PDA

View Full Version : Elections "Spread The Wealth Around"


Pages : [1] 2 3

Donger
10-13-2008, 11:47 AM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/OoqI5PSRcXM&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><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>

triple
10-13-2008, 11:51 AM
"it's not redistribution of wealth. it's fairness"

HC_Chief
10-13-2008, 11:53 AM
It's not socialism, it's fairness.

ChiTown
10-13-2008, 11:54 AM
I agree with Obama. It's the reason I work my ass off. I want to be able to economically help that lazy crack head mutherfkr who can't afford medical. That crack head has RIGHTS!

By all means, my Yen is your Yen

jidar
10-13-2008, 11:56 AM
“I’m paying the lowest tax rate that I’ve ever paid in my life. Now, that’s crazy.” --Warren Buffett 2008

Guru
10-13-2008, 11:57 AM
But its not wealth redistribution, right Barack?

ROYC75
10-13-2008, 11:58 AM
Obama opened up an avenue for McCain, again, will he use it ?

jidar
10-13-2008, 11:58 AM
But its not wealth redistribution, right Barack?

It was wealth redistribution when the Wealthy had their taxes cut while the middle class did not (or at least not by the same amount).

What this will be is a correction.

ROYC75
10-13-2008, 11:59 AM
“I’m paying the lowest tax rate that I’ve ever paid in my life. Now, that’s crazy.” --Warren Buffett 2008

If he wants to spread it around, sign me up please.

Bootlegged
10-13-2008, 12:01 PM
It was wealth redistribution when the Wealthy had their taxes cut while the middle class did not (or at least not by the same amount).

What this will be is a correction.

A correction. Ok. Capturing this for future reference.

Guessing you don't work very hard..

***SPRAYER
10-13-2008, 12:02 PM
Obama opened up an avenue for McCain, again, will he use it ?

McCain is taking a nap.

Donger
10-13-2008, 12:02 PM
It was wealth redistribution when the Wealthy had their taxes cut while the middle class did not (or at least not by the same amount).

What this will be is a correction.

So, you agree with Barack Hussein that the wealthy aren't paying enough of our tax burden? I agree that wealth of "the rich" should be "spread around"?

ChiTown
10-13-2008, 12:03 PM
A correction. Ok. Capturing this for future reference.

Guessing you don't work very hard..

Work?

jidar
10-13-2008, 12:03 PM
A correction. Ok. Capturing this for future reference.

Guessing you don't work very hard..

ďIím paying the lowest tax rate that Iíve ever paid in my life. Now, thatís crazy.Ē --Warren Buffett 2008

Straight out of the horses mouth. The wealthy are taxed less because of loopholes. That doesn't stop people from whining though.

http://darrylwolkpolitics.blogspot.com/2008/01/warren-buffetts-tax-rate-is-lower-than.html


Warren Buffet made a million dollar bet that none of the 400 richest Americans could prove that they are taxed at a higher rate by the US government than their secretary. On 46 million of annual income, Buffet is taxed at a rate of around 17.7%. His employees who make less were taxed at an average of 32.9%.

jidar
10-13-2008, 12:06 PM
So, you agree with Barack Hussein that the wealthy aren't paying enough of our tax burden? I agree that wealth of "the rich" should be "spread around"?

We all pay taxes, if we want it to be fair we should all be contributing equally. I'm not poor, I'm in the highest tax bracket in the US if you adjust for loopholes. I'm getting sick of fucking tired of footing the bill for stupid wars and corporate welfare and tax breaks only to see people come in here and try to claim that the small percentages paid to welfare are draining the wealthy of their money.

1: The wealthy pay less

2: What they do pay is mostly being spent on corporate welfare and defense.

BucEyedPea
10-13-2008, 12:06 PM
Obama has a flawed idea of success. Says he doesn't want to punish that man's success but feels it helps other's "success" to spread his around. That has nothing to do with the other's success. Obama is penalizing production which penalizes success and doesn't encourage others to be successful. He could have at least called it something else....but calling it success? Oh brother!

Donger
10-13-2008, 12:07 PM
We all pay taxes, if we want it to be fair we should all be contributing equally. I'm not poor, I'm in the highest tax bracket in the US if you adjust for loopholes. I'm getting sick of ****ing tired of footing the bill for stupid wars and corporate welfare and tax breaks only to see people come in here and try to claim that the small percentages paid to welfare are draining the wealthy of their money.

1: The wealthy pay less

2: What they do pay is mostly being spent on corporate welfare and defense.

You do acknowledge that "the rich" already pay the vast majority of the tax burden in this country, do you not?

Calcountry
10-13-2008, 12:08 PM
Obama opened up an avenue for McCain, again, will he use it ?No my friends, we mustn't fear an Obama Presidency, he is to be respected my friends.

jidar
10-13-2008, 12:11 PM
You do acknowledge that "the rich" already pay the vast majority of the tax burden in this country, do you not?

No I do not. Plus you are impossible to talk to, seriously. It's like you have zero capacity for rational consideration, you get stuck on your talking point and that's it.

Here are the facts:

1: The wealthy pay the least taxes by percentage.
2: This country cannot afford more tax cuts.

We've spent too much for too long and it's come time to pay for it, I don't give a shit if it means you have to cut back on yachts or beach houses or whatever, you can kiss my fucking ass on that. The rich benefited hugely from this countries fiscal policies that have put us in this position so the least they can do is pay their fair share of that burden.

Calcountry
10-13-2008, 12:11 PM
ďIím paying the lowest tax rate that Iíve ever paid in my life. Now, thatís crazy.Ē --Warren Buffett 2008

Straight out of the horses mouth. The wealthy are taxed less because of loopholes. That doesn't stop people from whining though.

http://darrylwolkpolitics.blogspot.com/2008/01/warren-buffetts-tax-rate-is-lower-than.html

The wealthy will be taxed less in the next 4 years, because they are going to quit doing anything that is being excessively taxed.

If you tax something, you get less of it.

If you subsidise something, you get more of it.


It's like gravity, and you fools on the left just don't get it, because you live in an unreal paradigm, where the butterflies all get along, and the trees speak to you in a harmonic convergence.

mikey23545
10-13-2008, 12:12 PM
As I have said before, just buying votes with someone else's money...Oldest Dem trick in the book...

jidar
10-13-2008, 12:12 PM
The wealthy will be taxed less in the next 4 years, because they are going to quit doing anything that is being excessively taxed.

If you tax something, you get less of it.

If you subsidise something, you get more of it.


It's like gravity, and you fools on the left just don't get it, because you live in an unreal paradigm, where the butterflies all get along, and the trees speak to you in a harmonic convergence.

Well doh, obviously.

triple
10-13-2008, 12:12 PM
by Obama's standards I'm probably one of "the rich" already so I'll just send you guys some checks.

Donger
10-13-2008, 12:14 PM
No I do not. Plus you are impossible to talk to, seriously. It's like you have zero capacity for rational consideration, you get stuck on your talking point and that's it.

Here are the facts:

1: The wealthy pay the least taxes by percentage.
2: This country cannot afford more tax cuts.

We've spent too much for too long and it's come time to pay for it, I don't give a shit if it means you have to cut back on yachts or beach houses or whatever, you can kiss my ****ing ass on that. The rich benefited hugely from this countries fiscal policies that have put us in this position so the least they can do is pay their fair share of that burden.

So, if you were presented with numbers from the US Department of Treasury proving that "the rich" pay the vast majority of taxes in this country, you'd what, still stick your fingers in your ears?

jidar
10-13-2008, 12:14 PM
As I have said before, just buying votes with someone else's money...Oldest Dem trick in the book...

Oh and that's not what huge corporate tax cut and no bid contracts are? Give me a break. What about literally cutting a check to the middle class like Bush has done twice?

Irresponsible fiscal policy is what it is. It's time we stopped spending and paid for excess.

You guys have this idea that the government and the American people are two different things. That somehow the governments debt isn't ours. Well guess what, it is. We have to pay for that debt and you could tax the middle class all damned day and it's not going to be enough money. The wealthy are going to have to pay, that's the bottom line.

triple
10-13-2008, 12:16 PM
I agree with Obama. It's the reason I work my ass off. I want to be able to economically help that lazy crack head mutherfkr who can't afford medical. That crack head has RIGHTS!

By all means, my Yen is your Yen

I'm angry that I spent 30 or 40 grand (in today's dollars) on a college education. I could have just waited for Santa Barack to put the squeeze on the rich and give the money to me.

jidar
10-13-2008, 12:16 PM
So, if you were presented with numbers from the US Department of Treasury proving that "the rich" pay the vast majority of taxes in this country, you'd what, still stick your fingers in your ears?

I'm sure you can find an article that says anything, their books are their books, they will show what they want.

Now the real question is, why didn't the Forbes 400 people take Buffett up on his offer of $1million if they could prove they payed more taxes than their secretaries?

BucEyedPea
10-13-2008, 12:17 PM
Here are the facts:

1: The wealthy pay the least taxes by percentage.
2: This country cannot afford more tax cuts.


Cut spending.
Cut spending.
Cut spending.
Let's begin with FP.
Then military expenses that are a third the budget and don't make us more safe.
Cut Dept of Education....it is making education worse.

Bootlegged
10-13-2008, 12:18 PM
ďIím paying the lowest tax rate that Iíve ever paid in my life. Now, thatís crazy.Ē --Warren Buffett 2008

Straight out of the horses mouth. The wealthy are taxed less because of loopholes. That doesn't stop people from whining though.

http://darrylwolkpolitics.blogspot.com/2008/01/warren-buffetts-tax-rate-is-lower-than.html

Quoting Warren Buffett, Obama supporter. Good retort.

jidar
10-13-2008, 12:18 PM
Cut spending.
Cut spending.
Cut spending.
Let's begin with FP.
Then military expenses that are a third the budget and don't make us more safe.
Cut Dept of Education....it is making education worse.

I agree with all of that.

