FingerLakes1.com Forums
Page 1 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >
Topic Options
#1237313 --- 12/02/10 02:52 PM Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit.
Zorn Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/06/06
Posts: 1376
Loc: ny
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show#40463734

"REPUBLICANS TO FILIBUSTER TAX CUTS FOR **98%** OF AMERICANS (unless the top 2% of America's wealthiest people also get tax cuts - adding another USD70 BILLION to the annual deficit"

Pretty interesting that we can't extend unemployment for people because OH MY GOD THE DEFICIT WILL GET US ALL! But then those same Republicans are fine with blocking TAX CUTS for most of the country because the super rich will have to pay a bit more.
_________________________
"I guess I want smaller government and my Social Security". - Tea Party Member

Top
FingerLakes1.com
#1237316 --- 12/02/10 03:20 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Zorn]
Greymane Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 11/09/06
Posts: 6848
Loc: Central PA
Why can't the Republicans filibuster Zorn?
_________________________
Against logic there is no armor like ignorance. - Dr. Lawrence J. Peter

Top
#1237390 --- 12/02/10 08:57 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Greymane]
citydog Offline
Member

Registered: 08/29/10
Posts: 383
Loc: Ontario County
Question really should be why we want to borrow more money from China in order to continue a tax break for those making more than $250,000 a year? Or make it more than $1,000,000 a year. My point is that people with that level of income don't need a tax break (I think I could get by on $250,000 a year without much of a problem even if I had to pay a few thousand more in taxes). There's no evidence that tax breaks for individuals at that level really produce more jobs -- otherwise how does one account for all the jobs lost while those tax breaks were in effect from 2001 to 2008? And please don't say I'm blaming Bush -- just stating the fact.
_________________________
Who let the dogs out

Top
#1237398 --- 12/02/10 09:31 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: citydog]
alummule Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 01/23/07
Posts: 622
Loc: yes
Lets not forget that the rich would be getting the break on the first $250,000 too.

Top
#1237406 --- 12/02/10 11:29 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: alummule]
kimmer Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/26/07
Posts: 1403
Loc: here,there and back again
This is such a joke. I agree with all you said City Dog. Why would any average American support giving millionaires and billionaires tax breaks??? Based on reading some of the statements it's just because the don't like the president. How silly this was to listen to on the morning news - unemployment benefits are running out for people who can't find jobs and we want to continue tax cuts for the richest. Tax breaks for them have worked so well up to this point, haven't they? Now with unemployment running out more of these people will be turning to other "social" services such as a food pantry. I guess if you listen to enough black friday shopping stories on the news you'll believe that we're all doing much better now.
_________________________
Why is it so hard for some to properly use your and you're??

Top
#1237408 --- 12/02/10 11:57 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Zorn]
Chosenspot Offline
Member

Registered: 01/05/10
Posts: 137
Loc: Penn Yan, New York
C'mon CWJGA, explain to these people how those tax breaks will all trickle down and really don't add to the deficit. They missed our first debate.

Top
#1237417 --- 12/03/10 12:12 AM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Zorn]
sands Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/05/05
Posts: 8255
Loc: NY
Originally Posted By: Zorn
"REPUBLICANS TO FILIBUSTER TAX CUTS FOR **98%** OF AMERICANS




I thought the Bush tax cuts were only for millionaires and billionaires. Now you are saying they were tax cuts for 98% of Americans?
_________________________
01 - 20 - 2017

Top
#1237425 --- 12/03/10 12:39 AM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: sands]
kimmer Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/26/07
Posts: 1403
Loc: here,there and back again
It's call the making work pay credit. You should have seen a tiny bit less tax deducted on your paystub beginning this year. I spent mine on the increase in my health care donation.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/15/tax-day-2010-protesters-i_n_538556.html

"Obama passed 25 separate tax cuts," Sheryl Stein, founding member of "The Other 95%" said in a statement announcing the group's plans, "including $300 billion in middle class tax cuts -- one of the largest in history - as part of the stimulus package. Unlike President Bush's 2001 tax cuts, which went to the wealthiest 2.2%, President Obama's tax cuts overwhelmingly benefit working and middle class families -- in fact, 95% of all Americans."



Edited by kimmer (12/03/10 12:42 AM)
_________________________
Why is it so hard for some to properly use your and you're??

Top
#1237427 --- 12/03/10 12:48 AM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: sands]
Zorn Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/06/06
Posts: 1376
Loc: ny
Originally Posted By: sands
Originally Posted By: Zorn
"REPUBLICANS TO FILIBUSTER TAX CUTS FOR **98%** OF AMERICANS




I thought the Bush tax cuts were only for millionaires and billionaires. Now you are saying they were tax cuts for 98% of Americans?


I know Maddow can be a bit hard to handle, but you should go through the video I linked to.

The Democrats want to keep tax cuts for people making under $250K, but let the cuts expire for those over $250K.

the republicans are threatening to filibuster everything, every bill, everything, until the rich get their tax cuts.

So the republicans are willing to add more debt, to make sure the top 2% of the country keeps their (fairly small, iirc) tax cuts.

Just watch the video, once Obama got into office, the republicans started filibustering everything. I wasnt aware how this worked, or that Reps were doing it all the time already.

This is your party. Congratulations.
_________________________
"I guess I want smaller government and my Social Security". - Tea Party Member

Top
#1237440 --- 12/03/10 02:04 AM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Zorn]
sands Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/05/05
Posts: 8255
Loc: NY
Originally Posted By: Zorn
The Democrats want to keep tax cuts for people making under $250K, but let the cuts expire for those over $250K.



But everyone said the Bush tax cuts were only for millionaires and billionaires. Now you are admitting people making under $250K got tax cuts?
_________________________
01 - 20 - 2017

Top
#1237443 --- 12/03/10 02:20 AM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: kimmer]
sands Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/05/05
Posts: 8255
Loc: NY
Originally Posted By: kimmer
It's call the making work pay credit.



Actually, the Bush tax cuts are called the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 and Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 .
_________________________
01 - 20 - 2017

Top
#1237448 --- 12/03/10 03:33 AM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: sands]
citydog Offline
Member

Registered: 08/29/10
Posts: 383
Loc: Ontario County
Originally Posted By: sands

Actually, the Bush tax cuts are called the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 and Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 .


Gee... I'll bet they wish they had picked different names for those "relief" acts in view of what actually happened
_________________________
Who let the dogs out

Top
#1237481 --- 12/03/10 10:46 AM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: citydog]
Ranger Offline
Diamond Member

Registered: 10/23/00
Posts: 25141
Loc: GOD's 1/2 acre
I'd be a bit more concerned with the Fed bailing out Europe to the tune 3.3 trillion

3.3 Trillion Bail Out to Europe...


It is sad that there are news stories about the bail out mega bucks going to European banks. Sad because that was common knowledge at the time and most paid little attention to it in the glow of the election of the messiah to office as President. All people saw was a free ride for everyone with bail outs galore. It was not so then, it will not be so now. People need to be aware!




A major chunk of the bail out money went overseas to keep European banks afloat and while some argue this helps America, it is just not the truth.
The USA provided, 3.3 TRILLION in credit to those banks from the Federal Reserve, which some people STILL fail to realize is a NOT a federal agency at all but a private institution controlling much of the US money policies.
The bailed out institutions of Wall Street, big banks and European banks are the ones who caused the financial crisis. Americans were not bailed out of anything and lost much as a result. The American public will shoulder this debt that benefited them not at all.
The "too big to fail" idea is one foisted on the public by the Federal Reserve.


A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is privately concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men ... We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated, governments in the civilized world—no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and the duress of small groups of dominant men. (Woodrow Wilson)

Wilson signed the Fed into existence in 1913 and they have "debauched" the currency of the US on a steady ongoing basis.
As John Maynard Keynes stated,

“There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic laws on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one in a million is able to diagnose.”


One can note that men like Soros and the Wall street boys have actually changed our society. In fact Soros himself has brought down a few nations in just that way!
Our founding fathers all warned of the dangers of a central private bank creating money by fiat. It would lead to the downfall of the nation. Money talks my friends and those who control the money , control the nations.
Wilson was right, the creation of the Federal Reserve was a huge mistake.
The fact is these private bankers are not concerned with the welfare of the nations to any extent at all except as those nations make money for them. They, like George Soros etc, view nations and their populations as get rich quick schemes. It is all about lining the pockets and line them is exactly what these men do. They live off the people who are left lean and starving while they live sumptuous lives of greed.

You can read more about these massive amounts given away at the Financial Times.

And more about this colossal rip off of the American people at the Washington Post and HERE

Always look at what the other hand is doing while they keep you occupied with some other nonsense.
_________________________
TRUTH HAS NO AGENDA

Top
#1237491 --- 12/03/10 11:02 AM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: sands]
Zorn Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/06/06
Posts: 1376
Loc: ny
Originally Posted By: sands
Originally Posted By: Zorn
The Democrats want to keep tax cuts for people making under $250K, but let the cuts expire for those over $250K.



But everyone said the Bush tax cuts were only for millionaires and billionaires. Now you are admitting people making under $250K got tax cuts?


personally I have said that the Bush tax cuts benefitted the rich more than the average joe.

Why aren't the republicans in this thread facing the real issue here (sure the 3.2 trillion loans are a larger story, but not what this thread is about, quit trying to change the subject, typical republican)

Why are you ok with your party adding to the debt, if that is what it takes to make sure rich people save a bit on their taxes?


Edited by Zorn (12/03/10 11:17 AM)
_________________________
"I guess I want smaller government and my Social Security". - Tea Party Member

Top
#1237507 --- 12/03/10 12:14 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Zorn]
Zorn Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/06/06
Posts: 1376
Loc: ny
also found this on the $3 trillion in loans.

"They are overnight loans that were rolled over so each loan may have been counted multiple times. Its like me lending you 10 dollars at 9 am you paying me back at 5pm everyday over the course of the year and then me saying I lent you 3650 dollars. It isn't technically wrong but it is fairly misleading to the general public. I never needed 3650 to loan you that amount and I never had more than 10 dollars loaned out at any period in time so my exposure was never more than 10 dollars.
One of the problems with the banking crisis is a lot of the investment banks were using overnight repo to bankroll investments. This is money that is lent out on a daily basis so if all the sudden the people running money markets don't want to loan you money you have a VERY VERY short time period to fill that hole. The reserve was essentially plugging that hole to prevent firesales and provided liquidity needed to complete transactions."
_________________________
"I guess I want smaller government and my Social Security". - Tea Party Member

Top
#1237510 --- 12/03/10 12:59 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Chosenspot]
cwjga Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 11/06/08
Posts: 12660
Loc: NY
Originally Posted By: Chosenspot
C'mon CWJGA, explain to these people how those tax breaks will all trickle down and really don't add to the deficit. They missed our first debate.


