pay the military? How do we pay the $400 billion per year in interest payments on our absurd debt levels? How do we buy Palin's bridge to nowhere?

So pay your frigging taxes, or go to goddamn jail.




You really f'n care about a guy who owes $1,000 ii back taxs. Isn't that rich. I wish you cared about the people that were killed by Bill Ayres group called the "Weatherman". You remember Bill Ayres, the guy that was quoted on 9-11 that he wished he had done MORE.

HE WISHED HE HAD DONE MORE....


Can you beleave the BALLS of Bill Ayres stating that he wished he'd had DONE more. What do you think the FAMILIES of those he and his group killed think of that righ now. How can the news media sit on they're collective ASS on Bill Ayres but turn around and give Joe the plumber the anal exam.

You fvckers have no shame.


Joe the Plumber has spoken for Hundreds of thousands of people in this country. Now he's being persecuted by the likes of people like YOU and the f'n libs who want to take money from the people who have worked hard for it.

FUCK YOU, SCREW YOU, KISS MY Fucking ASS and open up your pretty pissy mouth. Joe the Plumber is given an ANAL by the liberal media after he questions your muther fucking loving Barry Obama. Your messiah answered Joe's question and inserted his mouth with the answer he gave Joe the Plumber.

Its not WASHINGTON DC's money, its OUR fuckin money and we worked for it. Its not Barry's or John McCains money - its our money and you want washington DC to take more of it. In the words of your pole smoking Buddy Halfass jenkins, go fucking kill yourself.

J Diddy
10-17-2008, 02:27 PM
You really f'n care about a guy who owes $1,000 ii back taxs. Isn't that rich. I wish you cared about the people that were killed by Bill Ayres group called the "Weatherman". You remember Bill Ayres, the guy that was quoted on 9-11 that he wished he had done MORE.

HE WISHED HE HAD DONE MORE....


Can you beleave the BALLS of Bill Ayres stating that he wished he'd had DONE more. What do you think the FAMILIES of those he and his group killed think of that righ now. How can the news media sit on they're collective ASS on Bill Ayres but turn around and give Joe the plumber the anal exam.

You fvckers have no shame.


Joe the Plumber has spoken for Hundreds of thousands of people in this country. Now he's being persecuted by the likes of people like YOU and the f'n libs who want to take money from the people who have worked hard for it.

**** YOU, SCREW YOU, KISS MY ****ing ASS and open up your pretty pissy mouth. Joe the Plumber is given an ANAL by the liberal media after he questions your muther ****ing loving Barry Obama. Your messiah answered Joe's question and inserted his mouth with the answer he gave Joe the Plumber.

Its not WASHINGTON DC's money, its OUR ****in money and we worked for it. Its not Barry's or John McCains money - its our money and you want washington DC to take more of it. In the words of your pole smoking Buddy Halfass jenkins, go ****ing kill yourself.


nice rant


However, Ayres, blew up a bathroom IIRC no people.

Wikipedia mother fuckerrrrrrrrr

Logical
10-17-2008, 02:29 PM
You really f'n care about a guy who owes $1,000 ii back taxs. Isn't that rich. I wish you cared about the people that were killed by Bill Ayres group called the "Weatherman". You remember Bill Ayres, the guy that was quoted on 9-11 that he wished he had done MORE.

HE WISHED HE HAD DONE MORE....


Can you beleave the BALLS of Bill Ayres stating that he wished he'd had DONE more. What do you think the FAMILIES of those he and his group killed think of that righ now. How can the news media sit on they're collective ASS on Bill Ayres but turn around and give Joe the plumber the anal exam.

You fvckers have no shame.


Joe the Plumber has spoken for Hundreds of thousands of people in this country. Now he's being persecuted by the likes of people like YOU and the f'n libs who want to take money from the people who have worked hard for it.