Bill Parcells
10-13-2008, 12:19 PM
I agree with Obama. It's the reason I work my ass off. I want to be able to economically help that lazy crack head mutherfkr who can't afford medical. That crack head has RIGHTS!

By all means, my Yen is your Yen

And there are no taxes on the crack. so crack heads and crack dealers win. good old Obama, always looking out for the middle class.

jidar
10-13-2008, 12:19 PM
Quoting Warren Buffett, Obama supporter. Good retort.

Ad hominem attack. It is the second weakest form of debate next to name calling.

BucEyedPea
10-13-2008, 12:19 PM
I'm angry that I spent 30 or 40 grand (in today's dollars) on a college education. I could have just waited for Santa Barack to put the squeeze on the rich and give the money to me.

I told my daughter about his college plan and she was thrilled.
Then I told her she'd pay for it permanently for others after her too.
Then she didn't like it anymore. She also didn't think it was ethical to take
from others so she could have more.

Donger
10-13-2008, 12:19 PM
I'm sure you can find an article that says anything, their books are their books, they will show what they want.

Now the real question is, why didn't the Forbes 400 people take Buffett up on his offer of $1million if they could prove they payed more taxes than their secretaries?

Okay, keep the fingers in.

They DID pay more in actual dollars, as you know. Their effective tax rates are lower because they report most of their income from capital gains at 15%

But, again, if you look at the actual dollar figures, the rich pay the vast majority of the the tax burden. It's incontrovertible.

BucEyedPea
10-13-2008, 12:21 PM
by Obama's standards I'm probably one of "the rich" already so I'll just send you guys some checks.

Cool. I just have 3 more months tuition to pay for my daughter....I'll pm you with details on where to send. :D

Bootlegged
10-13-2008, 12:22 PM
Ad hominem attack. It is the second weakest form of debate next to name calling.

ROFL

Man - you need to pull your head out and breathe for a min. Defending raising taxes is pretty bad - even for you.

You are the idiot that they are counting on to fall for the class envy vote. Congrats.

mikey23545
10-13-2008, 12:23 PM
The top 50% of wage earners in the U.S. pay 97% of all income taxes, leaving the bottom 50% to pay 3%....In 2006, <i>41% of the wage earners paid no income tax at all</i>...

I hope someday the top earners in this country get sick of paying the way for the burger-flippers.

Calcountry
10-13-2008, 12:25 PM
Cool. I just have 3 more months tuition to pay for my daughter....I'll pm you with details on where to send. :DMaybe Barack Hussein will give you a check to help with that.

BucEyedPea
10-13-2008, 12:25 PM
The top 50% of wage earners in the U.S. pay 97% of all income taxes, leaving the bottom 50% to pay 3%....In 2006, <i>41% of the wage earners paid no income tax at all</i>...

I hope someday the top earners in this country get sick of paying the way for the burger-flippers.

My understanding is that is how it used to be when income taxes passed. It was only on the wealthiest. It's how the system stays intact too, particularly as poverty increases in our inflationary monetary system.

BucEyedPea
10-13-2008, 12:25 PM
Maybe Barack Hussein will give you a check to help with that.
It'll be too late. She'll be done at that school.

HC_Chief
10-13-2008, 12:26 PM
Okay, keep the fingers in.

They DID pay more in actual dollars, as you know. Their effective tax rates are lower because they report most of their income from capital gains at 15%

But, again, if you look at the actual dollar figures, the rich pay the vast majority of the the tax burden. It's incontrovertible.

A lot of people don't get it. They only see "so and so made $X million and paid only X% INCOME TAX!!!11one! while their {insert underling here} paid Y%!!!11one! UNFAIRSSES!!!1one!1".

The TRULY wealthy don't HAVE taxable income as salary; they make their money as dividends/return on investment. Capital gains applies, rather than the income tax brackets the majority of us are slotted in for taxation.

jidar
10-13-2008, 12:26 PM
Okay, keep the fingers in.

They DID pay more in actual dollars, as you know. Their effective tax rates are lower because they report most of their income from capital gains at 15%

But, again, if you look at the actual dollar figures, the rich pay the vast majority of the the tax burden. It's incontrovertible.

Obviously but they benefit the most from government policies, again in real dollars.

Noone wants the rich to pay everything, just pay their fair share. If you make X amount of dollars pay X percent. I don't see why that's not reasonable.

You try to say "well it's more money" yeah, I make 5 times what I did out of college, but I don't feel like I'm worse off than someone one tax bracket down who is paying less by a dollar value. In fact I feel like I'm much better off.

Now it's not that I like taxes, I will spend all day bitching about the bloated government and how wasteful it is with tax dollars. The truth is we should all be paying a fraction of what we do. Unfortunately we're in this mess now and it has to be paid for so right now we need to get taxes to a fair amount across the board and cut spending in a major way. Once this countries finances are fixed we can look at cutting back on the tax burden -fairly across the board-.

triple
10-13-2008, 12:27 PM
I told my daughter about his college plan and she was thrilled.
Then I told her she'd pay for it permanently for others after her too.
Then she didn't like it anymore. She also didn't think it was ethical to take
from others so she could have more.

i could have been at the bar every night like those people i know who never graduated. damn it

jidar
10-13-2008, 12:27 PM
The top 50% of wage earners in the U.S. pay 97% of all income taxes, leaving the bottom 50% to pay 3%....In 2006, <i>41% of the wage earners paid no income tax at all</i>...

I hope someday the top earners in this country get sick of paying the way for the burger-flippers.

I like that you use the "top 50%". I'm in that top 50% myself.
Why don't you use the top 5% instead since that were is the unfairness that I'm bitching about occurs?

StcChief
10-13-2008, 12:28 PM
Oh and that's not what huge corporate tax cut and no bid contracts are? Give me a break. What about literally cutting a check to the middle class like Bush has done twice?

Irresponsible fiscal policy is what it is. It's time we stopped spending and paid for excess.

You guys have this idea that the government and the American people are two different things. That somehow the governments debt isn't ours. Well guess what, it is. We have to pay for that debt and you could tax the middle class all damned day and it's not going to be enough money. The wealthy are going to have to pay, that's the bottom line.
Technically it belongs to the folks that finance it. Chinese etc.... so If we say screw 'em and not pay can they do, stop selling stuff to wal-mart. Drop our credit rating? Attack?

Bootlegged
10-13-2008, 12:28 PM
Obviously but they benefit the most from government policies, again in real dollars.

Noone wants the rich to pay everything, just pay their fair share. If you make X amount of dollars pay X percent. I don't see why that's not reasonable.

You try to say "well it's more money" yeah, I make 5 times what I did out of college, but I don't feel like I'm worse off than someone one tax bracket down who is paying less by a dollar value. In fact I feel like I'm much better off.

Now it's not that I like taxes, I will spend all day bitching about the bloated government and how wasteful it is with tax dollars. The truth is we should all be paying a fraction of what we do. Unfortunately we're in this mess now and it has to be paid for so right now we need to get taxes to a fair amount across the board and cut spending in a major way. Once this countries finances are fixed we can look at cutting back on the tax burden -fairly across the board-.

So your first year out of school you made $5k. Got it.

HC_Chief
10-13-2008, 12:29 PM
FTR, I am for a sales tax in place of income tax. All goods and services are taxed at the same %. No more archaic slotting systems, no more payroll tax.

Guru
10-13-2008, 12:29 PM
No I do not. Plus you are impossible to talk to, seriously. It's like you have zero capacity for rational consideration, you get stuck on your talking point and that's it.

Here are the facts:

1: The wealthy pay the least taxes by percentage.
2: This country cannot afford more tax cuts.

We've spent too much for too long and it's come time to pay for it, I don't give a shit if it means you have to cut back on yachts or beach houses or whatever, you can kiss my ****ing ass on that. The rich benefited hugely from this countries fiscal policies that have put us in this position so the least they can do is pay their fair share of that burden.

Tell congress to lead by example then. Quit spending money they don't have. Yes, that includes the war.

triple
10-13-2008, 12:29 PM
Technically it belongs to the folks that finance it. Chinese etc.... so If we say screw 'em and not pay can they do, stop selling stuff to wal-mart. Drop our credit rating? Attack?

that's retarded. neither one is going to do that. it's a mutually beneficial relationship.

jidar
10-13-2008, 12:30 PM
Technically it belongs to the folks that finance it. Chinese etc.... so If we say screw 'em and not pay can they do, stop selling stuff to wal-mart. Drop our credit rating? Attack?

so now you're advocating just defaulting on the federal debt? I don't even know where to begin on discussing that argument. I don't know what that would mean monetarily, let alone from a foreign policy perspective. Right off the top of my head it occurs to me as a scumbag move, so there is that.

ChiTown
10-13-2008, 12:30 PM
FTR, I am for a sales tax in place of income tax. All goods and services are taxed at the same %. No more archaic slotting systems, no more payroll tax.

:clap:

Amen, brotha!

Donger
10-13-2008, 12:31 PM
Obviously but they benefit the most from government policies, again in real dollars.

Noone wants the rich to pay everything, just pay their fair share. If you make X amount of dollars pay X percent. I don't see why that's not reasonable.

You try to say "well it's more money" yeah, I make 5 times what I did out of college, but I don't feel like I'm worse off than someone one tax bracket down who is paying less by a dollar value. In fact I feel like I'm much better off.

Now it's not that I like taxes, I will spend all day bitching about the bloated government and how wasteful it is with tax dollars. The truth is we should all be paying a fraction of what we do. Unfortunately we're in this mess now and it has to be paid for so right now we need to get taxes to a fair amount across the board and cut spending in a major way. Once this countries finances are fixed we can look at cutting back on the tax burden -fairly across the board-.

How on earth do they benefit the most by paying the majority of taxes?

Donger
10-13-2008, 12:32 PM
I like that you use the "top 50%". I'm in that top 50% myself.
Why don't you use the top 5% instead since that were is the unfairness that I'm bitching about occurs?