Problem is that it has nothing to do with trickle down.

Let me try this a different way.

What makes these tax breaks? For the rich or any one else? Because the government is not going to take all your money, You get a tax break?

How does not taxing one group of people more than another group add to the deficit?

The only thing Washington can do is tax you more or less. They can not give tax breaks. Let me rephrase that, the only way they can give tax breaks is if you assume that the money you earn is yours to take and they are letting you keep some. The only way to give you a tax break is to assume the money belongs in Washington and that out of the goodness of their little hearts they are going to let you keep some.

Not taxing someone more does not add to the deficit. Only spending more adds to the deficit. Problem is that while everyone is fighting over who should pay, they will just keep on spending and blaming it on someone for not paying enough taxes.

Why should the average American oppose taxing the rich more? Because every American has the ability, possibility of being rich. Because when the government is done taxing the rich and that is not enough they will tax everyone else more. Because as much as we want to blame the deficit on people not paying enough taxes, the real problem is the government spending to much money.

Top
#1237511 --- 12/03/10 01:01 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: citydog]
cwjga Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 11/06/08
Posts: 12660
Loc: NY
Originally Posted By: citydog
Originally Posted By: sands

Actually, the Bush tax cuts are called the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 and Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 .


Gee... I'll bet they wish they had picked different names for those "relief" acts in view of what actually happened


Not really,considering the country had about 6% growth for about 6 years.

Top
#1237512 --- 12/03/10 01:02 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Zorn]
cwjga Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 11/06/08
Posts: 12660
Loc: NY
Originally Posted By: Zorn
Originally Posted By: sands
Originally Posted By: Zorn
The Democrats want to keep tax cuts for people making under $250K, but let the cuts expire for those over $250K.



But everyone said the Bush tax cuts were only for millionaires and billionaires. Now you are admitting people making under $250K got tax cuts?


personally I have said that the Bush tax cuts benefitted the rich more than the average joe.

Why aren't the republicans in this thread facing the real issue here (sure the 3.2 trillion loans are a larger story, but not what this thread is about, quit trying to change the subject, typical republican)

Why are you ok with your party adding to the debt, if that is what it takes to make sure rich people save a bit on their taxes?


80% of the Bush tax cuts went to the Middle class and lower.

Top
#1237524 --- 12/03/10 03:06 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: cwjga]
Animal Lover Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 10/13/06
Posts: 1339
Loc: NY
While it's true that the Bush Tax cuts lowered everyone's taxes they benefit the rich at a higher percentage than the middle and lower class. They were purposely skewed to do that. This year alone, more than 50% of the total benefit of the tax cuts went to 5% of the wealthiest Americans. 98% of Americans make less than $250,000 per year. The amount of taxes they pay doesn't add up the what the rich pay.

The figures I read say that extending the Bush tax cuts to the rich alone will cost about $80 billion over the next two years BUT it is going to cost a lot more than that over the next ten years unless we raise taxes for everybody else. Do you all get that? Because the lost revenue is only going to add to the debt UNLESS we cut spending. And if you are not paying on the debt you have increased interest. And where are we going to cut spending? Who will suffer there? If they cut Social Security it will be the elderly. We can raise the retirement age, but there are not enough jobs now for younger people how the heck do the older people keep their jobs? Do we cut military spending? Most conservatives will say no way!

So we are supposed to hold the middle/lower class hostage and not give them tax cuts if the rich can't have theirs? We are supposed to let the poor suffer and the unemployed lose everything?

The Bush tax cuts were supposed to boost the economy, increase jobs and lower the deficit. They failed miserably. Job growth was only about 1-2% and the deficit increased by trillions of dollars. And we all know the economy wasn't boosted over the last 10 years.

It is a joke to make the comment that all Americans have the potential to become rich. In this economy? Please. People that say that crap must think the rest of us are idiots. The truth is the rich became rich off of the backs of the rest of us between gambling on Wall Street and shipping jobs offshore.

Then there is the whole excuse of inhibiting small businesses. The majority of small businesses don't make over $250,000. What reasonable person considers S corps and partnerships making millions of dollars a year small? The Republicans/conservatives apparently do or are they trying to confuse the public by these claims.

To the people reading this, who don't completely understand what is going on...don't believe those that tell you that this is a class war against the rich. It is a class war against YOU...the middle or lower class. It think it is despicable that people would even take up for the case against tax increases for the wealthiest of Americans.


Top
#1237525 --- 12/03/10 03:10 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: cwjga]
Chosenspot Offline
Member

Registered: 01/05/10
Posts: 137
Loc: Penn Yan, New York
Originally Posted By: cwjga
Why should the average American oppose taxing the rich more? Because every American has the ability, possibility of being rich.



How can anyone argue with this logic? I can't.

Top
#1237528 --- 12/03/10 03:16 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Chosenspot]
Animal Lover Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 10/13/06
Posts: 1339
Loc: NY
Even if there is the possibility of being rich it doesn't mean a person has to become greedy. How much money does a person need? How can you compare a person making $50 million netting $25 million after taxes to a person netting $50,000. $50,000 is chump change to a multi-millionaire.

Top
#1237537 --- 12/03/10 04:14 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Animal Lover]
kyle585 Offline
Gold Member

Registered: 02/18/09
Posts: 19801
Loc: Somewhere out there
http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/inq-phillydeals/Tax_us_more_some_rich_say.html

"In a spirit of Thanksgiving," as they put it, more than 400 U.S. business owners and professionals have signed a petition circulated by a Boston group, Wealth for the Common Good, calling on Congress and President Obama "to allow the Bush-era tax cuts for those with taxable incomes over $200,000 (individual) and $250,000 (couple) to expire on Dec. 31," raising "an estimated $700 billion over 10 years" to invest in "education, health, job creation, renewable energy, transportation,"

They're not the only ones. "People at the high end - people like myself - should be paying a lot more in taxes," the richest American, Berkshire Hathaway boss Warren Buffett, told ABC News in a program scheduled to air Sunday Nov. 28. The idea that money will "trickle down" from the rich to workers "has not worked the last 10 years, and I hope the American people are catching on."
_________________________
**** ATTENTION! BAD POLITICIANS ARE ELECTED BY GOOD PEOPLE WHO DON'T VOTE! ****

Top
#1237540 --- 12/03/10 04:27 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: kyle585]
Greymane Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 11/09/06
Posts: 6848
Loc: Central PA
The problem is not about tax money coming in or any other revenues. The problem is that BOTH SIDES will spend every penny the taxpayers give, every penny they can get the Fed to print, and every penny they can borrow from outside the US. THEY MUST BE STOPPED. If we want Congress to represent the average American, it must be composed of the average American. Nobody who ever made more than $50k per year. Nobody who didn't hold a REAL job prior to service. Nobody whose father, uncle, mother, aunt ...... owns / sits on the board of a Fortune 500 company.
_________________________
Against logic there is no armor like ignorance. - Dr. Lawrence J. Peter

Top
#1237549 --- 12/03/10 05:52 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Zorn]
sands Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/05/05
Posts: 8255
Loc: NY
Originally Posted By: Zorn
Why are you ok with your party adding to the debt,



Must be the same reason you are OK with your party adding the $60 billion to the debt it will cost to extend the tax cuts for those making under $250,000.
_________________________
01 - 20 - 2017

Top
#1237552 --- 12/03/10 06:03 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Animal Lover]
sands Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/05/05
Posts: 8255
Loc: NY
Originally Posted By: Animal Lover
The truth is the rich became rich off of the backs of the rest of us between gambling on Wall Street and shipping jobs offshore.



The problem with you, and most liberals, is that you truly believe that.
_________________________
01 - 20 - 2017

Top
#1237576 --- 12/03/10 08:05 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Animal Lover]
cwjga Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 11/06/08
Posts: 12660
Loc: NY
Originally Posted By: Animal Lover
Even if there is the possibility of being rich it doesn't mean a person has to become greedy. How much money does a person need? How can you compare a person making $50 million netting $25 million after taxes to a person netting $50,000. $50,000 is chump change to a multi-millionaire.


There you go. The government should decide how much everyone should make. So how much is it. $25,000, or $50,000. I do not think you should need much more. After all what do you really need. $50,000 should take care of your needs very well.

As a token of good faith, I think everyone that is ready to, should send a check for everything they make over $50,000 to the Fed's.

Top
#1237581 --- 12/03/10 08:59 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Chosenspot]
cwjga Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 11/06/08
Posts: 12660
Loc: NY
Originally Posted By: Chosenspot
Originally Posted By: cwjga
Why should the average American oppose taxing the rich more? Because every American has the ability, possibility of being rich.



How can anyone argue with this logic? I can't.


Your right you can't. Our system is predicated on the ability to improve your lot in life. If there we do as someone suggests, and take all the money someone makes above a certain amount, say $50,000 because everyone making more than that does not need it and is greedy, then there is no reason to work harder and improve.


Edited by cwjga (12/03/10 08:59 PM)

Top
#1237583 --- 12/03/10 09:01 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: sands]
Zorn Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/06/06
Posts: 1376
Loc: ny
Originally Posted By: sands
Originally Posted By: Zorn
Why are you ok with your party adding to the debt,



Must be the same reason you are OK with your party adding the $60 billion to the debt it will cost to extend the tax cuts for those making under $250,000.



Well Im not in the party that talks about fiscal responsibility, am I? Although... if you look at the last 8 or so presidents, which party has the most fiscally responsible presidents? \:\)

I say, tax the rich even more to pay for the tax cuts for the rest of us. The top 1% of the country holds 35% of the wealth. The bottom 80% only have 15% of the wealth.

If you made an example of 100 people with $100 to split up between them, this would be like giving one person $35, but then giving the bottom 80 people $15 to split up amongst themselves.

Now imagine that one single guy with $35 complaining that his taxes will go up 3%.

The income disparity in the US cannot be seen in hardly any other industrialized country, you have to move to dictatorships to find the income gap like the US has.