**** YOU, SCREW YOU, KISS MY ****ing ASS and open up your pretty pissy mouth. Joe the Plumber is given an ANAL by the liberal media after he questions your muther ****ing loving Barry Obama. Your messiah answered Joe's question and inserted his mouth with the answer he gave Joe the Plumber.

Its not WASHINGTON DC's money, its OUR ****in money and we worked for it. Its not Barry's or John McCains money - its our money and you want washington DC to take more of it. In the words of your pole smoking Buddy Halfass jenkins, go ****ing kill yourself.Wow you are off base, I would guess that Dane, Ammorix and I are some of the highest tax payers on the BB, yet not one of us have cried and wept at Obama's proposal. So don't give me that Joe speaks for 100s of thousand. Maybe he speaks for a thousand or two, your hyperbole is unbecoming Chief Henry.

Amnorix
10-17-2008, 02:31 PM
What about all the "poor victims" of subprime mortgages?

Most of them should be foreclosed upon. Unfortunately, in the current environment, that won't help the banks.

I have very little sympathy for either the stupid bankers that approved loans that should NEVER have been approved, the mortgage brokers who cared much more about their fees than their clients, or the stupid borrowers who had no idea WTF they were doing.

They all share the blame.

So do the big institutions that bought the securitizations of these pathetic mortgage-backed securities.

Logical
10-17-2008, 02:31 PM
nice rant


However, Ayres, blew up a bathroom IIRC no people.

Wikipedia mother ****errrrrrrrrMotherf*cker probably wanted to blowup a shower next time. Wow what an asshole, Joe the Plumber will have to be called in to fix it.

Baby Lee
10-17-2008, 02:32 PM
I f'n care. Why the **** should I pay my full taxes while others commit tax fraud?
Because you're a patriot. REAL patriots overpay.

Amnorix
10-17-2008, 02:32 PM
You really f'n care about a guy who owes $1,000 ii back taxs. Isn't that rich. I wish you cared about the people that were killed by Bill Ayres group called the "Weatherman". You remember Bill Ayres, the guy that was quoted on 9-11 that he wished he had done MORE.

HE WISHED HE HAD DONE MORE....


Can you beleave the BALLS of Bill Ayres stating that he wished he'd had DONE more. What do you think the FAMILIES of those he and his group killed think of that righ now. How can the news media sit on they're collective ASS on Bill Ayres but turn around and give Joe the plumber the anal exam.

You fvckers have no shame.


Joe the Plumber has spoken for Hundreds of thousands of people in this country. Now he's being persecuted by the likes of people like YOU and the f'n libs who want to take money from the people who have worked hard for it.

**** YOU, SCREW YOU, KISS MY ****ing ASS and open up your pretty pissy mouth. Joe the Plumber is given an ANAL by the liberal media after he questions your muther ****ing loving Barry Obama. Your messiah answered Joe's question and inserted his mouth with the answer he gave Joe the Plumber.

Its not WASHINGTON DC's money, its OUR ****in money and we worked for it. Its not Barry's or John McCains money - its our money and you want washington DC to take more of it. In the words of your pole smoking Buddy Halfass jenkins, go ****ing kill yourself.


Consider counseling. You seem to have anger management issues.

Amnorix
10-17-2008, 02:32 PM
Because you're a patriot. REAL stupid patriots overpay.

FYP.

:p

Logical
10-17-2008, 02:33 PM
well, well
somebody didn't have their metamucil today

He asked a question Obama answered the question. Did he take interviews after that: YES
It was his choice to not fade from the spotlight

Furthermore, this wasn't about "ends meeting" this was about him "trying to buy a business"
Complaining about a tax that wouldn't affect him at all especially in his current situation.

Show me a person who needs help and I'll give it to them. Seems to me all Joe the plumber needs is 1) a license 2) an accountant to teach him about tax liability 3) the money to buy the business (which under Obamas plan he would get more of)

Complaining about hypothetical tax situations consisting of what ifs is putting the cart before the horse.