How about top 1%

"The top 1 percent of income earners paid about 36.7 percent of federal income taxes and 25.3 percent of all federal taxes in 2004."

jidar
10-13-2008, 12:34 PM
FTR, I am for a sales tax in place of income tax. All goods and services are taxed at the same %. No more archaic slotting systems, no more payroll tax.

So you like the Fair Tax
I've given that careful consideration and I don't see any way the books work out on that.

jidar
10-13-2008, 12:35 PM
How on earth do they benefit the most by paying the majority of taxes?

They benefit from government fiscal policies that are pro business. They benefit by the very existence of our system, the same as we all do. Or do you think you can have a functioning economy in anarchy?

triple
10-13-2008, 12:36 PM
They benefit from government fiscal policies that are pro business.

like some of the world's highest corporate taxes I guess

Donger
10-13-2008, 12:36 PM
As to the question about percentages and effective tax rates, I don't really care and neither should anyone else.

Why not?

Because we don't pay for things with percentages. We pay for things with dollars.

jidar
10-13-2008, 12:37 PM
like some of the world's highest corporate taxes I guess

A myth. True if you don't take loopholes into account, but obviously this is where reality and perception diverge.

Donger
10-13-2008, 12:37 PM
They benefit from government fiscal policies that are pro business. They benefit by the very existence of our system, the same as we all do. Or do you think you can have a functioning economy in anarchy?

Good. I like business. They provide jobs and stuff.

Swanman
10-13-2008, 12:37 PM
How about top 1%

"The top 1 percent of income earners paid about 36.7 percent of federal income taxes and 25.3 percent of all federal taxes in 2004."


It's called math. Even without a progressive tax structure, the top 1% would still pay a lot of the taxes, as one person who makes $100 million in a year for example would pay more taxes than many small towns put together. I don't know what it really proves that they pay a high percentage of the taxes, they also make a large percentage of the income too. And considering most of the top earners have a fairly low effective tax rate, they also keep more of what they earn than people who make less than them. Tax burden, in my opinion, should be determined by an individual's effective tax rate, not the gross amount that they pay.

***SPRAYER
10-13-2008, 12:37 PM
Tax consumption, not production.

triple
10-13-2008, 12:38 PM
A myth. True if you don't take loopholes into account, but obviously this is where reality and perception diverge.

Wal mart and other large corporations often pay more than 50% of their profits in taxes. What precentage do you think would be fair?

alanm
10-13-2008, 12:39 PM
I'm angry that I spent 30 or 40 grand (in today's dollars) on a college education. I could have just waited for Santa Barack to put the squeeze on the rich and give the money to me.
Well Duh.

Donger
10-13-2008, 12:41 PM
Anyway, back to Barack Hussein's comment. Why do his supporters think, as he does, that the wealth needs to be "spread around"?

StcChief
10-13-2008, 12:42 PM
that's retarded. neither one is going to do that. it's a mutually beneficial relationship.until we can't or refuse to pay.... Tax payers revolt on Gov't for stupidity bad spending, too much debt thrust on taxpayers.... it may be closer than you think

jidar
10-13-2008, 12:42 PM
Wal mart and other large corporations often pay more than 50% of their profits in taxes. What precentage do you think would be fair?

Again, that's not true.
Why do you guys keep throwing out these numbers when you know they're not right? I bet if we were in another thread discussing accounting every person in this thread would agree that you can make the numbers show whatever the hell you want.

I'm talking about reality here, not some number thrown up by Wal-Mart to show how poor they are when they're one of the top 10 most valuable business in the world.

jidar
10-13-2008, 12:43 PM
Anyway, back to Barack Hussein's comment. Why do his supporters think, as he does, that the wealth needs to be "spread around"?

How many posts did I just make? It's like your brain is made of teflon, nothing sticks.

Donger
10-13-2008, 12:45 PM
How many posts did I just make? It's like your brain is made of teflon, nothing sticks.

I read that you don't want them to have yachts and other goodies. Your basic class warfare stuff. Yes, I saw that.

I'm wondering about other Barack Hussein followers.

Thanks for your input, though.

Donger
10-13-2008, 12:46 PM
Again, that's not true.
Why do you guys keep throwing out these numbers when you know they're not right? I bet if we were in another thread discussing accounting every person in this thread would agree that you can make the numbers show whatever the hell you want.

I'm talking about reality here, not some number thrown up by Wal-Mart to show how poor they are when they're one of the top 10 most valuable business in the world.

Not right? I beg to differ. You just seem to care more about percentages than actual revenue, because you apparently care more about "fairness" than actual dollars taken.

We disagree, obviously.

StcChief
10-13-2008, 12:47 PM
how about let them earn their own wealth....

jidar
10-13-2008, 12:47 PM
Good. I like business. They provide jobs and stuff.

workers provide consumption and production

It's not as important on an individual level, but that's why they make less real dollars as individuals. Both should be taxed an equal percentage of income.

HC_Chief
10-13-2008, 12:48 PM
So you like the Fair Tax
I've given that careful consideration and I don't see any way the books work out on that.

Not in it's current form. It needs to be tweaked a bit. There are numerous sites which lay out the loopholes in the most recent proposal(s). Google 'em if you want to read more.

For the most part, I find it to be a much better system (if we are to have taxes at all) ;)

Donger
10-13-2008, 12:50 PM
workers provide consumption and production

It's not as important on an individual level, but that's why they make less real dollars as individuals. Both should be taxed an equal percentage of income.

So you disagree with Barack Hussein? You've thrown out there Buffett as an example. Do you know that very few have income like his?

As I understand it, Barack Hussein proposes increasing the taxes on those making $250,000 plus and have an effective tax rate significantly higher than someone making $60,000.

You would be okay with lowering the tax rate on those people?

irishjayhawk
10-13-2008, 12:54 PM
FTR, I am for a sales tax in place of income tax. All goods and services are taxed at the same %. No more archaic slotting systems, no more payroll tax.

Yep. I've always had a problem with the income tax.



Donger still has yet to answer me: What, if any, tax system do you support?

Swanman
10-13-2008, 12:55 PM
Wal mart and other large corporations often pay more than 50% of their profits in taxes. What precentage do you think would be fair?

For the last three years, Walmart has had around a 33% tax rate, but if you compare the tax expense to the total net income, it is 50% or over, but that math is wrong. You need to divide the taxes by the income before taxes to derive the tax rate. Any corporation with an effective tax rate over 50% should start by firing their entire tax department.

triple
10-13-2008, 12:55 PM
Again, that's not true.
Why do you guys keep throwing out these numbers when you know they're not right? I bet if we were in another thread discussing accounting every person in this thread would agree that you can make the numbers show whatever the hell you want.

It's good to know that if numbers are produced you won't consider them anyway.

BucEyedPea
10-13-2008, 12:57 PM
They benefit from government fiscal policies that are pro business. They benefit by the very existence of our system, the same as we all do. Or do you think you can have a functioning economy in anarchy?
What fiscal policies would that be?


They don't need much of the current system to benefit and other aspects harm them more than benefit them. What they need is enough of a market ( people) willing to buy their products ( see value in them) by exchanging their hard earned dollars and having enough of them. Otherwise the system is useless. In any event, it's much more secondary unless you believe in planned economy.

Swanman
10-13-2008, 12:57 PM
FTR, I am for a sales tax in place of income tax. All goods and services are taxed at the same %. No more archaic slotting systems, no more payroll tax.


I am for a sales tax, with some tweaks. For example, "essentials" would be taxed at a low or zero rate and higher tax rates would apply to luxury items, although not outrageous rates that some have proposed. But I would propose a 75% tax on rappers and athletes and anyone else who feels they need to own 77 Bentleys. That could solve the deficit right there.

HC_Chief
10-13-2008, 12:58 PM
I am for a sales tax, with some tweaks. For example, "essentials" would be taxed at a low or zero rate and higher tax rates would apply to luxury items, although not outrageous rates that some have proposed. But I would propose a 75% tax on rappers and athletes and anyone else who feels they need to own 77 Bentleys. That could solve the deficit right there.

LOL

A tiered system does not seem outrageous to me; however we must consider it would be CONGRESS who laid out the tiers, so you know it would be *#&%ed. :sad:

Swanman
10-13-2008, 01:00 PM
It's good to know that if numbers are produced you won't consider them anyway.


Here are the figures from Wally-world's most recently filed 10-K:

Income before taxes for the last 3 years: $56,701,000,000
Tax expense for the last 3 years: $19,124,000,000

Tax rate of 33.7%

HC_Chief
10-13-2008, 01:00 PM
Here are the figures from Wally-world's most recently filed 10-K:

Income before taxes for the last 3 years: $56,701,000,000
Tax expense for the last 3 years: $19,124,000,000

Tax rate of 33.7%

Holy *&#$% that company makes a lot of money. I wonder what they wrote off in operating costs?

Swanman
10-13-2008, 01:02 PM
LOL

A tiered system does not seem outrageous to me; however we must consider it would be CONGRESS who laid out the tiers, so you know it would be *#&%ed. :sad:

I agree completely there. I wouldn't trust Congress to put together a shopping list to make grilled cheese sandwiches. The lobbyists for different industries/products would be spending lots of moolah trying to convince/bribe Congresspeople to include their products in lower tax tiers. It would definitely be interesting to watch the chaos that would ensue.

Donger
10-13-2008, 01:12 PM
Donger still has yet to answer me: What, if any, tax system do you support?

I already did. The present one is fine.

Mr. Flopnuts
10-13-2008, 01:14 PM
I already did. The present one is fine.

Don't you have some oil to sell? Thousands on welfare are depending on your hard work.

Donger
10-13-2008, 01:19 PM
Don't you have some oil to sell? Thousands on welfare are depending on your hard work.

I don't sell oil.

StcChief
10-13-2008, 01:25 PM
Holy *&#$% that company makes a lot of money. I wonder what they wrote off in operating costs?
probably their employed staff at the stores they seem pretty incompetent.

Their IT area is cluster F too.

tiptap
10-13-2008, 02:22 PM
So, you agree with Barack Hussein that the wealthy aren't paying enough of our tax burden? I agree that wealth of "the rich" should be "spread around"?