And it is all thanks to people like you guys, who suck up the propaganda and - amazingly - 30 years after Reagan started it, STILL believe it!
_________________________
"I guess I want smaller government and my Social Security". - Tea Party Member

Top
#1237585 --- 12/03/10 09:03 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: cwjga]
Zorn Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/06/06
Posts: 1376
Loc: ny
Originally Posted By: cwjga
Originally Posted By: Chosenspot
Originally Posted By: cwjga
Why should the average American oppose taxing the rich more? Because every American has the ability, possibility of being rich.



How can anyone argue with this logic? I can't.


Your right you can't. Our system is predicated on the ability to improve your lot in life. If there we do as someone suggests, and take all the money someone makes above a certain amount, say $50,000 because everyone making more than that does not need it and is greedy, then there is no reason to work harder and improve.


This is stupid, no one is suggesting that we take all of the money made over $50K.

But look at the 1950s, the top income tax bracket was 90%. Go look it up. ANd yet there was plenty of economic growth and ambition back then, wasn't there?
_________________________
"I guess I want smaller government and my Social Security". - Tea Party Member

Top
#1237587 --- 12/03/10 09:10 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Zorn]
sands Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/05/05
Posts: 8255
Loc: NY
Originally Posted By: Zorn
If you made an example of 100 people with $100 to split up between them, this would be like giving one person $35, but then giving the bottom 80 people $15 to split up amongst themselves.



Bad example since in real life 47 of those 100 people pay no federal income tax!
_________________________
01 - 20 - 2017

Top
#1237595 --- 12/03/10 10:02 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: sands]
citydog Offline
Member

Registered: 08/29/10
Posts: 383
Loc: Ontario County
Originally Posted By: sands
Bad example since in real life 47 of those 100 people pay no federal income tax!


Can you provide a reference to show that 47% pay no income tax whatsoever?
_________________________
Who let the dogs out

Top
#1237644 --- 12/04/10 03:09 AM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: citydog]
sands Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/05/05
Posts: 8255
Loc: NY
Originally Posted By: citydog
Originally Posted By: sands
Bad example since in real life 47 of those 100 people pay no federal income tax!


Can you provide a reference to show that 47% pay no income tax whatsoever?



I never said they pay no income tax. I said they pay no federal income tax. We are talking about the federal deficit are we not?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36226444/ns/business-tax_tactics/
_________________________
01 - 20 - 2017

Top
#1237648 --- 12/04/10 04:04 AM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Zorn]
Animal Lover Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 10/13/06
Posts: 1339
Loc: NY
Originally Posted By: Zorn
Originally Posted By: cwjga
Originally Posted By: Chosenspot
Originally Posted By: cwjga
Why should the average American oppose taxing the rich more? Because every American has the ability, possibility of being rich.



How can anyone argue with this logic? I can't.


Your right you can't. Our system is predicated on the ability to improve your lot in life. If there we do as someone suggests, and take all the money someone makes above a certain amount, say $50,000 because everyone making more than that does not need it and is greedy, then there is no reason to work harder and improve.


This is stupid, no one is suggesting that we take all of the money made over $50K.


Stupid is not a good enough word. It's downright asinine. To equate someone making $50,000 to someone making $50,000,000 is ridiculous and these morons that do crap like that in a conversation are uncaring jerks. The person who makes $50,000 is just trying to get by, while the multi-millionaire is trying to decide if they want (not need) a new luxury car or maybe instead they'll buy a boat. Oh heck, they'll buy both.

When I'm thinking of people who make $50,000/yr. I picture a family with a mortgage or rent between $600-$1000 a month, health insurance premiums and co-pays, electric, gas, water and a telephone bill, not to mention groceries and gasoline. When everything is paid there is very little disposable income. Heck, I didn't even mention a car payment, or other taxes, or possibly trying to help put their kid through college, let alone luxury items. You know those things that us peons don't deserve like cell phones and cable television.

Seriously, why do some people have to be such jerks? Greedy jerks at that.

Top
#1237650 --- 12/04/10 04:10 AM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: sands]
Animal Lover Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 10/13/06
Posts: 1339
Loc: NY
Originally Posted By: sands
Originally Posted By: Animal Lover
The truth is the rich became rich off of the backs of the rest of us between gambling on Wall Street and shipping jobs offshore.



The problem with you, and most liberals, is that you truly believe that.


The problem with you and MOST conservatives is that you are greedy liars who say crap that you know is ridiculous to try to make a point when you don't actually have one.

Top
#1237683 --- 12/04/10 11:25 AM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Zorn]
cwjga Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 11/06/08
Posts: 12660
Loc: NY
Originally Posted By: Zorn
Originally Posted By: cwjga
Originally Posted By: Chosenspot
Originally Posted By: cwjga
Why should the average American oppose taxing the rich more? Because every American has the ability, possibility of being rich.



How can anyone argue with this logic? I can't.


Your right you can't. Our system is predicated on the ability to improve your lot in life. If there we do as someone suggests, and take all the money someone makes above a certain amount, say $50,000 because everyone making more than that does not need it and is greedy, then there is no reason to work harder and improve.


This is stupid, no one is suggesting that we take all of the money made over $50K.

But look at the 1950s, the top income tax bracket was 90%. Go look it up. ANd yet there was plenty of economic growth and ambition back then, wasn't there?


Here is the post

"Even if there is the possibility of being rich it doesn't mean a person has to become greedy. How much money does a person need? How can you compare a person making $50 million netting $25 million after taxes to a person netting $50,000. $50,000 is chump change to a multi-millionaire."

I took that to mean that if someone makes over $50,000 they do not need it and are being greedy. If they are greedy it follows that they will not give up the money so the Govt. should just take it.

Top
#1237684 --- 12/04/10 11:35 AM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Zorn]
Ranger Offline
Diamond Member

Registered: 10/23/00
Posts: 25141
Loc: GOD's 1/2 acre
Originally Posted By: Zorn
also found this on the $3 trillion in loans.

"They are overnight loans that were rolled over so each loan may have been counted multiple times. Its like me lending you 10 dollars at 9 am you paying me back at 5pm everyday over the course of the year and then me saying I lent you 3650 dollars. It isn't technically wrong but it is fairly misleading to the general public. I never needed 3650 to loan you that amount and I never had more than 10 dollars loaned out at any period in time so my exposure was never more than 10 dollars.
One of the problems with the banking crisis is a lot of the investment banks were using overnight repo to bankroll investments. This is money that is lent out on a daily basis so if all the sudden the people running money markets don't want to loan you money you have a VERY VERY short time period to fill that hole. The reserve was essentially plugging that hole to prevent firesales and provided liquidity needed to complete transactions."



Business & Economy
Financial Crisis Response Extended Much Farther Than Thought

"The financial crisis stretched even farther across the economy than many had realized," reports The Washington Post, "as new disclosures show the Federal Reserve rushed trillions of dollars in emergency aid not just to Wall Street but also to motorcycle makers, telecom firms and foreign-owned banks in 2008 and 2009." Apparently, "too big to fail" extended to General Electric, Caterpillar, Toyota, Harley-Davidson and Verizon, as well as, inevitably, foreign banks with U.S. subsidiaries. Of course, some of the world's biggest banks, such as Bank of America, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Swiss-based UBS and Britain's Barclays received aid, with Goldman cashing in for an astonishing $600 billion.

According to the Post, "The data reveal banks turning to the Fed for help almost daily in the fall of 2008 as the central bank lowered lending standards and extended relief to all kinds of institutions it had never assisted before." Total aid reached $3.3 trillion, though the Fed is saying it hasn't (yet) lost any money on its lending.

You know things are bad when we agree with self-proclaimed socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who insisted that this disclosure requirement be included in the Frank-Dodd financial regulatory bill. "The American people are finally learning the incredible and jaw-dropping details of the Fed's multi-trillion-dollar bailout of Wall Street and corporate America," Sanders said. "Perhaps most surprising is the huge sum that went to bail out foreign private banks and corporations. As a result of this disclosure, other members of Congress and I will be taking a very extensive look at all aspects of how the Federal Reserve functions." Thomas Jefferson certainly had a point when he wrote to Secretary of the Treasury Albert Gallatin in 1802, "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies."

Next up, bailing out the European Union through the International Monetary Fund, in which the U.S. is the largest "shareholder."
_________________________
TRUTH HAS NO AGENDA

Top
#1237720 --- 12/04/10 03:22 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: cwjga]
Animal Lover Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 10/13/06
Posts: 1339
Loc: NY
Quote:
I took that to mean that if someone makes over $50,000 they do not need it and are being greedy. If they are greedy it follows that they will not give up the money so the Govt. should just take it.


Of course you did.

It's not even worth discussing something like this with someone like yourself. You knew what I meant. People making $50 million have everything they need whereas someone making $50,000 may have the absolute necessities but don't have the luxuries or option to have that second home or luxury car. Nowhere did I say that gov't should take everything over a certain amount but if you are a multi-millionaire then you can afford to be taxed at a higher rate.

Top
#1237725 --- 12/04/10 03:36 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Animal Lover]
citydog Offline
Member

Registered: 08/29/10
Posts: 383
Loc: Ontario County
Originally Posted By: Animal Lover
Originally Posted By: Zorn
Originally Posted By: cwjga
Originally Posted By: Chosenspot
Originally Posted By: cwjga
Why should the average American oppose taxing the rich more? Because every American has the ability, possibility of being rich.



How can anyone argue with this logic? I can't.


Your right you can't. Our system is predicated on the ability to improve your lot in life. If there we do as someone suggests, and take all the money someone makes above a certain amount, say $50,000 because everyone making more than that does not need it and is greedy, then there is no reason to work harder and improve.


This is stupid, no one is suggesting that we take all of the money made over $50K.


Stupid is not a good enough word. It's downright asinine. To equate someone making $50,000 to someone making $50,000,000 is ridiculous and these morons that do crap like that in a conversation are uncaring jerks. The person who makes $50,000 is just trying to get by, while the multi-millionaire is trying to decide if they want (not need) a new luxury car or maybe instead they'll buy a boat. Oh heck, they'll buy both.

When I'm thinking of people who make $50,000/yr. I picture a family with a mortgage or rent between $600-$1000 a month, health insurance premiums and co-pays, electric, gas, water and a telephone bill, not to mention groceries and gasoline. When everything is paid there is very little disposable income. Heck, I didn't even mention a car payment, or other taxes, or possibly trying to help put their kid through college, let alone luxury items. You know those things that us peons don't deserve like cell phones and cable television.