You can continue your regularly scheduled ignorance now, fluffer.QFT

chris
10-17-2008, 02:40 PM
Wow you are off base, I would guess that Dane, Ammorix and I are some of the highest tax payers on the BB, yet not one of us have cried and wept at Obama's proposal. So don't give me that Joe speaks for 100s of thousand. Maybe he speaks for a thousand or two, your hyperbole is unbecoming Chief Henry.


Lame guess. :) You have no way of knowing. Not relevant to the conversation. So you can quit pissing in the wind on that point.

Flat tax. Make EVERYONE pay their FAIR share; no have the government play class warfare.

Logical
10-17-2008, 02:43 PM
Lame guess. :) You have no way of knowing. Not relevant to the conversation. So you can quit pissing in the wind on that point.

Flat tax. Make EVERYONE pay their FAIR share; no have the government play class warfare.

Though it sounds good that would truly bankrupt this nation. No one would want to own property because the tax break would be gone and thus the incentive for home ownership over rental.

Amnorix
10-17-2008, 02:50 PM
Lame guess. :) You have no way of knowing. Not relevant to the conversation. So you can quit pissing in the wind on that point.

Flat tax. Make EVERYONE pay their FAIR share; no have the government play class warfare.

A flat tax is not fair to those of the lower and middle classes, sorry.

Your version of "fair" and mine are quite different.

chris
10-17-2008, 02:59 PM
Though it sounds good that would truly bankrupt this nation. No one would want to own property because the tax break would be gone and thus the incentive for home ownership over rental.

Very good and valid point!

The current system is not substainable. What is the answer?

chris
10-17-2008, 03:01 PM
A flat tax is not fair to those of the lower and middle classes, sorry.

Your version of "fair" and mine are quite different.


Yep. And there is the issue. "socialism" vs. "free capitalism" Neither works.

What is the solution in your opinion? The USA didn't have an income tax before 1912(?). What did we do before then?

noa
10-17-2008, 03:04 PM
Yep. And there is the issue. "socialism" vs. "free capitalism" Neither works.

What is the solution in your opinion? The USA didn't have an income tax before 1912(?). What did we do before then?

I thought that the first income tax levied was during the Civil War (1862), and just that we didn't amend the Constitution until 1913 to make it properly legal.

kcpasco
10-17-2008, 03:18 PM
A flat tax is not fair to those of the lower and middle classes, sorry.

Your version of "fair" and mine are quite different.

This





Its almost as misleading a term as Right to Work

Ultra Peanut
10-17-2008, 03:26 PM
OH EM GEEZZZZZZZZ

Ultra Peanut
10-17-2008, 03:27 PM
Lame guess. :) You have no way of knowing. Not relevant to the conversation. So you can quit pissing in the wind on that point.

Flat tax. Make EVERYONE pay their FAIR share; no have the government play class warfare.The rich are dependent upon the system to function properly in order for their many interests to be met. Ergo, they pay more into the system because they benefit more from it.

Progressive taxation is the only fair policy.

jidar
10-17-2008, 03:49 PM
How the hell would a flat tax ever work anyway?

Let's say you set the flat tax figure at $5k/year per wage earner. The number of people employed or owning a business in the US is around 80million.

That's $400billion/year in taxes. Federal us revenue in 2007 was 2.6 trillion which is more than 6xs as much. So now what? Hell $400 billion doesn't even cover the discretionary defense budget which was $500billion plus another $100+b for Iraq.

Also, what do you do about people who make $5k/year? They supposed to pay 100% to taxes? What about people making $10k? $20k? Hell you would completely eliminate any such thing as part time jobs, which of course would destroy the service sector.

ziggysocki
10-17-2008, 03:54 PM
How the hell would a flat tax ever work anyway?

Let's say you set the flat tax figure at $5k/year per wage earner. The number of people employed or owning a business in the US is around 80million.

That's $400billion/year in taxes. Federal us revenue in 2007 was 2.6 trillion which is more than 6xs as much. So now what? Hell $400 billion doesn't even cover the discretionary defense budget which was $500billion plus another $100+b for Iraq.