Absolutely. And we are talking about income, not wealth redistribution. There is a difference.

ChiTown
10-13-2008, 02:23 PM
I don't sell oil.

What sort of oil don't you sell?

Donger
10-13-2008, 02:25 PM
Absolutely. And we are talking about income, not wealth redistribution. There is a difference.

Income redistribution is not only okay, but should be pursued?

tiptap
10-13-2008, 02:32 PM
Anyway, back to Barack Hussein's comment. Why do his supporters think, as he does, that the wealth needs to be "spread around"?

I have made this argument before. The really wealthy, the very good businessman (women), will win that income wealth again but in the process the dollars flow through a larger number of people so that their dollar vote is reflected in the economy by their choices. In the process the organization of the economy results from the flow of income/wealth through the system. It gives opportunity to a greater number to succeed.

When you concentrate wealth in a few hands and don't force them to win anew those resources, you wasted both the wealthy and excellent business persons assets and fail to include the new possibilities within the population. When the house holds most of the assets they have little reason to risk losing their advantage of already owning the majority position.

Now you can believe the rich will be benevolent or something but I prefer to put them to work for their position at the top. And prove that they are worthy in this next business cycle.

Donger
10-13-2008, 02:36 PM
I have made this argument before. The really wealthy, the very good businessman (women), will win that income wealth again but in the process the dollars flow through a larger number of people so that their dollar vote is reflected in the economy by their choices. In the process the organization of the economy results from the flow of income/wealth through the system. It gives opportunity to a greater number to succeed.

When you concentrate wealth in a few hands and don't force them to win anew those resources, you wasted both the wealthy and excellent business persons assets and fail to include the new possibilities within the population. When the house holds most of the assets they have little reason to risk losing their advantage of already owning the majority position.

Now you can believe the rich will be benevolent or something but I prefer to put them to work for their position at the top. And prove that they are worthy in this next business cycle.

They proved they were good once, so they need to be prove themselves again?

I'm sorry, but I simply disagree. By all means provide opportunity for people to reach their potential, but this sounds like punishment of success.

tiptap
10-13-2008, 02:36 PM
Then you believe in a static economy.

tiptap
10-13-2008, 02:38 PM
If you ask those businessmen that are really good, it is as much the process as the money that drives them. Put them to work. I want them to succeed and succeed for all of us.

Donger
10-13-2008, 02:39 PM
Then you believe in a static economy.

If you define that as not punishing success, then yes, I suppose I do.

tiptap
10-13-2008, 02:41 PM
Success is what have you done for me lately. It is not like we are taking away their wealth just their income off their wealth. There is a BIG difference. I don't think any of them are going to lose their yacht.

Donger
10-13-2008, 02:42 PM
Success is what have you done for me lately. It is not like we are taking away their wealth just their income off their wealth. There is a BIG difference. I don't think any of them are going to lose their yacht.

How many folks who earn $250,000/year own yachts? I know that has become the rallying cry of class warfare, but let's be realistic.

mikey23545
10-13-2008, 02:44 PM
Success is what have you done for me lately. It is not like we are taking away their wealth just their income off their wealth. There is a BIG difference. I don't think any of them are going to lose their yacht.

You just don't get it, do you?

You don't have a right to any of it.

tiptap
10-13-2008, 02:47 PM
I make twice that rate and my taxes go up around 2000.00. And I did have to sell my Hobie Cat. But I bought a canoe so its a wash.

tiptap
10-13-2008, 02:50 PM
You just don't get it, do you?

You don't have a right to any of it.

Yes I do. They benefit by the system. We get to set the system by representative government. They have representation so it is not that they can claim they don't have access. Please.

The Rick
10-13-2008, 03:03 PM
I have made this argument before. The really wealthy, the very good businessman (women), will win that income wealth again but in the process the dollars flow through a larger number of people so that their dollar vote is reflected in the economy by their choices. In the process the organization of the economy results from the flow of income/wealth through the system. It gives opportunity to a greater number to succeed.

When you concentrate wealth in a few hands and don't force them to win anew those resources, you wasted both the wealthy and excellent business persons assets and fail to include the new possibilities within the population. When the house holds most of the assets they have little reason to risk losing their advantage of already owning the majority position.

Now you can believe the rich will be benevolent or something but I prefer to put them to work for their position at the top. And prove that they are worthy in this next business cycle.
It's frightening that you truly believe this, and this is the fundamental problem with the Democratic party as far as I'm concerned. You're basically saying:

"OK, you wealthy guys are pretty talented, you've been extremely successful at what you do. See those people over there? For various reasons ranging from lack of motivation to respectfully choosing a path in life that doesn't generate much income, they aren't as successful as you in regards to wealth. So, we're going to take a bunch from you and give it to them because we want to be fair to everyone. But don't worry, you guys are so good you'll earn it all back. It's not a big deal, really. You're patriots, right?"

What you're advocated is legalized crime. :shake:

Chief Henry
10-13-2008, 03:04 PM
ďIím paying the lowest tax rate that Iíve ever paid in my life. Now, thatís crazy.Ē --Warren Buffett 2008

30 to 35% of americans don't pay taxs :hmmm:

mikey23545
10-13-2008, 03:05 PM
Yes I do. They benefit by the system. We get to set the system by representative government. They have representation so it is not that they can claim they don't have access. Please.

And you're not allowed to use the same "system"?

Please.

Brock
10-13-2008, 03:05 PM
It's frightening that you truly believe this, and this is the fundamental problem with the Democratic party as far as I'm concerned. You're basically saying:

"OK, you wealthy guys are pretty talented, you've been extremely successful at what you do. See those people over there? For various reasons ranging from lack of motivation to respectfully choosing a path in life that doesn't generate much income, they aren't as successful as you in regards to wealth. So, we're going to take a bunch from you and give it to them because we want to be fair to everyone. But don't worry, you guys are so good you'll earn it all back. It's not a big deal, really. You're patriots, right?"

What you're advocated is legalized crime. :shake:

But it's okay, because we're doing it through the government!

mikey23545
10-13-2008, 03:06 PM
30 to 35% of americans don't pay taxs :hmmm:

Sorry, you're all wrong - It's up around 40% now....

Donger
10-13-2008, 03:07 PM
I've got to go make a deposit at my bank. I think I'll see if they'll give me some of their spare cash laying around the safe. They've got more than me, so I want and deserve some.

I'll let you guys know what happens.

Logical
10-13-2008, 03:08 PM
Obama opened up an avenue for McCain, again, will he use it ?HUH :rolleyes: What about spreading the wealth around is bad?:spock:

Donger
10-13-2008, 03:09 PM
HUH :rolleyes: What about spreading the wealth around is bad?:spock:

Nothing, I suppose, if you're on the receiving end.

Logical
10-13-2008, 03:09 PM
So, you agree with Barack Hussein that the wealthy aren't paying enough of our tax burden? I agree that wealth of "the rich" should be "spread around"?Yes definitely

Garcia Bronco
10-13-2008, 03:09 PM
ďIím paying the lowest tax rate that Iíve ever paid in my life. Now, thatís crazy.Ē --Warren Buffett 2008

Straight out of the horses mouth. The wealthy are taxed less because of loopholes. That doesn't stop people from whining though.

http://darrylwolkpolitics.blogspot.com/2008/01/warren-buffetts-tax-rate-is-lower-than.html

the only fair thing is a flat tax for everybody. That's fair. Get rid of the credits, deductions, and so on.

Donger
10-13-2008, 03:10 PM
Yes definitely

Weren't you one of the ones annoyed at the recent tax "rebate" stimulus? That you weren't going to get one?

Guru
10-13-2008, 03:11 PM
the only fair thing is a flat tax for everybody. That's fair. Get rid of the credits, deductions, and so on.

I am all for that.

Logical
10-13-2008, 03:11 PM
Nothing, I suppose, if you're on the receiving end.I don't even mind being on the paying in end, if I am lucky enough to be wealthy, I will happily pay a bigger share. I look at it like winning the big slots jackpot in Vegas, I will happily pay 50% on those winnings because I had the good fortune and frankly did not need the whole million dollar jackpot.

Donger
10-13-2008, 03:11 PM
the only fair thing is a flat tax for everybody. That's fair. Get rid of the credits, deductions, and so on.

Never happen. Will the Democrats agree (or the Republicans, for that matter) to have the people who pay no income tax now suddenly start paying, say, 15% like everyone else?

Garcia Bronco
10-13-2008, 03:12 PM
1: The wealthy pay the least taxes by percentage.
2: This country cannot afford more tax cuts.


1: But yet the individually pay more money
2: This country cannot afford more spending. This is lunacy. You wouldn't run your own books this way, why do people support the government doing it?

Donger
10-13-2008, 03:13 PM
I don't even mind being on the paying in end, if I am lucky enough to be wealthy, I will happily pay a bigger share. I look at it like winning the big slots jackpot in Vegas, I will happily pay 50% on those winnings because I had the good fortune and frankly did not need the whole million dollar jackpot.

Very benevolent of you. You know that you can always volunteer more taxation, right? Do you do that now?

mikey23545
10-13-2008, 03:13 PM
the only fair thing is a flat tax for everybody. That's fair. Get rid of the credits, deductions, and so on.

That would mean it would be the same for everybody...How could that possibly be fair?

Garcia Bronco
10-13-2008, 03:14 PM
1: The wealthy pay less

2: What they do pay is mostly being spent on corporate welfare and defense.

Most of our budget goes to Medicare, SS, and Medicaid. Defense spendind is right up there, but it's the truth.

Garcia Bronco
10-13-2008, 03:14 PM
That would mean it would be the same for everybody...How could that possibly be fair?

LOL

mikey23545
10-13-2008, 03:15 PM
I don't even mind being on the paying in end, if I am lucky enough to be wealthy, I will happily pay a bigger share. I look at it like winning the big slots jackpot in Vegas, I will happily pay 50% on those winnings because I had the good fortune and frankly did not need the whole million dollar jackpot.