That family making $50,000/year would have the possibility of getting rich if there was some family wealth to start with... say a grandfather in the oil business who leaves a half million to each of the grandkids. Or they could just save their "excess" income, or that huge amount of money they might get in a refundable tax credit -- that is if they didn't waste it all by taking the family out to Ponderosa and a movie once a month, or blow it on take out pizza every other week.

I've seen first hand how people with such modest income work hard and try to cut back, but the day before payday there's not enough to buy groceries for the weekend so it goes on a credit card that never gets paid off in full and thus keeps accumulating interest charges at 18-25%. And the bank keeps hitting them with service charges for a simple checking account because they can't maintain the minimum balance required to avoid service charges. It's like swimming upstream, fighting the current, and hoping that some debris isn't going to hit you and send you under water. Meanwhile a rich kid in the power boat passes you and says "swim harder, you can make it!"

Greedy jerks? Not necessarily. My guess is that they're really clueless (or have forgotten) about what it's like to live on the margin, much less at the poverty level. And if it's so great living on $50K or less, why aren't those making $250K just shucking it all and dropping their income level so they can avoid paying an additional 4.6% in Federal income taxes? Probably because for every $10,000 they make above $250,000, it only costs $460 in tax -- about what they would pay for a monthly dinner and theater evening in NYC (note: not Ponderosa and a movie at Cinema 6).
_________________________
Who let the dogs out

Top
#1237728 --- 12/04/10 03:47 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Animal Lover]
sands Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/05/05
Posts: 8255
Loc: NY
Originally Posted By: Animal Lover
Nowhere did I say that gov't should take everything over a certain amount but if you are a multi-millionaire then you can afford to be taxed at a higher rate.



Is that why the 2% of households that make over $250,000 a year already pay 47% of federal income tax?

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/what_percentage_of_the_us_population_makes.html
_________________________
01 - 20 - 2017

Top
#1237779 --- 12/04/10 09:51 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Animal Lover]
cwjga Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 11/06/08
Posts: 12660
Loc: NY
Originally Posted By: Animal Lover
Quote:
I took that to mean that if someone makes over $50,000 they do not need it and are being greedy. If they are greedy it follows that they will not give up the money so the Govt. should just take it.


Of course you did.

It's not even worth discussing something like this with someone like yourself. You knew what I meant. People making $50 million have everything they need whereas someone making $50,000 may have the absolute necessities but don't have the luxuries or option to have that second home or luxury car. Nowhere did I say that gov't should take everything over a certain amount but if you are a multi-millionaire then you can afford to be taxed at a higher rate.


So then what good does it do to whine and call people greedy. And how do you know that a millionare can afford to be taxed at a higher rate. Why not tax everyone at the same rate. That way the more you make the more you pay.


Edited by cwjga (12/04/10 09:53 PM)

Top
#1237856 --- 12/05/10 01:22 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: cwjga]
Zorn Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/06/06
Posts: 1376
Loc: ny
because the highest income tax bracket in the 1950s was 90% and people got along just fine?
_________________________
"I guess I want smaller government and my Social Security". - Tea Party Member

Top
#1237865 --- 12/05/10 01:46 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: sands]
cwjga Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 11/06/08
Posts: 12660
Loc: NY
Nancy Pelosi is Using Government to Steal from Americans

Nancy Pelosi is either ignorant or one of the most deceitful people in government. Consider this statemement: "Giving $700 billion to the wealthiest people in America does add $700 billion dollars to the deficit. And the record and history shows and does not create jobs." Keeping the current tax rates does not "give" money to anyone. Taxation "takes" money from those who have earned the money. It's theft by government decree, and millions of people think it's OK. While most Americans would agree that stealing is wrong, they don’t seem to have a problem if someone steals for them. Consider the following: If John has a financial need, would it be right for him to rob his neighbors to supply that need? Most people would say no. Would it be right for John to get some of his friends to steal for him? Again, most people would say no. What if John convinces enough people to create a civil government that takes money from his neighbors to pay for things John and others need?

View Source: http://townhall.com/tipsheet/GregHengler...to_rich_do_not!

Top
#1237871 --- 12/05/10 02:33 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: cwjga]
citydog Offline
Member

Registered: 08/29/10
Posts: 383
Loc: Ontario County
Originally Posted By: cwjga
... Keeping the current tax rates does not "give" money to anyone. Taxation "takes" money from those who have earned the money. It's theft by government decree, and millions of people think it's OK. While most Americans would agree that stealing is wrong, they don’t seem to have a problem if someone steals for them. Consider the following: If John has a financial need, would it be right for him to rob his neighbors to supply that need? Most people would say no. Would it be right for John to get some of his friends to steal for him? Again, most people would say no. What if John convinces enough people to create a civil government that takes money from his neighbors to pay for things John and others need?...

Based on the logic presented here (i.e., theft is wrong, taxes are theft, therefore taxes are wrong) no one should pay any taxes at all -- Federal, state, or local. Absurd? Of course.

Theft is the UNLAWFUL taking of property belonging to another. However, taxes are lawful by virtue of the fact that they were
instituted by elected representatives. To put your hypothetical "John" and his neighbors in a slightly different light, let's first understand that John and his neighbors chose some people to take care of the things that were better done by a collective group rather than everyone fending for him or herself. Those people are called "government." To take care of those things, the people who made up the government decided to require everyone who could afford it to give some of their income to the government. Among the things that the elected representatives decided to do was to provide some assistance to some of the citizens who needed help. Now that wasn't a unanimous decision, of course, since some of the elected representatives disagreed.
But it was nevertheless legal.

There is no place in the civilized world where people are not required to pay taxes in one form or another. You may disagree with the uses to which taxes are put, but to claim that taxes are the same as theft is silly.

You may also disagree that unemployment benefits help to keep the economy going (people without other income spend their unemployment benefits thereby creating a need for goods and services, aka the economy), but to say that cutting taxes will not add to the deficit is also silly. The Federal government has obligations to pay for a lot of stuff (some of which you may disagree with) but the obligations are there, nevertheless. And if we cut taxes for everyone, thereby reducing the income for the government, we have to pay for those obligations by borrowing more money. It's as simple as that.

Taxes are "theft?" Nonsense!
_________________________
Who let the dogs out

Top
#1237943 --- 12/05/10 08:11 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: cwjga]
Zorn Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/06/06
Posts: 1376
Loc: ny
Originally Posted By: cwjga
Nancy Pelosi is Using Government to Steal from Americans

Nancy Pelosi is either ignorant or one of the most deceitful people in government. Consider this statemement: "Giving $700 billion to the wealthiest people in America does add $700 billion dollars to the deficit. And the record and history shows and does not create jobs." Keeping the current tax rates does not "give" money to anyone. Taxation "takes" money from those who have earned the money. It's theft by government decree, and millions of people think it's OK. While most Americans would agree that stealing is wrong, they don’t seem to have a problem if someone steals for them. Consider the following: If John has a financial need, would it be right for him to rob his neighbors to supply that need? Most people would say no. Would it be right for John to get some of his friends to steal for him? Again, most people would say no. What if John convinces enough people to create a civil government that takes money from his neighbors to pay for things John and others need?

View Source: http://townhall.com/tipsheet/GregHengler...to_rich_do_not!


I hope to convince the govt to take from some neighbors and give to others.

The truth is that the ceo of a bank does not work much harder, if harder at all, than lots of other people. If he does work harder he doesn't work 10,000 times harder. The basic republican argument is taht rich people 'earned' their money. They earn their money in a system that runs based on laws created by society - which is all of us. Those laws do things like... give monopoly control over a product to just one company. We argue that monopolies are bad, yet if someone invents Silly Bands for kids, he becomes a millionaire. There was a time that laws like that didn't exist.

If a bank CEO isn't working much harder (or possibly not even as hard) as an average person is, why is he making more money? The next argument is that he has some skill that is rare, so he gets more money for his rare skill. He is a math whiz, so the Supply of people with good math skills is low, and in a free market, the price someone will pay for that skill is higher than someone who cleans bathrooms.

This is the Republican argument, is it not?

The problem is that we all know a bank president or ceo isn't really working 10,000 times harder than we are, but he makes 10,000 times our pay. it also appears unfair that someone with a rare skill gets more money, because this is often based on the luck of your genetic draw in life (michael jordan's kid will have a much better chance at making money at basketball than my kid will) or, if you are religious, then the bank ceo has 'god given talents' that the rest of us don't ahve. Either way, why should someone with unlucky genes or given no special skill by God have to suffer while the lucky/favored by God individual gets to live a life of luxury?

And liberals aren't even saying that the bank CEO should make the same amount of money as a janitor, we are just saying people that do not benefit from our society is structured (where teachers and police officers make less than a guy who can put a basketball in a hoop) should not have to worry about the necessities... like, for example... health care.

We also think it is fair to tax the people who never have to worry about survival, or medical care, or shelter at a higher rate to help those at the bottom.

On the other hand, Republicans block tax cuts for the majority of the population if the super rich aren't included. Republicans are just greedy.
_________________________
"I guess I want smaller government and my Social Security". - Tea Party Member

Top
#1237952 --- 12/05/10 09:07 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: citydog]
Animal Lover Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 10/13/06
Posts: 1339
Loc: NY
Quote:
Greedy jerks? Not necessarily. My guess is that they're really clueless (or have forgotten) about what it's like to live on the margin, much less at the poverty level.


Do you really believe that? If they are that clueless than they are stupid too. I have a hard time being generous enough to give them the benefit of the doubt that they are "clueless" or don't remember.

Generosity/philanthropy is a character trait that some people have and understand and those that don't get it are greedy. Those greedy people would be considered jerks in most circles. You ever been stiffed by a friend who has the money to pay their share when you go out but allows everyone else pay more than their share to help pay their way? What do you call that guy or gal? I call them a greedy jerk. LOL.

Not everyone can be a Bill Gates, Oprah Winfrey, Michael Jordan or as Zorn was discussing a banking CEO. Maybe they were "blessed" with abilities or maybe they got lucky...either way it doesn't hurt them to pay a higher percentage of taxes. A gallon of milk costs the same in this area whether you make $25 grand or $250 grand or a million. Same goes for a gallon of gas or the price of a basic phone line. But buying that gallon of milk for some means giving up something else. The wealthy person probably can't even tell you what a gallon of milk costs and do not care what a gallon of gas costs when they are filling up the Lexus. If they have to pay another 3-5% in their taxes they won't have to sacrifice anything really, and certainly not necessities.