Also, what do you do about people who make $5k/year? They supposed to pay 100% to taxes? What about people making $10k? $20k? Hell you would completely eliminate any such thing as part time jobs, which of course would destroy the service sector.

I'm no political genius, but when they talk of flat taxes, aren't they talking of flat percentages? Like every one in the United States pays 22%, whether you are Bill Gates or Joe the Plumber. I have been wrong before...

chris
10-17-2008, 04:01 PM
I'm no political genius, but when they talk of flat taxes, aren't they talking of flat percentages? Like every one in the United States pays 22%, whether you are Bill Gates or Joe the Plumber. I have been wrong before...


You are correct.

I've been meaning to explore this site: www.fairtax.org Looks interesting. Someone on CP bought it up.

What is the FairTax?
The FairTax plan is a comprehensive proposal that replaces all federal income and payroll based taxes with an integrated approach including:

A progressive national retail sales tax.
A prebate to ensure no American pays federal taxes on spending up to the poverty level.
Dollar-for-dollar federal revenue neutrality.
Repeal of the 16th Amendment through companion legislation.

***SPRAYER
10-17-2008, 05:13 PM
nice rant


However, Ayres, blew up a bathroom IIRC no people.

Wikipedia mother ****errrrrrrrr

Hey dipshit, did you know that a woman and her 3 year old daughter actually used that bathroom a few minutes before it blew up?

"He didn't kill anybody" -Libtard chorus

Not for lack of trying, you imbecile.

jidar
10-17-2008, 05:28 PM
I'm no political genius, but when they talk of flat taxes, aren't they talking of flat percentages? Like every one in the United States pays 22%, whether you are Bill Gates or Joe the Plumber. I have been wrong before...

Well if that's the case then I can get behind that. A flat percentage with -no loopholes-
If we did that then 22% would be high enough since the rich would be paying far far more than they do now.

which brings up another point. How many people arguing in this thread actually think the very wealthy pay more taxes by percentage I wonder? When in truth they actually pay less.
Warren Buffet said that with all of the loopholes he's able to get his income tax down to 17%, which is lower than just about anyone who isn't on foodstamps and less than half of what I pay.

jidar
10-17-2008, 05:30 PM
You are correct.

I've been meaning to explore this site: www.fairtax.org Looks interesting. Someone on CP bought it up.

What is the FairTax?
The FairTax plan is a comprehensive proposal that replaces all federal income and payroll based taxes with an integrated approach including:

A progressive national retail sales tax.
A prebate to ensure no American pays federal taxes on spending up to the poverty level.
Dollar-for-dollar federal revenue neutrality.
Repeal of the 16th Amendment through companion legislation.

Unfortunately the books on it don't work out. You would have to bring retail taxes up over 40% to max current tax revenues if you eliminated income tax. Proponents of it claim 26%, but even that number is way too high. Most economists agree that it would stifle the economy since people who see numbers like that stop buying things even though they have more money in the first place. That's probably why virtually no one takes it seriously outside of a few fringe groups.

J Diddy
10-17-2008, 05:53 PM
Hey dipshit, did you know that a woman and her 3 year old daughter actually used that bathroom a few minutes before it blew up?

"He didn't kill anybody" -Libtard chorus

Not for lack of trying, you imbecile.


Hey dipshit your spiel was and I quote "all those people he killed"

lies to support your position-retardican chorus

Logical
10-17-2008, 05:53 PM
Very good and valid point!

The current system is not substainable. What is the answer?The real answer is to quit spending more than we are able to bring in, in revenue. As to the tax system the answer will have to be complex, hopefully not as complex as the current system.

Bill Parcells
10-17-2008, 06:01 PM
Because you're a patriot. REAL patriots overpay.