Since you don't mind, do you send extra now since you are legally allowed to? I really want to know.

Logical
10-13-2008, 03:15 PM
Weren't you one of the ones annoyed at the recent tax "rebate" stimulus? That you weren't going to get one?I don't know about annoyed, more I wondered based on the stated values why I did not get one. I later learned it was because they did not classify Head of Household the same as a couple for the purpose of the rebate. After I understood the reason I was fine with it. Frankly I would have just saved the money and done nothing to stimulate the economy. I have plenty of money to buy what I want when I want it.

Garcia Bronco
10-13-2008, 03:16 PM
I don't even mind being on the paying in end, if I am lucky enough to be wealthy, I will happily pay a bigger share. I look at it like winning the big slots jackpot in Vegas, I will happily pay 50% on those winnings because I had the good fortune and frankly did not need the whole million dollar jackpot.

Your analogy doesn't even apply. As if someone who creates a business for her/him and his family that's successful through hardwork is the same as pulling a lever on a slot machine. Where do you effing people come from?

Logical
10-13-2008, 03:16 PM
Since you don't mind, do you send extra now since you are legally allowed to? I really want to know.One year (2002) I did, but since they have stayed in Iraq as part of the occupation I now will not until we get out of Iraq.

Logical
10-13-2008, 03:19 PM
Your analogy doesn't even apply. As if someone who creates a business for her/him and his family that's successful through hardwork is the same as pulling a lever on a slot machine. Where do you effing people come from?Trust me I have worked hard for my success. But because this country has provided me with the opportunity to succeed I pay happily as long as we are not wasting money on things like the Iraq occupation.

Guru
10-13-2008, 03:21 PM
That would mean it would be the same for everybody...How could that possibly be fair?

Based on percentage it would be fair.

Garcia Bronco
10-13-2008, 03:26 PM
Trust me I have worked hard for my success. But because this country has provided me with the opportunity to succeed I pay happily as long as we are not wasting money on things like the Iraq occupation.

Iraq "occupation" is not costing you nearly as much as decaying medicare, SS, and medicaid.

BucEyedPea
10-13-2008, 03:27 PM
Your analogy doesn't even apply. As if someone who creates a business for her/him and his family that's successful through hardwork is the same as pulling a lever on a slot machine. Where do you effing people come from?

:clap::clap::clap:

tiptap
10-13-2008, 03:30 PM
And you're not allowed to use the same "system"?

Please.


I actually judge not by the money system, that is capitalism's god, but by a moral system. As such I don't value that system as highly. I use it. But not alone.

ChiTown
10-13-2008, 03:30 PM
Trust me I have worked hard for my success. But because this country has provided me with the opportunity to succeed I pay happily as long as we are not wasting money on things like the Iraq occupation.

gmafb:shake:

mikey23545
10-13-2008, 03:31 PM
One year (2002) I did, but since they have stayed in Iraq as part of the occupation I now will not until we get out of Iraq.

Oh my....Even Denise would have been proud of that sidestep!

mikey23545
10-13-2008, 03:32 PM
I actually judge not by the money system, that is capitalism's god, but by a moral system. As such I don't value that system as highly. I use it. But not alone.

If there was even a whiff of morality about you, you wouldn't crave the wealth of others....

BucEyedPea
10-13-2008, 03:34 PM
If there was even a whiff of morality about you, you wouldn't crave the wealth of others....

I don't think tip-tap is in that income bracket but a bracket that gets taken from in higher amounts.
Limousine liberals can afford to feel generous about taxes.

tiptap
10-13-2008, 03:35 PM
It's frightening that you truly believe this, and this is the fundamental problem with the Democratic party as far as I'm concerned. You're basically saying:

"OK, you wealthy guys are pretty talented, you've been extremely successful at what you do. See those people over there? For various reasons ranging from lack of motivation to respectfully choosing a path in life that doesn't generate much income, they aren't as successful as you in regards to wealth. So, we're going to take a bunch from you and give it to them because we want to be fair to everyone. But don't worry, you guys are so good you'll earn it all back. It's not a big deal, really. You're patriots, right?"

What you're advocated is legalized crime. :shake:

You have already accepted the tenets of capitalism as supreme. It is god. I don't. It is not the only means of judgment. If my position is to conserve then I am not looking at making the ever increasing economy the goal to end all goals. That is what unfettered capitalism is about. If you don't use it, I can. So in a sense the crime comes from the claim you should be allowed to make money off of what I would leave to my kids.

tiptap
10-13-2008, 03:36 PM
If there was even a whiff of morality about you, you wouldn't crave the wealth of others....

Not the wealth, the income. Get it straight if you are going to talk about this.

ROYC75
10-13-2008, 03:40 PM
Theft by deception .......

tiptap
10-13-2008, 03:43 PM
Most of our budget goes to Medicare, SS, and Medicaid. Defense spendind is right up there, but it's the truth.

But all people pay a SS tax and Medicaire tax. Actually mine cuts off and I don't have to pay after some number. So my tax margin goes down. So that SS and Medicare goes towards those that do pay.

That is different than INCOME TAX. Please, if you going to talk about this stuff, stay on target.

tiptap
10-13-2008, 03:46 PM
If there was even a whiff of morality about you, you wouldn't crave the wealth of others....

Because money is god for you. You are a possessive baboon. Just look at that face you portray on your sig. (now don't get mad, just find a good verbal reply.) After all I don't think you pay as much taxes as I do. If you do will you will be paying more under Obama and I'll buy you a drink if it will make you feel better.

mikey23545
10-13-2008, 03:47 PM
Not the wealth, the income. Get it straight if you are going to talk about this.

Ahh, immorality by way of semantics...

Wonderful!

tiptap
10-13-2008, 03:47 PM
You don't think there is a difference between wealth and income. Had a course yet in economics?

ChiTown
10-13-2008, 03:48 PM
Because money is god for you. You are a possessive baboon. Just look at that face you portray on your sig. (now don't get mad, just find a good verbal reply.) After all I don't think you pay as much taxes as I do. If you do will you will be paying more under Obama and I'll buy you a drink if it will make you feel better.

How do you know how much anyone pays in taxes from a message bb?

Silock
10-13-2008, 03:49 PM
You don't think there is a difference between wealth and income. Had a course yet in economics?

In THIS discussion, I don't think there's much of a difference.

mikey23545
10-13-2008, 03:49 PM
You have already accepted the tenets of capitalism as supreme. It is god. I don't. It is not the only means of judgment. If my position is to conserve then I am not looking at making the ever increasing economy the goal to end all goals. That is what unfettered capitalism is about. If you don't use it, I can. So in a sense the crime comes from the claim you should be allowed to make money off of what I would leave to my kids.

I have never read such a convoluted piece of garbage in my life...Congratulations on using your education for such extreme rationalization...

tiptap
10-13-2008, 03:51 PM
I don't. I make pretty good income and so it is a good guess. I said if I am wrong, I'd buy Miley a drink (if he is old enough and isn't against drinking). Please the presumption is innocent.

Donger
10-13-2008, 03:51 PM
F*cking bank was closed. Columbia Day, or something.

mikey23545
10-13-2008, 03:51 PM
You don't think there is a difference between wealth and income. Had a course yet in economics?

It simply amazes me you think it a distinction worth making.

Silock
10-13-2008, 03:52 PM
F*cking bank was closed. Columbia Day, or something.

I thought we won the War on Drugs. Fucking Columbians.

Donger
10-13-2008, 03:52 PM
So, who do you think Barack Hussein is going to spread this wealth to, exactly? And, what are they going to do with it?

tiptap
10-13-2008, 03:53 PM
In THIS discussion, I don't think there's much of a difference.

But I have made my arguments with the distinction front and center. So criticism that ignores the distinction is an argument of your making and not from my statements.

Silock
10-13-2008, 03:53 PM
So, who do you think Barack Hussein is going to spread this wealth to, exactly? And, what are they going to do with it?

Plasma screens in every bathroom.

Silock
10-13-2008, 03:53 PM
But I have made my arguments with the distinction front and center. So criticism that ignores the distinction is an argument of your making and not from my statements.

Just because you attempt to differentiate the two doesn't mean that the policies of the next president will follow that.

Donger
10-13-2008, 03:54 PM
Plasma screens in every bathroom.

Seriously. I know that non-thinking (or perhaps non detailed-oriented) people lap this up, but shouldn't these questions be asked and answered?

tiptap
10-13-2008, 03:56 PM
If you have a house paid for or a farm or a business and I, as an agent of the government come and take it from you without payment and give it to someone else, that would be redistribution of wealth.

ChiTown
10-13-2008, 03:57 PM
I don't. I make pretty good income and so it is a good guess. I said if I am wrong, I'd buy Miley a drink (if he is old enough and isn't against drinking). Please the presumption is innocent.

I see.

What is it that you do for a living, if you don't mind me asking?

tiptap
10-13-2008, 03:59 PM
So, who do you think Barack Hussein is going to spread this wealth to, exactly? And, what are they going to do with it?

He is going to see tax credits that go towards moving us off oil. Uhh ohh that is bad for Donger. I can see him going limp.

I have to go now so I will view your retorts later.

Donger
10-13-2008, 04:01 PM
He is going to see tax credits that go towards moving us off oil. Uhh ohh that is bad for Donger. I can see him going limp.

I have to go now so I will view your retorts later.

My profession has nothing to do with oil.

I see you have no true answer, however?

Garcia Bronco
10-13-2008, 04:04 PM
But all people pay a SS tax and Medicaire tax. Actually mine cuts off and I don't have to pay after some number. So my tax margin goes down. So that SS and Medicare goes towards those that do pay.

That is different than INCOME TAX. Please, if you going to talk about this stuff, stay on target.

The answer was in response to the money we waste in Iraq. It's very much on target that we talk about the other wasteful places our tax money goes. Since these programs are doomed to failure, if person X is really worried about the 5 percent we spend in Iraq - then they are asleep at the wheel regarding Medicare, SS, and Medicaid.