Top
#1237954 --- 12/05/10 10:02 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Animal Lover]
P Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/20/07
Posts: 1720
Loc: Fingerlakes ny
That may not be entirely true. they may have to shortened the new yacht by five feet or downgrade to a 750 BMW ;\)
Seriously... they(GOP) didn't take long in showing their agenda....anti Democrat even at the taxpayers demise.


Edited by Papa4 (12/05/10 10:05 PM)
_________________________


Top
#1237985 --- 12/06/10 01:00 AM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: citydog]
sands Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/05/05
Posts: 8255
Loc: NY
Originally Posted By: citydog
John and his neighbors chose some people to take care of the things that were better done by a collective group rather than everyone fending for him or herself.




Like if your neighbor wants a new skylight in his house, it's your job to pay for it through the federal tax credit.
_________________________
01 - 20 - 2017

Top
#1238020 --- 12/06/10 05:00 AM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Animal Lover]
LeeAnnRagains Offline
Member

Registered: 04/23/10
Posts: 192
Loc: Kingfisher, OK
American Tax Payers are Taxed Enough Already! I should NOT be TAXED 50% of my income to finance another 180 yrs of; Corruption, Segregation and Preference for Women & "Minorities".

I have heard enough - during Thanksgiving - about the 565 Tribal Counsels trying to BLAME Christopher Columbus for every "crime" that has happened to them and all of the "stolen" land!

We are NOT "victims" - We are NOT Incompetent Domestic Dependent Indians of the DOI/BIA! They do NOT speak for us. They use - us & our children to perpetuate "Welfare as a Career" to increase federal funding.


We ARE American Citizens and the 565 Tribal Counsels should have NO CLAIM to our children, We should NOT have to ask permission from the 565 Tribal Counsels, DOI, BIA, Senate Committee on Indian Affairs to; Improve, Lease & Sell our Own Land.



TITLE 25 > CHAPTER 3 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 72
§ 72. Abrogation of treaties
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/25/usc_sec_25_00000072----000-.html

Whenever the tribal organization of any Indian tribe is in actual hostility to the United States, the President is authorized, by proclamation, to declare all treaties with such tribe abrogated by such tribe if in his opinion the same can be done consistently with good faith and legal and national obligations. [/b]



The 564 Indian Tribal organizations have proven they are hostile toward their own members (American Citizens) and the United States (Continued illegal Segregation, illegal Separate but Equal, illegal tax evasion and FTC Anti-trust violations).

Abrogation of Treaties; CITE-
25 USC Sec. 72 02/01/2010

-EXPCITE-
TITLE 25 - INDIANS
CHAPTER 3 - AGREEMENTS WITH INDIANS
SUBCHAPTER I - TREATIES

-HEAD-
Sec. 72. Abrogation of treaties

-STATUTE-
Whenever the tribal organization of any Indian tribe is in actual
hostility to the United States, the President is authorized, by
proclamation, to declare all treaties with such tribe abrogated by
such tribe if in his opinion the same can be done consistently with
good faith and legal and national obligations.

-SOURCE-
(R.S. Sec. 2080.)

-COD-
CODIFICATION
R.S. Sec. 2080 derived from act July 5, 1862, ch. 135, Sec. 1, 12
Stat. 528.

-End-


***


I live in the United States of America - where I insist, expect & demand to have CHOICES for everything I want to buy and anything I can personally afford.

Private health insurance is my CHOICE and I will not settle for the Governments version of "health care". NO THANK YOU ;\)

The Feds should get out of MY/OUR way \:\)

I hope God will bless this effort for American Freedom, Equality & Unity.


***

Please send; an email, a fax or make a Phone Call to Tom Coburn in OKC. He is my State of Oklahoma Senator and is a member of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. Even though I am no longer a Federally Recognized American Indian, I will always be American.

Please send; an email, a fax or make a Phone Call to Tom Coburn in OKC. Senator Coburn must help me to Petition President Obama for the Emancipation of these 1.9 million American Indian Citizens.

You can send an anonymous Post Card for Freedom to your States Elected Officials and NOT sign it - You are a concerned VOTER & you agree with these 3 points for Freedom & Equality.


***

A Historical Viewpoint is always BEST since it's supposed to be 20/20??? We should review how well Government Owned & Operated Health Care has helped; our Veterans & Troops and the Incompetent Domestic Dependent Federally Recognized Indians.


Our Veterans & Troops & their Families have never had enough Government Health Care to SAVE or IMPROVE their LIVES. Especially after a Combat Related Injury. An 80 yr old WW2 Veteran must drive 4 hours one way to see his doctor and hope to be seen in less than 6 hours of sitting then drive the 4 hours home.


But - IF - they had served 1 Term in the U.S. Congress they would have the best PRIVATE health care our TAX dollars will pay 'til the DAY THEY DIE!!!!


Federally Recognized Reservation health care for Indians is actually better than that is for our Vets & Troops. All of the Hospitals & Clinic, Doctors, nurses...etc are DELIVERED to within 10 miles of their homes on the Rez. Okay - maybe they have to be one of the first 10 people on Tuesday to see the Dentist - but - They don't care - IT IS FREE!!!


In 1830 Congress declared WAR against the American Indians with the Indian Removal Act = 180 yrs ago. They were POW's then and the Military provided "health care" for these Prisoners. During these last 150 yrs the 565 Tribal Counsels have learned how to extort better state of the art facilities for all their members & potential members at TAX PAYER EXPENSE.

AND it has only taken these last 100 yrs for the Tribes to decrease 100% UN-employment to a mere 18% UN-employed today.


***Todd Kruse article confirms - IF, the Government owns & operates all aspects of our lives - it may NOT be entirely successfull. Oh well - I'm NOT paying for the mistakes of our Govt.? Who is paying for it? How long have we've been paying for it?

http://insideriowa.com/index.cfm?nodeID=18894&audienceID=1&action=display&newsID=9005

40 Acres & a Mule...The trust is a little known government program that manages nearly $3.5 billion in assets for the Indian/Native Americans in the USA. By “manage” I mean the trust sends out checks when they are not paralyzed by corruption and/or gross incompetence – I leave that determination to the Government Accountability Office.

When I first read Howard’s email regarding this “Second Emancipation Proclamation” my immediate response was – “now that is a great idea, empower these people and reduce government at the same time” – of course I was being optimistic assuming the Indian Trust would be phased out with the money distributed to those emancipated.

Now that 147 years have passed since President Lincoln’s proclamation declared black slaves free it seems rather appropriate that America’s first black president would use the power of his office to declare these modern day slaves to a government check to be free citizens via the phase out of the Indian Trust.

Granted some Insider Iowa readers might argue with me that Indian/Native Americans interned on reservation lands waiting for their government check to be delivered is vastly different from the American plantation system of the 1860s thus this is not some form of modern day slavery. Really? Are the reservation lands (those without thriving casinos) in the USA islands of prosperity with low crime rates and excellent health care statistics or is this where we find very high rates of unemployment, violence, and a range of health problems including diabetes, alcoholism, and obesity?

If the Indian Trust is a successful model then I thank God my family emigrated from Germany so we are not part of the trust.


***

Unfortunately - every Tax Payer that has ever lived, Tax Payers today and our children will continue to PAY for: Corruption, Segregation and Preference for the 565 Federally Recognized Tribes and their members and potential members to reap the benefits of Government Health Care. AND there are 300 more "Tribes" petitioning for Federal Recognition - TODAY.

My Ancestors, My Family and MY Great Great Grandchildren, Thanks you ;\)
LeeAnnRagains.com



Top
#1238064 --- 12/06/10 12:58 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: sands]
cwjga Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 11/06/08
Posts: 12660
Loc: NY
Originally Posted By: sands
Originally Posted By: citydog
John and his neighbors chose some people to take care of the things that were better done by a collective group rather than everyone fending for him or herself.




Like if your neighbor wants a new skylight in his house, it's your job to pay for it through the federal tax credit.


That was one of those tax breaks we all got under Obama. Oh wait we did not all get it. Only the people that did what Obama wanted them to do got the tax break and the rest of us paid for it.

Top
#1238077 --- 12/06/10 02:12 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: cwjga]
Chosenspot Offline
Member

Registered: 01/05/10
Posts: 137
Loc: Penn Yan, New York
Originally Posted By: cwjga
Originally Posted By: sands
Originally Posted By: citydog
John and his neighbors chose some people to take care of the things that were better done by a collective group rather than everyone fending for him or herself.




Like if your neighbor wants a new skylight in his house, it's your job to pay for it through the federal tax credit.


That was one of those tax breaks we all got under Obama. Oh wait we did not all get it. Only the people that did what Obama wanted them to do got the tax break and the rest of us paid for it.


How about your mortgage interest I helped pay for, or school taxes, or the exemptions you get for having children or the lower tax rate for being married? Should I keep going?

Top
#1238120 --- 12/06/10 04:46 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Zorn]
Greymane Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 11/09/06
Posts: 6848
Loc: Central PA
Originally Posted By: Zorn
because the highest income tax bracket in the 1950s was 90% and people got along just fine?


Do you even remotely understand how that tax system worked, or do you really think they paid 90% of their income to the government?
_________________________
Against logic there is no armor like ignorance. - Dr. Lawrence J. Peter

Top
#1238168 --- 12/06/10 09:14 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Greymane]
Zorn Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/06/06
Posts: 1376
Loc: ny
Originally Posted By: Greymane
Originally Posted By: Zorn
because the highest income tax bracket in the 1950s was 90% and people got along just fine?


Do you even remotely understand how that tax system worked, or do you really think they paid 90% of their income to the government?


They paid 90% for what they made in the highest income tax bracket. That is exactly what I said.

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

That was for over $400K, but even at $100K a year the tax was 72% and $20K was 38%. So a person making $400K a year was paying... maybe 60% of their *entire* income to the government. (actually I was looking at the 1960s sorry)

The point is, did the rich people leave the US? Did it crush economic growth? It didn't cause unemployment, unemployment was super low at that time.