LMFAO

ROFL

Uncle_Ted
10-17-2008, 06:10 PM
Well if that's the case then I can get behind that. A flat percentage with -no loopholes-
If we did that then 22% would be high enough since the rich would be paying far far more than they do now.

which brings up another point. How many people arguing in this thread actually think the very wealthy pay more taxes by percentage I wonder? When in truth they actually pay less.
Warren Buffet said that with all of the loopholes he's able to get his income tax down to 17%, which is lower than just about anyone who isn't on foodstamps and less than half of what I pay.
If he's including income that is taxed at the capital gains rate then yes a lot of rich people do pay a lot less on a percentage basis.

The other reality that rarely gets mentioned is that state and local taxes (and federal taxes other then income tax) tend to be regressive. I don't mean just "income" taxes, I mean ALL taxes and fees paid to federal, state and local governments when they are combined. When you add them up most people pay roughly the same percentage of their incomes to finance "government" (within a few percentage points). That's why all the outrage over poor people who pay little or no income tax is either uninformed or disingenuous -- the poor pay a much higher percentage of their income in "other" taxes.

***SPRAYER
10-17-2008, 06:15 PM
Hey dipshit your spiel was and I quote "all those people he killed"

lies to support your position-retardican chorus


What?!

ROFL

Show me this quote, jackass.

Bill Parcells
10-17-2008, 06:50 PM
"He didn't kill anybody" -Libtard chorus



That ole libtard chorus will get ya every time ya know. :evil:

J Diddy
10-17-2008, 08:03 PM
What?!

ROFL

Show me this quote, jackass.


I apologize it was chief henry who said that.

Your shit is just usually nonsense so it ran together..

***SPRAYER
10-17-2008, 08:45 PM
I apologize it was chief henry who said that.

Your shit is just usually nonsense so it ran together..

Fair enough.

Smed1065
10-17-2008, 09:00 PM
:clap:

Amen, brotha!

:clap:

Iowanian
10-17-2008, 09:09 PM
Last monday and tuesday, I worked 27hrs and drove almost 650 miles and 2 nights away from my family to do so.

Who does Obama think deserves more of my hard earned money?

Iowanian
10-17-2008, 09:11 PM
ďIím paying the lowest tax rate that Iíve ever paid in my life. Now, thatís crazy.Ē --Warren Buffett 2008

Warren Buffett has accumulated the capitol to put several BILLION dollars into the struggling finanical system in the past month....

banyon
10-17-2008, 09:15 PM
Last monday and tuesday, I worked 27hrs and drove almost 650 miles and 2 nights away from my family to do so.

Who does Obama think deserves more of my hard earned money?

You make more than $250k?

Iowanian
10-17-2008, 09:19 PM
Not close.

Yet.

J Diddy
10-17-2008, 09:20 PM
Not close.

Yet.



Well I hope you make it.

banyon
10-17-2008, 09:22 PM
Not close.

Yet.

Then, Obama is not proposing to take more of your hard earned money.

2bikemike
10-17-2008, 09:26 PM
Well if that's the case then I can get behind that. A flat percentage with -no loopholes-
If we did that then 22% would be high enough since the rich would be paying far far more than they do now.

which brings up another point. How many people arguing in this thread actually think the very wealthy pay more taxes by percentage I wonder? When in truth they actually pay less.
Warren Buffet said that with all of the loopholes he's able to get his income tax down to 17%, which is lower than just about anyone who isn't on foodstamps and less than half of what I pay.

Thats not an acurate statement. If we are just talking federal income tax it is fairly easy to get your tax rate down to around 17%. I am regularly down around that figure and usually a little lower. Mortgage interest being my best "loophole". I have a low 6 figure salary and up until a few months ago my wife worked as well.

Smed1065
10-17-2008, 09:39 PM
Then, Obama is not proposing to take more of your hard earned money.

But Obama kills the drive and desire he has now because of the 3% increase in his taxes if he makes it.

ROFL

Iowanian
10-17-2008, 09:42 PM
yeah....thats all its about.

banyon
10-17-2008, 09:43 PM
But Obama kills the drive and desire he has now because of the 3% increase in his taxes if he makes it.