Garcia Bronco
10-13-2008, 04:05 PM
How do you know how much anyone pays in taxes from a message bb?

He doesn't

Taco John
10-13-2008, 04:07 PM
The answer was in response to the money we waste in Iraq. It's very much on target that we talk about the other wasteful places our tax money goes. Since these programs are doomed to failure, if person X is really worried about the 5 percent we spend in Iraq - then they are asleep at the wheel regarding Medicare, SS, and Medicaid.


Is it ok to be worried about the 5 percent we spend in Iraq, ALONG WITH the costs regarding Medicare, SS, and Medicaid?

Garcia Bronco
10-13-2008, 04:07 PM
He is going to see tax credits that go towards moving us off oil. Uhh ohh that is bad for Donger. I can see him going limp.

I have to go now so I will view your retorts later.

We won't move off oil in the next 25 years and probably beyond. People really don't understand everything that contains petrol

Donger
10-13-2008, 04:07 PM
The biggest expenditure in our budget?

Dept. of Health and Human Services. $700+ billion.

And some people actually WANT these goons in charge of health care.

Donger
10-13-2008, 04:07 PM
Is it ok to be worried about the 5 percent we spend in Iraq, ALONG WITH the costs regarding Medicare, SS, and Medicaid?

Yes. Absolutely.

Garcia Bronco
10-13-2008, 04:08 PM
Is it ok to be worried about the 5 percent we spend in Iraq, ALONG WITH the costs regarding Medicare, SS, and Medicaid?

You know it. But the front loaded dead weight is the social programs that are doomed to fail and IMO in crisis.

Swanman
10-13-2008, 04:13 PM
So, who do you think Barack Hussein is going to spread this wealth to, exactly? And, what are they going to do with it?


In order to get the budget a little more balanced, taxes have to go up or spending needs to be curtailed. We know that spending will never go down with our government, so taxes have to be raised, so his plan is to raise some of the upper brackets. I am in those upper brackets and that sucks somewhat, but my parents aren't and I would be happy if they got a bit of a break.

Bush's tax cuts were nice for our pocketbooks when enacted, but fiscally they were suicide with the amount we were spending continually going up.

mikey23545
10-13-2008, 04:14 PM
If you have a house paid for or a farm or a business and I, as an agent of the government come and take it from you without payment and give it to someone else, that would be redistribution of wealth.

So, being highly principled, you only believe in taking someone's income away from them, not their wealth?

triple
10-13-2008, 04:20 PM
The biggest expenditure in our budget?

Dept. of Health and Human Services. $700+ billion.

And some people actually WANT these goons in charge of health care.

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.

Donger
10-13-2008, 04:22 PM
In order to get the budget a little more balanced, taxes have to go up or spending needs to be curtailed. We know that spending will never go down with our government, so taxes have to be raised, so his plan is to raise some of the upper brackets. I am in those upper brackets and that sucks somewhat, but my parents aren't and I would be happy if they got a bit of a break.

Bush's tax cuts were nice for our pocketbooks when enacted, but fiscally they were suicide with the amount we were spending continually going up.

I haven't heard Barack Hussein talk about balancing the budget or paying down the debt. Have you?

ChiTown
10-13-2008, 04:25 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.

The Social Security Slush Fund will help pay for it.............

Donger
10-13-2008, 04:29 PM
This is awesome:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/mqaWiI_sM0c&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/mqaWiI_sM0c&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Silock
10-13-2008, 04:38 PM
The Social Security Slush Fund will help pay for it.............

Until the surplus that was helping us run a balanced budget in the Clinton administration runs out as the baby boomers all retire en masse.

Dave Lane
10-13-2008, 04:58 PM
So, you agree with Barack Hussein that the wealthy aren't paying enough of our tax burden? I agree that wealth of "the rich" should be "spread around"?

I agree. The old tax rates didn't have anyone jumping out of windows. Thats all this is is taking back the break they got. and YES all taxes are a form of wealth re-distribution. Skip a few days in Econ 101??

Dave

Logical
10-13-2008, 05:21 PM
Iraq "occupation" is not costing you nearly as much as decaying medicare, SS, and medicaid.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.

Logical
10-13-2008, 05:29 PM
gmafb:shake:Don't know what you acronym means. But I worked 70+ hours a week from 1975 to 1995 except for 2 years when I worked 60 hours per week when I was getting my MBA. When I was in college going for my engineering BS I worked those same 70+ hours and was helping raise 2 of my three children. If you want to be jealous of me and don't like my views on taxes, then work your ass off and enjoy your views when you can afford to not go along with the crowd.

Logical
10-13-2008, 05:33 PM
In THIS discussion, I don't think there's much of a difference.Sure there is wealth is not taxed (only the interest or income generated from it).

Logical
10-13-2008, 05:40 PM
I haven't heard Barack Hussein talk about balancing the budget or paying down the debt. Have you?Yes but not until his second term, he admits the problems are too large to resolve in a single term.

banyon
10-13-2008, 05:45 PM
I haven't heard Barack Hussein talk about balancing the budget or paying down the debt. Have you?

No, never.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/QZCzUecCT3M&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/QZCzUecCT3M&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

(on this video you may want to skip ahead 30 seconds to get past the annoying Obama girl music.)

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/mqaWiI_sM0c&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/mqaWiI_sM0c&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

ChiTown
10-13-2008, 05:48 PM
Don't know what you acronym means. But I worked 70+ hours a week from 1975 to 1995 except for 2 years when I worked 60 hours per week when I was getting my MBA. When I was in college going for my engineering BS I worked those same 70+ hours and was helping raise 2 of my three children. If you want to be jealous of me and don't like my views on taxes, then work your ass off and enjoy your views when you can afford to not go along with the crowd.

ROFL

My man, you know not what you blab about.

Seriously, how could I be jealous of someone I don't know. I have no idea what your financial situation is - other than what you tell us - which isn't much.

Logical
10-13-2008, 05:48 PM
This is awesome:

<object width="425" height="344">

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/mqaWiI_sM0c&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></object>Actually it was awesome. Surprised you would agree. By the way it was Columbus day (I assume you knew that and that was your weird British sense of humor).

Logical
10-13-2008, 05:50 PM
ROFL

My man, you know not what you blab about.

Seriously, how could I be jealous of someone I don't know. I have no idea what your financial situation is - other than what you tell us - which isn't much.I did not say you were jealous, just that since I did not know what your acronym stood for, I was going to explain in case the acronym was related to jealousy.

ChiTown
10-13-2008, 05:54 PM
I did not say you were jealous, just that since I did not know what your acronym stood for, I was going to explain in case the acronym was related to jealousy.

Give Me A FKN Break (GMAFB)

What would I be jealous of?

Logical
10-13-2008, 05:57 PM
Give Me A FKN Break (GMAFB)

What would I be jealous of?Again I only suggested your post might have been out of jealousy, not that it definitely was. I will double check and if I came on too strong I will issue an apology.

Logical
10-13-2008, 05:59 PM
Don't know what you acronym means. But I worked 70+ hours a week from 1975 to 1995 except for 2 years when I worked 60 hours per week when I was getting my MBA. When I was in college going for my engineering BS I worked those same 70+ hours and was helping raise 2 of my three children. If you want to be jealous of me and don't like my views on taxes, then work your ass off and enjoy your views when you can afford to not go along with the crowd.

ChiTown,

I see that my statement was poorly worded and I apologize. I should not have worded it to imply you in particular. I meant the people on this thread who did not like my views (all encomapassing). My error.

Donger
10-13-2008, 06:01 PM
Actually it was awesome. Surprised you would agree. By the way it was Columbus day (I assume you knew that and that was your weird British sense of humor).

Too bad he didn't talk about the debt.

Swanman
10-13-2008, 06:02 PM
I haven't heard Barack Hussein talk about balancing the budget or paying down the debt. Have you?

I don't really care what "Barack Hussein" has said about it (can we please stop with the throwing around of his middle name, it's a name, no more). I was speaking more for how I think about the federal budget. Bush's tax cuts were reckless given the kind of spending the country was doing. So to help bring us closer to a balanced budget, tax revenues need to be increased, and that means increasing taxes somewhere. Someone always gets screwed in tax reform, it's almost always a zero sum game. This time, people making over 250k get the shaft. Down the line, I'm sure the middle class will get the shaft.

Donger
10-13-2008, 06:05 PM
I don't really care what "Barack Hussein" has said about it (can we please stop with the throwing around of his middle name, it's a name, no more). I was speaking more for how I think about the federal budget. Bush's tax cuts were reckless given the kind of spending the country was doing. So to help bring us closer to a balanced budget, tax revenues need to be increased, and that means increasing taxes somewhere. Someone always gets screwed in tax reform, it's almost always a zero sum game. This time, people making over 250k get the shaft. Down the line, I'm sure the middle class will get the shaft.

I appreciate the honesty. As a fiscal conservative, I'm not in favor of tax cuts and spending increases. But, I would like Barack Hussein to have the balls to admit what you just did. In truth, I've heard him say, "If you make less than $250,000, your taxes won't go up one dime."

It'll be more than that.

Logical
10-13-2008, 06:09 PM
Too bad he didn't talk about the debt.WTF are you talking about old sod, he talked about it at 58 seconds in saying it was over 9 trillion and that was a debt we were all going to have to pay for.

Donger
10-13-2008, 06:13 PM
WTF are you talking about old sod, he talked about it at 58 seconds in saying it was over 9 trillion and that was a debt we were all going to have to pay for.

How? How is he going to pay it down?

banyon
10-13-2008, 06:14 PM
How? How is he going to pay it down?

How is McCain going to pay it down?

I think you could put together a group of Nobel Prize winning economists to answer that question and you'd still have a tough time getting a good answer.

At this point, with the wars and bailouts, it'd be a miracle just to get us back into a yearly surplus in 5 years.

***SPRAYER
10-13-2008, 06:15 PM
How? How is he going to pay it down?

He's going to wave his magic Obama wand.