Im not arguing for those tax rates again (unless the govt started providing big services like free college tuition, health care, day care, etc) but I think it shows the argument that a small tax increase for the top tax brackets would cause economic problems is just more republican propaganda that you guys suck up like a bunch of sycophantic fools.
_________________________
"I guess I want smaller government and my Social Security". - Tea Party Member

Top
#1238169 --- 12/06/10 09:19 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Chosenspot]
cwjga Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 11/06/08
Posts: 12660
Loc: NY
Originally Posted By: Chosenspot
Originally Posted By: cwjga
Originally Posted By: sands
Originally Posted By: citydog
John and his neighbors chose some people to take care of the things that were better done by a collective group rather than everyone fending for him or herself.




Like if your neighbor wants a new skylight in his house, it's your job to pay for it through the federal tax credit.


That was one of those tax breaks we all got under Obama. Oh wait we did not all get it. Only the people that did what Obama wanted them to do got the tax break and the rest of us paid for it.


How about your mortgage interest I helped pay for, or school taxes, or the exemptions you get for having children or the lower tax rate for being married? Should I keep going?


Nope, I agree, except that I am not sure if I helped pay yours or you helped me. So let's just pay our own. That is why there should be one tax rate,so the more you make the more you pay, and congress should stop the social engineering.



Edited by cwjga (12/06/10 09:26 PM)

Top
#1238171 --- 12/06/10 09:28 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Zorn]
cwjga Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 11/06/08
Posts: 12660
Loc: NY
Originally Posted By: Zorn
Originally Posted By: Greymane
Originally Posted By: Zorn
because the highest income tax bracket in the 1950s was 90% and people got along just fine?


Do you even remotely understand how that tax system worked, or do you really think they paid 90% of their income to the government?


They paid 90% for what they made in the highest income tax bracket. That is exactly what I said.

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

That was for over $400K, but even at $100K a year the tax was 72% and $20K was 38%. So a person making $400K a year was paying... maybe 60% of their *entire* income to the government. (actually I was looking at the 1960s sorry)

The point is, did the rich people leave the US? Did it crush economic growth? It didn't cause unemployment, unemployment was super low at that time.

Im not arguing for those tax rates again (unless the govt started providing big services like free college tuition, health care, day care, etc) but I think it shows the argument that a small tax increase for the top tax brackets would cause economic problems is just more republican propaganda that you guys suck up like a bunch of sycophantic fools.





Right, it will just cause more government spending. Oops, my bad, you approve of government spending more.

Top
#1238172 --- 12/06/10 09:35 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: cwjga]
Chosenspot Offline
Member

Registered: 01/05/10
Posts: 137
Loc: Penn Yan, New York
Originally Posted By: cwjga

Nope, I agree, except that I am not sure if I helped pay yours or you helped me. So let's just pay our own. That is why there should be one tax rate,so the more you make the more you pay, and congress should stop the social engineering.



I totally agree with you on that.

Top
#1238260 --- 12/07/10 10:52 AM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Chosenspot]
Zorn Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/06/06
Posts: 1376
Loc: ny
The flat tax will mean rich people pay less, not more. Still researching the 'fair tax', but the Flat Tax would mean rich people pay even less than they do today, because there is ONLY an income tax, and no capital gains tax at all.
_________________________
"I guess I want smaller government and my Social Security". - Tea Party Member

Top
#1238275 --- 12/07/10 11:46 AM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Zorn]
Ranger Offline
Diamond Member

Registered: 10/23/00
Posts: 25141
Loc: GOD's 1/2 acre
Why should you have to pay tax on something you've already had the taxes paid on?

Capital Gains Tax
_________________________
TRUTH HAS NO AGENDA

Top
#1238279 --- 12/07/10 12:04 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Ranger]
Zorn Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/06/06
Posts: 1376
Loc: ny
Capital Gainst tax is a tax on the *profit* you gain from selling an asset. So if you buy a house for $100K you pay tax on it, but if you sell it for $200K you pay capital gains tax on the profit you made, not on the $100K. This is the way I understand it.

So you aren't paying tax twice.
_________________________
"I guess I want smaller government and my Social Security". - Tea Party Member

Top
#1238281 --- 12/07/10 12:06 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Zorn]
Zorn Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/06/06
Posts: 1376
Loc: ny
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/20...-their-benefits

Republicans are AWESOME. They are holding the tax cuts hostage unless the rich get their tax cuts too, totaling $70B per year.

They refused to pass a bill that would give unemployment benefit extensions unless there was some way to pay for them - no more deb you know. Total per year... $60B.

So we can go into debt for rich tax cuts for $70b per year, but not pay for unemployment benefits at $60b per year. Am I the only one who thinks the top 2% of the country could lose their tax cuts and use that money to help people without jobs?
_________________________
"I guess I want smaller government and my Social Security". - Tea Party Member

Top
#1238284 --- 12/07/10 12:22 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Zorn]
twocats Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 02/10/10
Posts: 11904
Loc: NYS
I get it, Zorn. The problem is that many people vote for representatives who don't represent their interests, and THEY don't get it.
_________________________
Humanity is an ocean; if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty.

Top
#1238337 --- 12/07/10 06:57 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: twocats]
kyle585 Offline
Gold Member

Registered: 02/18/09
Posts: 19801
Loc: Somewhere out there
Happy days are here again!

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20101207-711076.html

NEW YORK (Dow Jones)--The Standard & Poor's 500-stock index rallied Tuesday to highs not seen since September 2008 following an agreement between President Barack Obama and Republican leaders in Congress that would extend the Bush-era income tax cuts for two years.

The S&P 500 index rose 0.5% to 1229 recently after hitting 1235.05, its highest intraday level since Sept. 22, 2008. The industrial sector led the measure's broad climb.

"The deal that's coming through was far better than what most people expected," said Chip Cobb, senior vice president at Bryn Mawr Trust Asset Management. "Over all, it's a big positive. It's taking this fog and lifting it and giving some real clarity toward the end of this year. It's a mini-stimulus in and of itself."

_________________________
**** ATTENTION! BAD POLITICIANS ARE ELECTED BY GOOD PEOPLE WHO DON'T VOTE! ****

Top
#1238339 --- 12/07/10 07:02 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Zorn]
Greymane Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 11/09/06
Posts: 6848
Loc: Central PA
Originally Posted By: Zorn
Capital Gainst tax is a tax on the *profit* you gain from selling an asset. So if you buy a house for $100K you pay tax on it, but if you sell it for $200K you pay capital gains tax on the profit you made, not on the $100K. This is the way I understand it.

So you aren't paying tax twice.


So, let's follow this for a minute. I invest in a company (adding capital). The company produces a product. It pays taxes. (Let's forget the special deals in Seneca County for a minute.) The company buys buildings and pays sales tax on the purchase. The company pays taxes on its buildings over time (property tax - I do understand that this goes toward community services, but still another tax). It also pays taxes on its revenues (sales tax). It pays it's employees' wages (who pay all kinds of taxes out of that). Then, I make a profit (because the company has grown) and sell my stock. ALL of the gain in my stock has been taxable in one way or another (at least once to this point), yet I have to pay ANOTHER tax on that profit.

You are right. We aren't paying taxes twice.
_________________________
Against logic there is no armor like ignorance. - Dr. Lawrence J. Peter

Top
#1238393 --- 12/07/10 11:05 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Greymane]
kimmer Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/26/07
Posts: 1403
Loc: here,there and back again
Originally Posted By: Greymane
Originally Posted By: Zorn
Capital Gainst tax is a tax on the *profit* you gain from selling an asset. So if you buy a house for $100K you pay tax on it, but if you sell it for $200K you pay capital gains tax on the profit you made, not on the $100K. This is the way I understand it.

So you aren't paying tax twice.


So, let's follow this for a minute. I invest in a company (adding capital). The company produces a product. It pays taxes. (Let's forget the special deals in Seneca County for a minute.)LMAO! The company buys buildings and pays sales tax on the purchase. The company pays taxes on its buildings over time (property tax - I do understand that this goes toward community services, but still another tax). It also pays taxes on its revenues (sales tax). It pays it's employees' wages (who pay all kinds of taxes out of that). Then, I make a profit (because the company has grown) and sell my stock. ALL of the gain in my stock has been taxable in one way or another (at least once to this point), yet I have to pay ANOTHER tax on that profit.

You are right. We aren't paying taxes twice.


There's another thing that gets under my skin - millionaires get their Bush tax breaks to stimulate the economy (BS) and create jobs (BS) AND they want towns, counties and states to give them more tax breaks so they can stimulate the economy (their own bank accounts) and create jobs (sure). If these guys can do that because it will increase the tax revenue down the road then when I renovate my home I want sales tax exemptions because down the road my bigger, better home will bring more tax revenue too. And don't forget about the jobs that my renovation will "create" and all the trickle down from that too.


Edited by kimmer (12/07/10 11:09 PM)
_________________________
Why is it so hard for some to properly use your and you're??

Top
#1238579 --- 12/08/10 10:02 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: kimmer]
twocats Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 02/10/10
Posts: 11904
Loc: NYS
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/12/0..._campaign=daily
President Obama opened for questions:

Ben Feller.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. You’ve been telling the American people all along that you oppose extending the tax cuts for the wealthier Americans. You said that again today. But what you never said was that you oppose the tax cuts, but you’d be willing to go ahead and extend them for a couple years if the politics of the moment demand it.

So what I’m wondering is when you take a stand like you had, why should the American people believe that you’re going to stick with it? Why should the American people believe that you’re not going to flip flop?

THE PRESIDENT: Hold on a second, Ben. This isn’t the politics of the moment. This has to do with what can we get done right now. So the issue -- here’s the choice. It’s very stark. We can’t get my preferred option through the Senate right now. As a consequence, if we don’t get my option through the Senate right now, and we do nothing, then on January 1st of this -- of 2011, the average family is going to see their taxes go up about $3,000. Number two: At the end of this month, 2 million people will lose their unemployment insurance.

Now, I have an option, which is to say, you know what, I’m going to keep fighting a political fight, which I can’t win in the Senate -- and by the way, there are going to be more Republican senators in the Senate next year sworn in than there are currently. So the likelihood that the dynamic is going to improve for us getting my preferred option through the Senate will be diminished. I’ve got an option of just holding fast to my position and, as a consequence, 2 million people may not be able to pay their bills and tens of millions of people who are struggling right now are suddenly going to see their paychecks smaller. Or alternatively, what I can do is I can say that I am going to stick to my position that those folks get relief, that people get help for unemployment insurance. And I will continue to fight before the American people to make the point that the Republican position is wrong.