ROFL

Right, it's like "I could take that pay raise and make $50k a year more, but I'd have to pay a total of $1500 more in taxes. Screw that, I'll just tell them they can take their $48.5 k and go f themselves! :thumb:

2bikemike
10-17-2008, 09:50 PM
The one thing I am confused about on Obama's plan is he states that if you make less than 250k you won't pay one penny more in taxes. But doesn't he want to lift the cap on Social Security? Isn't social security a tax? So if you make around 150K you pay 6.2% on about 45k or about $2,790

Am I missing something?

Ultra Peanut
10-17-2008, 09:54 PM
Not close.

Yet.http://i36.tinypic.com/2wp8rjt.jpg

banyon
10-17-2008, 10:09 PM
The one thing I am confused about on Obama's plan is he states that if you make less than 250k you won't pay one penny more in taxes. But doesn't he want to lift the cap on Social Security? Isn't social security a tax? So if you make around 150K you pay 6.2% on about 45k or about $2,790

Am I missing something?

Yes, the distinction between income and social security taxes.

Mr. Kotter
10-17-2008, 11:00 PM
Yes, the distinction between income and social security taxes.

Are they both taxes, or not? :shrug:

;)

banyon
10-17-2008, 11:01 PM
Are they both taxes, or not? :shrug:

;)

No.

Mr. Kotter
10-17-2008, 11:10 PM
No.

Are they called social security taxes, and federal income taxes....or not?

:hmmm:




ROFL

banyon
10-17-2008, 11:12 PM
Are they called social security taxes, and federal income taxes....or not?

:hmmm:




ROFL

Do you expect money back from your income taxes?

Mr. Kotter
10-17-2008, 11:13 PM
Do you expect money back from your income taxes?

Under Obama, I will...even if I don't pay ANY. :thumb:

banyon
10-17-2008, 11:15 PM
Under Obama, I will...even if I don't pay ANY. :thumb:

well, as long as you can't acknowledge serious, realistic differences, perhaps you could whistle Dixie for us?

Mr. Kotter
10-17-2008, 11:17 PM
well, as long as you can't acknowledge serious, realistic differences, perhaps you could whistle Dixie for us?

Realistic? It's pretty simple really....is the government TAKING money from the paycheck for the "tax" or not? If they are, it is....what it is. Period.

Sorry you can't see the reality of that. :shrug:

ClevelandBronco
10-17-2008, 11:30 PM
Realistic? It's pretty simple really....is the government TAKING money from the paycheck for the "tax" or not? If they are, it is....what it is. Period.

Sorry you can't see the reality of that. :shrug:

banyon's correct about the nature of the deduction. It's an insurance premium. It's not a tax.

It's certainly not his fault that it's been misnamed.

2bikemike
10-18-2008, 07:25 AM
Yes, the distinction between income and social security taxes.

If its taken out of my check and given to the Government, then that is a tax. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck it must be a duck.

And I don't really count on getting social security unless I become disabled. The system more than likely will go broke.

2bikemike
10-18-2008, 07:28 AM
banyon's correct about the nature of the deduction. It's an insurance premium. It's not a tax.

It's certainly not his fault that it's been misnamed.

Well then I would like to decline their insurance and invest that money as I see fit.

J Diddy
10-18-2008, 07:57 AM
Well then I would like to decline their insurance and invest that money as I see fit.


and you very well might do that, but then the system goes back to what it's been

The only way medical bills getting cheaper is if everyone is insured

***SPRAYER
10-18-2008, 08:05 AM
If its taken out of my check and given to the Government, then that is a tax. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck it must be a duck.

And I don't really count on getting social security unless I become disabled. The system more than likely will go broke.

Last year, my wife and I had $7,000 taken from us in SSI and medicare alone.

2bikemike
10-18-2008, 09:13 AM
Last year, my wife and I had $7,000 taken from us in SSI and medicare alone.