Logical
10-13-2008, 06:19 PM
How? How is he going to pay it down?I am pretty sure that 8 years won't be close to enough. It would be insane to say you as a candidates were going to pay down the debt. Yearly surplusses such as Clinton was able to achieve his 2nd term would be a good start.

Donger
10-13-2008, 06:25 PM
How is McCain going to pay it down?

I think you could put together a group of Nobel Prize winning economists to answer that question and you'd still have a tough time getting a good answer.

At this point, with the wars and bailouts, it'd be a miracle just to get us back into a yearly surplus in 5 years.

It's pretty simple: Reduce spending to, say, less than 20% of what is taken by taxation. Promise to use that money to pay down the principal.

Repeat annually until debt is gone.

Mr. Flopnuts
10-13-2008, 06:27 PM
I don't sell oil.

I was just messing with you.

Logical
10-13-2008, 06:29 PM
It's pretty simple: Reduce spending to, say, less than 20% of what is taken by taxation. Promise to use that money to pay down the principal.

Repeat annually until debt is gone.I believe current taxes bring in between 2.5 and 3 trillion dollars, so 20% would be about 500 billion to 600 billion per annum. Dividing that into the current national debt which is over 10 trillion, it would take 15 to 20 years. Sounds like no President can accomplish it in a single term.

Donger
10-13-2008, 06:32 PM
I believe current taxes bring in between 2.5 and 3 trillion dollars, so 20% would be about 500 billion to 600 billion per annum. Dividing that into the current national debt which is over 10 trillion, it would take 15 to 20 years. Sounds like no President can accomplish it in a single term.

I didn't say any POTUS could accomplish it in a single term. I would just like to see one START.

MahiMike
10-13-2008, 06:33 PM
Nice clip. Did anyone happen to catch how much the guy earns?

banyon
10-13-2008, 06:34 PM
It's pretty simple: Reduce spending to, say, less than 20% of what is taken by taxation. Promise to use that money to pay down the principal.

Repeat annually until debt is gone.

It's always that simple until you start talking about what 80% of the budget you are actually going to cut. That's why McCain isn't saying what you are demanding of Obama either.

Cutting 80% of the current government spending would likely also worsen the economic crisis, causing the tax revenues to plummet accordingly, so probably more like 7-10 years.

MahiMike
10-13-2008, 06:34 PM
It's pretty simple: Reduce spending to, say, less than 20% of what is taken by taxation. Promise to use that money to pay down the principal.

Repeat annually until debt is gone.

Cut and run in the middle east and we're there in 5 years!

***SPRAYER
10-13-2008, 07:05 PM
Cut and run in the middle east and we're there in 5 years!

Here you go, Shithead


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/PN2K4AMb41A&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/PN2K4AMb41A&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

kcpasco
10-13-2008, 07:08 PM
Cut spending.
Cut spending.
Cut spending.
Let's begin with FP.
Then military expenses that are a third the budget and don't make us more safe.
Cut Dept of Education....it is making education worse.

wait....doesn't cut spending equal job loss?

Donger
10-13-2008, 07:09 PM
It's always that simple until you start talking about what 80% of the budget you are actually going to cut. That's why McCain isn't saying what you are demanding of Obama either.

Cutting 80% of the current government spending would likely also worsen the economic crisis, causing the tax revenues to plummet accordingly, so probably more like 7-10 years.

20% across the board.

kcpasco
10-13-2008, 07:13 PM
Cut 80 percent of the budget and you just laid off a whole shit load of people

banyon
10-13-2008, 07:15 PM
20% across the board.

I thought you were cutting 80%?

If you're only going to cut 20%, then we'll still be running a deficit of $400bn a year. It's going to be tough to balance the budget that way.

Starting to see the problem here?

Donger
10-13-2008, 07:19 PM
I thought you were cutting 80%?

If you're only going to cut 20%, then we'll still be running a deficit of $400bn a year. It's going to be tough to balance the budget that way.

Starting to see the problem here?

No, I'm not.

Donger
10-13-2008, 07:22 PM
I thought you were cutting 80%?

If you're only going to cut 20%, then we'll still be running a deficit of $400bn a year. It's going to be tough to balance the budget that way.

Starting to see the problem here?

Tax revenue for 2008 was $2.66 trillion.

Next year, take that less 20% = $532 billion.

Apply that 20% to principal on debt.

Donger
10-13-2008, 07:34 PM
Our 2008 Federal Budget spending, for the visual folks:

Logical
10-13-2008, 07:38 PM
Our 2008 Federal Budget spending, for the visual folks:Sure looks like the Department of Defense gets the biggest piece of the waste pie. Also interesting they don't want to call it DoD.LMAO

Calcountry
10-13-2008, 07:38 PM
Wal mart and other large corporations often pay more than 50% of their profits in taxes. What precentage do you think would be fair?High enough to make them close half their stores. Then Barack Hussein could figure out a way to change the unemployment level.

banyon
10-13-2008, 07:39 PM
Tax revenue for 2008 was $2.66 trillion.

Next year, take that less 20% = $532 billion.

Apply that 20% to principal on debt.

Oh, I see you're working with the on budget and official deficit figures.

In 2008, so far we managed to add @$882bn to the national debt so far, yet the official announced deficit was $410 billion. It's our way of pretending that this problem isn't getting out of hand.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np (enter dates to get the actual numbers)

So, that means we'd still have added about $300 billion to the debt under your proposal.

Donger
10-13-2008, 07:40 PM
Sure looks like the Department of Defense gets the biggest piece of the waste pie.

Didn't you make your money in the defense industry?

Logical
10-13-2008, 07:41 PM
Didn't you make your money in the defense industry?Yup for the most part, does not mean it is not a wasteful DoD.:doh!:

Donger
10-13-2008, 07:41 PM
Oh, I see you're working with the on budget and official deficit figures.

In 2008, so far we managed to add @$882bn to the national debt so far, yet the official announced deficit was $410 billion. It's our way of pretending that this problem isn't getting out of hand.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np (enter dates to get the actual numbers)

So, that means we'd still have added about $300 billion to the debt under your proposal.

Cut spending even more.

banyon
10-13-2008, 07:42 PM
Wal mart and other large corporations often pay more than 50% of their profits in taxes. What precentage do you think would be fair?

Why are Walmart's accountants too stupid to know what the top corporate tax rate is they should be paying? I think I've found their problem.

Donger
10-13-2008, 07:42 PM
Yup for the most part, does not mean it is not a wasteful DoD.:doh!:

Obviously. It's nice that you've "found Jesus" now, though.

banyon
10-13-2008, 07:44 PM
Cut spending even more.

Just to get to the break even point then, that'd be about a 33% cut.

And you want to cut this across the board?

Logical
10-13-2008, 07:46 PM
Obviously. It's nice that you've "found Jesus" now, though.My continued big money yearly income source is still defense related. I know that there is still plenty of money even if they eliminate the waste. Waste like the F-35 and JSF programs and others too many to name.

***SPRAYER
10-13-2008, 07:49 PM
My continued big money yearly income source is still defense related. I know that there is still plenty of money even if they eliminate the waste. Waste like the F-35 and JSF programs and others too many to name.



http://mars.wnec.edu/~grempel/courses/germany/lectures/23weimar_collapse.html

memyselfI
10-13-2008, 07:51 PM
You know, as a liberal who has found herself agreeing with socialist countries and philosophies over the years, NObama's attitude scares the shit out of me. Not because I believe he's wrong about some of this, infact, I think he could be very right.

But he seems to be hell bent on dragging the country in a direction that it's not ready to go and at a speed at which it's not willing to go. That could spell disaster in a multitude of ways. Especially if the DEMS do as I suspect they will and proclaim they have a mandate just as DUHbya did when he barely beat Al Gore and John Kerry.

Either he'll fail miserably and the DEMS won't see power again any time soon. Or he could succeed in his attempts and next thing you know we could have a civil war on our hands. In any event, I don't believe the American people know what they are getting themselves into and just how far to the left he is on so many issues. They have been assured by the media that he's very mainstream and imagine the buyers remorse when they realize just what they've bought.

In an ideal world he'll be able to make some of these changes and the country sees the benefit of it and goes along peacefully, if reluctantly. However, I don't see this shift to a socialist agenda happening easily with ANY POTUS let alone the first minority one.

I see a bad moon risin...

Logical
10-13-2008, 07:52 PM
http://mars.wnec.edu/~grempel/courses/germany/lectures/23weimar_collapse.html (http://mars.wnec.edu/%7Egrempel/courses/germany/lectures/23weimar_collapse.html)I went to your link and read some of it and scanned the rest, trying to find how it related to my post. I guess I missed it.

***SPRAYER
10-13-2008, 07:52 PM
You know, as a liberal who has found herself agreeing with socialist countries and philosophies over the years, NObama's attitude scares the shit out of me.

http://www.berliner-geschichtswerkstatt.de/dampfer/rosa.jpg

Du!

Du hast!

Du hast mich!

Logical
10-13-2008, 07:54 PM
... However, I don't see this shift to a socialist agenda happening with ANY POTUS let alone a minority one.

I see a bad moon risin...It is sad to see you even hint at this, it is like you have become a lost soul.

banyon
10-13-2008, 07:54 PM
You know, as a liberal who has found herself agreeing with socialist countries and philosophies over the years, NObama's attitude scares the shit out of me. Not because I believe he's wrong about some of this, infact, I think he could be very right.

But he seems to be hell bent on dragging the country in a direction that it's not ready to go and at a speed at which it's not willing to go. That could spell disaster in a multitude of ways.

Either he'll fail miserably and the DEMS won't see power again any time soon. Or he could succeed and next thing you know we could have a civil war on our hands. In any event, I don't believe the American people know what they are getting themselves into and just how far to the left he is on so many issues.

In an ideal world he'll be able to make some of these changes and the country sees the benefit of it and goes along peacefully, if reluctantly. However, I don't see this shift to a socialist agenda happening easily with ANY POTUS let alone the first minority one.

I see a bad moon risin...