Now, if there was not collateral damage, if this was just a matter of my politics or being able to persuade the American people to my side, then I would just stick to my guns, because the fact of the matter is the American people already agree with me. There are polls showing right now that the American people, for the most part, think it’s a bad idea to provide tax cuts to the wealthy.

But the issue is not me persuading the American people; they’re already there. The issue is, how do I persuade the Republicans in the Senate who are currently blocking that position. I have not been able to budge them. And I don’t think there’s any suggestion anybody in this room thinks realistically that we can budge them right now.

And in the meantime, there are a whole bunch of people being hurt and the economy would be damaged. And my first job is to make sure that the economy is growing, that we’re creating jobs out there, and that people who are struggling are getting some relief. And if I have to choose between having a protracted political battle on the one hand, but those folks being hurt or helping those folks and continuing to fight this political battle over the next two years, I will choose the latter.
_________________________
Humanity is an ocean; if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty.

Top
#1238589 --- 12/08/10 10:25 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: twocats]
Harleybobb Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/21/10
Posts: 4061
Loc: Walloon Freedom Fighter
Originally Posted By: twocats
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/12/0..._campaign=daily
President Obama opened for questions:

Ben Feller.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. You’ve been telling the American people all along that you oppose extending the tax cuts for the wealthier Americans. You said that again today. But what you never said was that you oppose the tax cuts, but you’d be willing to go ahead and extend them for a couple years if the politics of the moment demand it.

So what I’m wondering is when you take a stand like you had, why should the American people believe that you’re going to stick with it? Why should the American people believe that you’re not going to flip flop?

THE PRESIDENT: Hold on a second, Ben. This isn’t the politics of the moment. This has to do with what can we get done right now. So the issue -- here’s the choice. It’s very stark. We can’t get my preferred option through the Senate right now. As a consequence, if we don’t get my option through the Senate right now, and we do nothing, then on January 1st of this -- of 2011, the average family is going to see their taxes go up about $3,000. Number two: At the end of this month, 2 million people will lose their unemployment insurance.

Now, I have an option, which is to say, you know what, I’m going to keep fighting a political fight, which I can’t win in the Senate -- and by the way, there are going to be more Republican senators in the Senate next year sworn in than there are currently. So the likelihood that the dynamic is going to improve for us getting my preferred option through the Senate will be diminished. I’ve got an option of just holding fast to my position and, as a consequence, 2 million people may not be able to pay their bills and tens of millions of people who are struggling right now are suddenly going to see their paychecks smaller. Or alternatively, what I can do is I can say that I am going to stick to my position that those folks get relief, that people get help for unemployment insurance. And I will continue to fight before the American people to make the point that the Republican position is wrong.

Now, if there was not collateral damage, if this was just a matter of my politics or being able to persuade the American people to my side, then I would just stick to my guns, because the fact of the matter is the American people already agree with me. There are polls showing right now that the American people, for the most part, think it’s a bad idea to provide tax cuts to the wealthy.

But the issue is not me persuading the American people; they’re already there. The issue is, how do I persuade the Republicans in the Senate who are currently blocking that position. I have not been able to budge them. And I don’t think there’s any suggestion anybody in this room thinks realistically that we can budge them right now.

And in the meantime, there are a whole bunch of people being hurt and the economy would be damaged. And my first job is to make sure that the economy is growing, that we’re creating jobs out there, and that people who are struggling are getting some relief. And if I have to choose between having a protracted political battle on the one hand, but those folks being hurt or helping those folks and continuing to fight this political battle over the next two years, I will choose the latter.

So what's your point? The Antichrist President Barack HUSSEIN Obama II uses a teleprompter and or gives flowery speeches that you flaming liberals love?
_________________________
Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you *keep* it a *secret*!

Top
#1238600 --- 12/09/10 12:17 AM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Harleybobb]
citydog Offline
Member

Registered: 08/29/10
Posts: 383
Loc: Ontario County
Could you even read from a teleprompter? For someone who seems to have the intellectual prowess of a chiapet, you talk a good game but never have anything positive to contribute.
_________________________
Who let the dogs out

Top
#1238613 --- 12/09/10 01:28 AM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: citydog]
Harleybobb Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/21/10
Posts: 4061
Loc: Walloon Freedom Fighter
Originally Posted By: citydog
Could you even read from a teleprompter? For someone who seems to have the intellectual prowess of a chiapet, you talk a good game but never have anything positive to contribute.
Ahahahahah... Positive contributes to what?
You kissing the Antichrist's butt and how you left-wing nut jobs want to spend money that you didn't earn?
Or is it because I'm not sympathetic to your whinny crap that you spew?
_________________________
Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you *keep* it a *secret*!

Top
#1238632 --- 12/09/10 02:14 AM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Harleybobb]
Here's Johnny Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 11/14/10
Posts: 854
Loc: New York
Originally Posted By: Harleybobb
Originally Posted By: citydog
Could you even read from a teleprompter? For someone who seems to have the intellectual prowess of a chiapet, you talk a good game but never have anything positive to contribute.
Ahahahahah... Positive contributes to what?
You kissing the Antichrist's butt and how you left-wing nut jobs want to spend money that you didn't earn?
Or is it because I'm not sympathetic to your whinny crap that you spew?


But who gets to pay the bill?

Top
#1238655 --- 12/09/10 09:44 AM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Here's Johnny]
Harleybobb Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/21/10
Posts: 4061
Loc: Walloon Freedom Fighter
Originally Posted By: Here's Johnny
Originally Posted By: Harleybobb
Originally Posted By: citydog
Could you even read from a teleprompter? For someone who seems to have the intellectual prowess of a chiapet, you talk a good game but never have anything positive to contribute.
Ahahahahah... Positive contributes to what?
You kissing the Antichrist's butt and how you left-wing nut jobs want to spend money that you didn't earn?
Or is it because I'm not sympathetic to your whinny crap that you spew?


But who gets to pay the bill?

The other 50%?
_________________________
Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you *keep* it a *secret*!

Top
#1238720 --- 12/09/10 02:01 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Greymane]
Zorn Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/06/06
Posts: 1376
Loc: ny
Originally Posted By: Greymane


So, let's follow this for a minute. I invest in a company (adding capital). The company produces a product. It pays taxes. (Let's forget the special deals in Seneca County for a minute.) The company buys buildings and pays sales tax on the purchase. The company pays taxes on its buildings over time (property tax - I do understand that this goes toward community services, but still another tax). It also pays taxes on its revenues (sales tax). It pays it's employees' wages (who pay all kinds of taxes out of that). Then, I make a profit (because the company has grown) and sell my stock. ALL of the gain in my stock has been taxable in one way or another (at least once to this point), yet I have to pay ANOTHER tax on that profit.

You are right. We aren't paying taxes twice.


Well with your logic, I pay income tax on my paycheck, then get taxed on that money when I use it to buy something (sales tax) and get taxed for owning property, so my money is taxed again for a property tax.

So... lets get rid of the income tax and just tax capital gains. Sound ok? Im all for only getting taxed once. Why not just tax capital gains, and not income? Im not taxed on my paycheck, but I get taxed when I sell stock or my house. ok?



Edited by Zorn (12/09/10 02:01 PM)
_________________________
"I guess I want smaller government and my Social Security". - Tea Party Member

Top
#1238789 --- 12/09/10 07:49 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Zorn]
cwjga Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 11/06/08
Posts: 12660
Loc: NY
Originally Posted By: Zorn
Originally Posted By: Greymane


So, let's follow this for a minute. I invest in a company (adding capital). The company produces a product. It pays taxes. (Let's forget the special deals in Seneca County for a minute.) The company buys buildings and pays sales tax on the purchase. The company pays taxes on its buildings over time (property tax - I do understand that this goes toward community services, but still another tax). It also pays taxes on its revenues (sales tax). It pays it's employees' wages (who pay all kinds of taxes out of that). Then, I make a profit (because the company has grown) and sell my stock. ALL of the gain in my stock has been taxable in one way or another (at least once to this point), yet I have to pay ANOTHER tax on that profit.

You are right. We aren't paying taxes twice.


Well with your logic, I pay income tax on my paycheck, then get taxed on that money when I use it to buy something (sales tax) and get taxed for owning property, so my money is taxed again for a property tax.

So... lets get rid of the income tax and just tax capital gains. Sound ok? Im all for only getting taxed once. Why not just tax capital gains, and not income? Im not taxed on my paycheck, but I get taxed when I sell stock or my house. ok?



Only if you adjust that gain for inflation. An example:

My parents bought their farm in the late 50's for $8,000. Today it is valued at $150,000. If they sold it they would pay capital gains on $142,000. Yet most of the increase in value was due to inflation.

Here is another example of why capital gains taxes make no sense.

If my company buys equipment for, let's say $100,000, then uses and depreciates it for 10 years and the value is now 0. I am interested in upgrading so I find out equipment to replace it is now $150,000. I can sell the old equipment for $50,000. Ok, it would make sense to sell my old epuipment and buy the new stuff. Nope, forgot that because my equipment was worth $0 I would have to pay capital gains on that $50,000. It no longer makes sense to buy new as long as my old works.

Top
#1238790 --- 12/09/10 07:58 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: cwjga]
tomwaits Offline
Member

Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 360
Loc: BetweenMud&FlintCreek


[/quote]


My parents bought their farm in the late 50's for $8,000. Today it is valued at $150,000. If they sold it they would pay capital gains on $142,000. Yet most of the increase in value was due to inflation.
[/quote]
I don't think there would be any tax on that farm
Individuals can exclude up to $250,000 in profit from the sale of a main home (or $500,000 for a married couple) as long as you have owned the home and lived in the home for a minimum of two years. Those two years do not need to be consecutive. In the 5 years prior to the sale of the house, you need to have lived in the house for at least 24 months in that 5-year period. In other words, the home must have been your principal residence

Top
#1238809 --- 12/09/10 09:31 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: cwjga]
Chosenspot Offline
Member

Registered: 01/05/10
Posts: 137
Loc: Penn Yan, New York
Originally Posted By: cwjga


Here is another example of why capital gains taxes make no sense.

If my company buys equipment for, let's say $100,000, then uses and depreciates it for 10 years and the value is now 0. I am interested in upgrading so I find out equipment to replace it is now $150,000. I can sell the old equipment for $50,000. Ok, it would make sense to sell my old epuipment and buy the new stuff. Nope, forgot that because my equipment was worth $0 I would have to pay capital gains on that $50,000. It no longer makes sense to buy new as long as my old works.