I have paid just shy of $8,000 myself this year. I maxed out my Social Security about 2 months ago. Not sure what my wife has paid. Since she makes about 1/2 of what I make I will guess she is somewhere around 4 grand.

IMHO I will pay more in taxes under Obama regardless of what he says. This double speak of what constitutes taxes is just political mumbo jumbo designed to tell you they are giving you something with one hand while the other hand is fishing in your wallet to take what they gave you plus some.

2bikemike
10-18-2008, 09:16 AM
and you very well might do that, but then the system goes back to what it's been

The only way medical bills getting cheaper is if everyone is insured

Were talking Social Security. No way they let you opt out of that system. Unless of course you work for the Govt.

banyon
10-18-2008, 09:30 AM
Well then I would like to decline their insurance and invest that money as I see fit.

Perhaps in AIG? If you had invested $200k, you could have had a fat $10,000 to retire on.

2bikemike
10-18-2008, 09:41 AM
Perhaps in AIG? If you had invested $200k, you could have had a fat $10,000 to retire on.

Actually I have done pretty well in investing. And if I could have taken that same 6.2% of my pay since I was 16 years old I would have a pretty good nest egg.

Its not the Govt. responsibility to make sure you have retirement savings. And if you think you can survive on Social Security when you retire good luck.

banyon
10-18-2008, 09:43 AM
Actually I have done pretty well in investing. And if I could have taken that same 6.2% of my pay since I was 16 years old I would have a pretty good nest egg.

Its not the Govt. responsibility to make sure you have retirement savings. And if you think you can survive on Social Security when you retire good luck.

What about the people who did invest in AIG in your proposal, or weren't as skilled as you at divining the market?

***SPRAYER
10-18-2008, 10:49 AM
Well then I would like to decline their insurance and invest that money as I see fit.

Heck, I just want to be able to buy a house. I guess the government wanted me to take a subprime loan with no money down. :rolleyes:

That way, they could come to my rescue and bail me out. :)

I have paid just shy of $8,000 myself this year. I maxed out my Social Security about 2 months ago. Not sure what my wife has paid. Since she makes about 1/2 of what I make I will guess she is somewhere around 4 grand.

IMHO I will pay more in taxes under Obama regardless of what he says. This double speak of what constitutes taxes is just political mumbo jumbo designed to tell you they are giving you something with one hand while the other hand is fishing in your wallet to take what they gave you plus some.


B.O. is a Marxist. Plain and simple. He has spent his entire life being indoctrinated in Marxist ideology, and he is saturated in it.

Since he's never actually had a job, he has no concept of what labor is or the value of a dollar. Neither does his wife. All of their financial accumulation came via political schemes, pay for play and shakedowns.

The O-bots know what he is going to do, they know it's all a bait and switch, but they won't say anything until after he's safely in.

They actually think B.O. is going to be good for our economy, in good times or bad.

If the country survives 4 years of B.O. (and in the state we are in now, it just might not be able to recover) and his mindless economic policies, then hopefully a true fiscal conservative will emerge to lead the country back to sanity, but I won't hold my breath.

I truly believe this is it, this is the end. We will have a dictator within the next ten years.

2bikemike
10-18-2008, 01:37 PM
What about the people who did invest in AIG in your proposal, or weren't as skilled as you at divining the market?

Then I guess they would be fugged. But it is not my responsibility to pay into a system to make sure that Joe Schmoe can have some money when he retires.

That is the problem with handouts and social programs. It creates a whole mass of people who won't take responsibility for their own welfare. They just figure the Govt will take care of them.

Logical
10-18-2008, 01:55 PM
...

B.O. is a Marxist. Plain and simple. He has spent his entire life being indoctrinated in Marxist ideology, and he is saturated in it.

Since he's never actually had a job, he has no concept of what labor is or the value of a dollar. Neither does his wife. All of their financial accumulation came via political schemes, pay for play and shakedowns.

The O-bots know what he is going to do, they know it's all a bait and switch, but they won't say anything until after he's safely in.