Well, as wrong as you've been about nearly everything in this election, I will take this as a sign that Obama might wind up being a top 10 president.

memyselfI
10-13-2008, 07:57 PM
Well, as wrong as you've been about nearly everything in this election, I will take this as a sign that Obama might wind up being a top 10 president.

No, I haven't been wrong. I never underestimated the stupidity, ridiculousness, and shallowness of the American electorate. I did underestimate their appetite for destruction.

***SPRAYER
10-13-2008, 07:59 PM
Every communist movement inevitably ends in disaster.

memyselfI
10-13-2008, 07:59 PM
It is sad to see you even hint at this, it is like you have become a lost soul.

No, it's not sad. It's the reality. That sort of 180 degree change will not come without blood, sweat, and tears. The only question is who will do the bleeding, the sweating, and the crying.

banyon
10-13-2008, 08:00 PM
No, I haven't been wrong. I never underestimated the stupidity, ridiculousness, and shallowness of the American electorate. I did underestimate their appetite for destruction.

What policy can you point to that you think is so dangerous?

***SPRAYER
10-13-2008, 08:00 PM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/B51HI0MPUrQ&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/B51HI0MPUrQ&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

memyselfI
10-13-2008, 08:02 PM
What policy can you point to that you think is so dangerous?

I didn't say anything about policy. I said his PHILOSOPHY (which undoubtedly will end up shaping his policy) but as of now, it's just his philosophy that scares me. He's the most leftist politician this country will EVER have chosen as POTUS.

That normally would THRILL me. But he hasn't been very forthright or honest about that and that is what scares me and worries me deeply.

I don't believe this country is anywhere near close to being willing to make the type of fundamental changes he believes the country should do. The pendulum cannot swing that far the opposite way that quickly for the country to go through the transition safely and sanely.

Adept Havelock
10-13-2008, 08:04 PM
It is sad to see you even hint at this, it is like you have become a lost soul.

Become?

banyon
10-13-2008, 08:05 PM
I didn't say anything about policy. I said his PHILOSOPHY (which undoubtedly will end up shaping his policy) but as of now, it's just his philosophy that scares me. He's the most leftist politician this country will EVER have chosen as POTUS.

That normally would THRILL me. But he hasn't been very forthright or honest about that and that is what scares me and worries me deeply.

Unless you're talking about his philosophy for something besides what he thinks about governance, then you're making a distinction without a difference.

NewChief
10-13-2008, 08:05 PM
Well, as wrong as you've been about nearly everything in this election, I will take this as a sign that Obama might wind up being a top 10 president.

She shouldn't worry. Any day now, the adroit GOP will spring the much-anticipated trap contained in the bailout that will spell the end of the inept DNC's hopes. I'm still waiting with bated breath.

banyon
10-13-2008, 08:07 PM
Every communist movement inevitably ends in disaster.

Uh-huh.

http://www.seedforum.org/userfiles/singapore.jpg

Logical
10-13-2008, 08:07 PM
Become?I understand your point, but trust me that if you go back to the past, she had a good heart. I always knew that no matter how hard we fought. Now she is pathetic and to bring racism into it is not something she would have used in the past. Except of to accuse people of being racist towards her (which many times was true, see Big Daddy).

memyselfI
10-13-2008, 08:12 PM
I understand your point, but trust me that if you go back to the past, she had a good heart. I always knew that no matter how hard we fought. Now she is pathetic and to bring racism into it is not something she would have used in the past. Except of to accuse people of being racist towards her (which many times was true, see Big Daddy).

Jim, give me a break. This is not about race this is a about ideology. We've never had a far left POTUS and the fact that he's a minority only adds to the discomfort level of those will not want to move far left. It is not the cause of the discomfort but it will exacerbate it.

Look what the right was able to paint Bill Clinton as. They made him seem like a socialist liberal who was flirting with Communism. And he was a freakin moderate. He was Bubba.

J Diddy
10-13-2008, 08:14 PM
Jim, give me a break. This is not about race this is a about ideology. We've never had a far left POTUS and the fact that he's a minority only adds to the discomfort level of those will not want to move far left. It is not the cause of the discomfort but it will exacerbate it.

Really....


Doesn't the hood and robe bother you while you type.

banyon
10-13-2008, 08:15 PM
Jim, give me a break. This is not about race this is a about ideology. We've never had a far left POTUS and the fact that he's a minority only adds to the discomfort level of those will not want to move far left. It is not the cause of the discomfort but it will exacerbate it.

If our electorate is still that racist, how could he possibly have gotten elected?

***SPRAYER
10-13-2008, 08:16 PM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/MHBl9Ud10bg&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/MHBl9Ud10bg&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Donger
10-13-2008, 08:16 PM
Just to get to the break even point then, that'd be about a 33% cut.

And you want to cut this across the board?

Except for paying down the debt (P&I), yes.

memyselfI
10-13-2008, 08:17 PM
If our electorate is still that racist, how could he possibly have gotten elected?

Again, it's the ideology that will be the distress factor. Race will only exacerbate those tensions.

memyselfI
10-13-2008, 08:20 PM
OMG, it's already started. Anything deemed remotely critical of NObama as POTUS is racist. This is a very dangerous and slippery slope his supporters are on. And, it will actually bring about the type of discomfort I spoke of sooner rather than later.

ChiTown
10-13-2008, 08:20 PM
Uh-huh.

http://www.seedforum.org/userfiles/singapore.jpg

You ever been to Singapore?

Interesting place.

prhom
10-13-2008, 08:21 PM
I believe it was Ben Franklin who said "You can't make a poor man rich by making a rich man poor". It's amazing how quickly our country will dissolve into a socialistic, populist society when they can't afford to drink a $5 starbucks everyday without it hurting.

banyon
10-13-2008, 08:22 PM
Except for paying down the debt (P&I), yes.

Well I feel at this point like I'm just playing Devil's advocate, because I really more or less agree that we need a serious approach to reduce the problem, but I don't think the American public could tolerate a 4-5 year Depression and 15-20% unemployment. But it would probably solve what I agree has turned into a rather untenable situation.

I probably would rather use a vigorous scalpel, though than a meat cleaver to get at the problem.

banyon
10-13-2008, 08:24 PM
Again, it's the ideology that will be the distress factor. Race will only exacerbate those tensions.

Is Obama's ideology somehow significantly different than the other Democratic candidates you've supported?

banyon
10-13-2008, 08:24 PM
You ever been to Singapore?

Interesting place.

I would definitely like to see it sometime.

I would make sure to leave my spray paint and chewing gum at home though.

Donger
10-13-2008, 08:25 PM
Well I feel at this point like I'm just playing Devil's advocate, because I really more or less agree that we need a serious approach to reduce the problem, but I don't think the American public could tolerate a 4-5 year Depression and 15-20% unemployment. But it would probably solve what I agree has turned into a rather untenable situation.

I probably would rather use a vigorous scalpel, though than a meat cleaver to get at the problem.

I don't see either being proposed. I acknowledge that my take is extreme, but every time I see those figures, I want to eviscerate everyone in DC. It's really the only issue that personally upsets me.

ChiTown
10-13-2008, 08:27 PM
I would definitely like to see it sometime.

I would make sure to leave my spray paint and chewing gum at home though.

I think everyone should have to travel to the Far East Countries. Wonderful culture and traditions, but you'll never appreciate your Country more - especially the food:D

banyon
10-13-2008, 08:29 PM
I don't see either being proposed. I acknowledge that my take is extreme, but every time I see those figures, I want to eviscerate everyone in DC. It's really the only issue that personally upsets me.

Well I hope you know the Warren Rudman story. He's one of the Republicans I admire the most due to this issue.

MahiMike
10-13-2008, 08:31 PM
Every communist movement inevitably ends in disaster.

ROFL

MahiMike
10-13-2008, 08:34 PM
Man, you republicans must be scared shitless. You guys think anyone that wants to do good for the masses is a commie. Even when you don't stop to realize that you ARE yourselves part of the masses.

banyon
10-13-2008, 08:56 PM
Again, it's the ideology that will be the distress factor. Race will only exacerbate those tensions.

Is Obama's ideology somehow significantly different than the other Democratic candidates you've supported?

"Hmm, there's something I don't like about Obama, I just can't put my finger on what it is..." :hmmm:


Big surprise.

KCJohnny
10-13-2008, 09:47 PM
Is Obama's ideology somehow significantly different than the other Democratic candidates you've supported?

There are three significant departures from the mainstream of democratic candidates that define Senator Obama's platform.

1. No democratic candidate has been nurtured in the bosom of liberation theology before. Liberation theology posits God on the side of the proletariat and authorizes any and all means to establish 'justice' by revolution, wealth redistribution and cultural reprogramming. This is what is behind the "change" message.

2. No presidential candidate in either party has ever held such radical views on abortion. Even babies born alive after failed abortion attempts received no protection from Obama, although nearly every democrat voted for the protections.

3. Obama's unprecented associations with antiAmerican movements and leaders and his own slip shod patriotism also place him in a category quite different from past democratic candidates. President Clinton may have had a wet noodle salute, but he did salute. Obama has been photographed just sort of hanging out while everyone else is at the position of attention with their hand over their hearts during the playing of the National Anthem.

banyon
10-13-2008, 09:49 PM
There are three significant departures from the mainstream of democratic candidates that define Senator Obama's platform.

1. No democratic candidate has been nurtured in the bosom of liberation theology before. Liberation theology posits God on the side of the proletariat and authorizes any and all means to establish 'justice' by revolution, wealth redistribution and cultural reprogramming. This is what is behind the "change" message.

2. No presidential candidate in either party has ever held such radical views on abortion. Even babies born alive after failed abortion attempts received no protection from Obama, although nearly every democrat voted for the protections.

3. Obama's unprecented associations with antiAmerican movements and leaders and his own slip shod patriotism also place him in a category quite different from past democratic candidates. President Clinton may have had a wet noodle salute, but he did salute. Obama has been photographed just sort of hanging out while everyone else is at the position of attention with their hand over their hearts.

Wow three "points" and none of them have anything to do with the platform you were trying to address.