They actually think B.O. is going to be good for our economy, in good times or bad.

If the country survives 4 years of B.O. (and in the state we are in now, it just might not be able to recover) and his mindless economic policies, then hopefully a true fiscal conservative will emerge to lead the country back to sanity, but I won't hold my breath.

I truly believe this is it, this is the end. We will have a dictator within the next ten years.Hey dumbshit, Obama was a practicing lawyer, that is a real paying job.

Oh and I doubt you would know a Marxist if you were standing next to them.

Sully
10-18-2008, 02:12 PM
Hey dipshit, did you know that a woman and her 3 year old daughter actually used that bathroom a few minutes before it blew up?

"He didn't kill anybody" -Libtard chorus

Not for lack of trying, you imbecile.

They sure did try. If only they hadn't called ahead to let them know about the bomb. If it wasn't for that their murderous plans would've worked!

***SPRAYER
10-18-2008, 02:59 PM
Hey dumbshit, Obama was a practicing lawyer, that is a real paying job.

Oh and I doubt you would know a Marxist if you were standing next to them.


http://www.december212012.com/

:(

Logical
10-18-2008, 03:04 PM
http://www.december212012.com/

:(Quoted site does not seem too relevant to my post but it looks amusing so I actually bookmarked it. Thanks

***SPRAYER
10-18-2008, 07:39 PM
Quoted site does not seem too relevant to my post but it looks amusing so I actually bookmarked it. Thanks

The end of the world is irelevant?

Logical
10-18-2008, 07:46 PM
The end of the world is irelevant?I would more likely look into Nostradamus for accurate End of World predictions.

***SPRAYER
10-18-2008, 08:35 PM
I would more likely look into Nostradamus for accurate End of World predictions.

Not "End of the World" but occult:

http://www.blavatsky.net/

RJ
10-18-2008, 08:43 PM
http://www.december212012.com/

:(



Dude, if the world ended every time the world was supposed to end............well, you know.

Adept Havelock
10-18-2008, 09:09 PM
Dude, if the world ended every time the world was supposed to end............well, you know.

The JW's probably would be considerably happier. ;)

As well as the nutter who wrote "The Late Great Planet Earth", which suggested (before it was revised) the world would end in the 70's, IIRC.

Gary
10-18-2008, 10:45 PM
And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God. Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother.
And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth.
Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.
And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions.
And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!
And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!
It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
And they were astonished out of measure, saying among themselves, Who then can be saved?
And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible.

RJ
10-18-2008, 10:48 PM
The JW's probably would be considerably happier. ;)

As well as the nutter who wrote "The Late Great Planet Earth", which suggested (before it was revised) the world would end in the 70's, IIRC.


Hah, hadn't thought of that in years.

Peter Riverpants
10-18-2008, 10:50 PM
And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God. Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother.
And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth.
Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.
And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions.
And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!
And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!
It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
And they were astonished out of measure, saying among themselves, Who then can be saved?
And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible.

Send your checks too............................

Smed1065
10-18-2008, 11:38 PM
http://www.december212012.com/

:(

Wow a scare tactic, surprise. :eek:

Smed1065
10-18-2008, 11:41 PM
The end of the world is irelevant?

So why worry about never ending damage? ROFL

Guess you contradict your own beliefs and posts.

RaiderH8r
10-20-2008, 09:38 AM
Do you expect money back from your income taxes?

No. But I don't expect money from my social security tax either. I wave bye bye to that every pay period.

***SPRAYER
04-07-2009, 07:42 PM
Are we allowed now to use the presidentís full name, Barack Hussein Obama? The rules keep changing. One day itís a hate crime, another day a source of pride for the president. Is someone keeping track, is there a web site I can check periodically to see if itís a Hussein Okay Day?

Jenson71
04-07-2009, 07:46 PM
You can call him that every day.

***SPRAYER
04-07-2009, 07:48 PM
You can call him that every day.


Why was permission denied during the campaign, Commisar?