I think the logic for this is for depreciable assets, some of the gain may reflect the possibility that the property was depreciated too quickly. In this case if you had depreciated this equipment for 50,000 and sold it for 50,000 you wouldn't have any capital gains.

Top
#1238811 --- 12/09/10 09:33 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: tomwaits]
Zorn Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/06/06
Posts: 1376
Loc: ny
Your equipment isn't worth $0 just because you depreciated it on your books. Used equipment increases in value because of inflation too you know. If new equipment still cost $100K like it did the first time, your used equipment might be worth say.. 10% of its original value. That's $10K.

But now new equipment costs $150K, so the old equipment will sell for $15K (or at least, will sell for more than it did if new equip still only cost $100K). Through inflation you should be making more money too, because the price of the product you are selling has increased... unless of course your company exists in a country that breaks unions and encourages a high income gap and you end up with the bulk of your citizens having stagnant wages, then businesses find it hard to increase the sell price of their product because people just can't afford it... and it causes economic problems.

kind of like how the US is right now. \:\)

also:

"Why do we have a preference for capital gains in the first place? The main argument is that lower taxes on capital gains boost investment. But the evidence on that point is iffy at best, and there are better ways to spur investment, like, say, the investment tax credit. Besides, lower taxes on capital gains reduce the tax bills of the rich relative to the rest of us — after all, they own most of the capital. But in this age of hyper-inequality, shouldn’t we be making the tax code more progressive, not less?
A far more important objection is that the tax preference for capital gains undermines capitalism — a system in which capitalists, not the state, are supposed to make the investment decisions. When I discuss this issue with my Economics 101 students, I show them an example of a proposed investment that loses money before tax (and which, therefore, should be rejected) but which actually turns a profit after tax because of the preferentially low capital gains rate. (Accountants and tax lawyers live this example every day.) The government thus induces people to make bad investments."

Read more: http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/mar...x#ixzz17eWZ8ACk

Rich people run the country, is it any wonder you are parroting their arguments as to why you should reduce their tax burden?


Edited by Zorn (12/09/10 09:38 PM)
_________________________
"I guess I want smaller government and my Social Security". - Tea Party Member

Top
#1238926 --- 12/10/10 11:44 AM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Zorn]
cwjga Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 11/06/08
Posts: 12660
Loc: NY
Originally Posted By: Zorn
Your equipment isn't worth $0 just because you depreciated it on your books. Used equipment increases in value because of inflation too you know. If new equipment still cost $100K like it did the first time, your used equipment might be worth say.. 10% of its original value. That's $10K.

But now new equipment costs $150K, so the old equipment will sell for $15K (or at least, will sell for more than it did if new equip still only cost $100K). Through inflation you should be making more money too, because the price of the product you are selling has increased... unless of course your company exists in a country that breaks unions and encourages a high income gap and you end up with the bulk of your citizens having stagnant wages, then businesses find it hard to increase the sell price of their product because people just can't afford it... and it causes economic problems.

kind of like how the US is right now. \:\)

also:

"Why do we have a preference for capital gains in the first place? The main argument is that lower taxes on capital gains boost investment. But the evidence on that point is iffy at best, and there are better ways to spur investment, like, say, the investment tax credit. Besides, lower taxes on capital gains reduce the tax bills of the rich relative to the rest of us — after all, they own most of the capital. But in this age of hyper-inequality, shouldn’t we be making the tax code more progressive, not less?
A far more important objection is that the tax preference for capital gains undermines capitalism — a system in which capitalists, not the state, are supposed to make the investment decisions. When I discuss this issue with my Economics 101 students, I show them an example of a proposed investment that loses money before tax (and which, therefore, should be rejected) but which actually turns a profit after tax because of the preferentially low capital gains rate. (Accountants and tax lawyers live this example every day.) The government thus induces people to make bad investments."

Read more: http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/mar...x#ixzz17eWZ8ACk

Rich people run the country, is it any wonder you are parroting their arguments as to why you should reduce their tax burden?


Glad you are not running the country. Under your logic used equipment somehow gains value. And by selling equipment for $50,000, that I paid $100,000 for, I made a profit.

Must be that new math.

Top
#1238928 --- 12/10/10 11:46 AM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: tomwaits]
cwjga Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 11/06/08
Posts: 12660
Loc: NY
Originally Posted By: tomwaits





My parents bought their farm in the late 50's for $8,000. Today it is valued at $150,000. If they sold it they would pay capital gains on $142,000. Yet most of the increase in value was due to inflation.
[/quote]
I don't think there would be any tax on that farm
Individuals can exclude up to $250,000 in profit from the sale of a main home (or $500,000 for a married couple) as long as you have owned the home and lived in the home for a minimum of two years. Those two years do not need to be consecutive. In the 5 years prior to the sale of the house, you need to have lived in the house for at least 24 months in that 5-year period. In other words, the home must have been your principal residence [/quote]

Glad to know the farm is now a home. Could you plese call the IRS and let them know that.

Top
#1238960 --- 12/10/10 01:35 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: cwjga]
tomwaits Offline
Member

Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 360
Loc: BetweenMud&FlintCreek
Guess i assumed that farm also included their home .
Property not used as a residence would be taxed .

Individuals can exclude up to $250,000 in profit from the sale of a main home (or $500,000 for a married couple) as long as you have owned the home and lived in the home for a minimum of two years

Top
#1239016 --- 12/10/10 05:33 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Zorn]
sands Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/05/05
Posts: 8255
Loc: NY
Originally Posted By: Zorn
I hope to convince the govt to take from some neighbors and give to others.



"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it." --Thomas Jefferson


You must be right, what does Thomas Jefferson know about freedom?
_________________________
01 - 20 - 2017

Top
#1239035 --- 12/10/10 06:12 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Ranger]
Here's Johnny Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 11/14/10
Posts: 854
Loc: New York
Originally Posted By: Ranger
I'd be a bit more concerned with the Fed bailing out Europe to the tune 3.3 trillion

3.3 Trillion Bail Out to Europe...


It is sad that there are news stories about the bail out mega bucks going to European banks. Sad because that was common knowledge at the time and most paid little attention to it in the glow of the election of the messiah to office as President. All people saw was a free ride for everyone with bail outs galore. It was not so then, it will not be so now. People need to be aware!




A major chunk of the bail out money went overseas to keep European banks afloat and while some argue this helps America, it is just not the truth.
The USA provided, 3.3 TRILLION in credit to those banks from the Federal Reserve, which some people STILL fail to realize is a NOT a federal agency at all but a private institution controlling much of the US money policies.
The bailed out institutions of Wall Street, big banks and European banks are the ones who caused the financial crisis. Americans were not bailed out of anything and lost much as a result. The American public will shoulder this debt that benefited them not at all.
The "too big to fail" idea is one foisted on the public by the Federal Reserve.


A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is privately concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men ... We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated, governments in the civilized world—no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and the duress of small groups of dominant men. (Woodrow Wilson)

Wilson signed the Fed into existence in 1913 and they have "debauched" the currency of the US on a steady ongoing basis.
As John Maynard Keynes stated,

“There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic laws on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one in a million is able to diagnose.”


One can note that men like Soros and the Wall street boys have actually changed our society. In fact Soros himself has brought down a few nations in just that way!
Our founding fathers all warned of the dangers of a central private bank creating money by fiat. It would lead to the downfall of the nation. Money talks my friends and those who control the money , control the nations.
Wilson was right, the creation of the Federal Reserve was a huge mistake.
The fact is these private bankers are not concerned with the welfare of the nations to any extent at all except as those nations make money for them. They, like George Soros etc, view nations and their populations as get rich quick schemes. It is all about lining the pockets and line them is exactly what these men do. They live off the people who are left lean and starving while they live sumptuous lives of greed.

You can read more about these massive amounts given away at the Financial Times.

And more about this colossal rip off of the American people at the Washington Post and HERE

Always look at what the other hand is doing while they keep you occupied with some other nonsense.


Also consider how the funds of the few are used to help keep the re-election campaigns of our politicians well financed. Even a decent person, which for the most part most of those who run for office initially are, gets corrupted. As a result we have what we have now.
It's quite sad how solid economic planning has been supplanted. The disolution of the middle class at the hands of our government. It would be one thing to allow the tax cut and make the deal on unemployment insurance, but we can't go on borrowing all this money. The gov't already borrows 41 cents of every dollar it spends. C'mon. The only thing that is trickling down is the blood from the knife that has been stuck in our back.
The saddest thing of all is that there is so much waste and duplication of services in all areas of government. If you could find some way to really look at improving the services we need and eliminating the ones we don't a lot of money could be saved. Of course what with the various entities all only looking out for their own self interests it would be a daunting if not impossible task.
I had a conversation with a person who works as an itinerant auditor for the state the other day. She usually puts around 150,000 miles on her car as she travels to meet the people and businesses she is checking on. Considering the IRS rate on mileage there's a very tidy sum indeed. And this is in addition to what she makes in salary, and insurance, and benefits.
She got talking about how "bad" things are and she felt very strongly that the gov't bail out of General Motors was a bad idea. Government Motors she sneered. But I said that the money they borrowed has been paid back. Doesn't matter she says. Okay there you go. One person with a huge fat sweet set up in State Government who doesn't want to see a huge manufacturing company survive. Never mind that manufacturing is the best way to provide jobs and sustain growth. I asked how many people work in her department (Western NYS). Thirty she said. Five secretaries,fourteen auditors, and SIX SUPERVISORS! "Oh", I said, "that seems like an awful lot of waste." She shrugged.
As long as she gets sweet deal, what does she really care anyway? Think of all the stuff like this that could be changed if we only had people with the fortitude to do it.

Top
#1239047 --- 12/10/10 07:18 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Here's Johnny]
citydog Offline
Member

Registered: 08/29/10
Posts: 383
Loc: Ontario County
I'm not disputing what your friend told you, but some of the numbers don't make much sense. For example, she says she travels only in NY state, and travels 150,000 miles a year. There are only 252 work days in a year (52 weeks x 5 days/week, minus 8 holidays). So even if she never took a day off, she'd have to travel an average of 595 miles a day (any time off and the average would be higher). Averaging 55 miles an hour, that's over ten hours a day driving (I hope she's not averaging 55mph in any cities). When does she audit anything?
_________________________
Who let the dogs out

Top
#1239054 --- 12/10/10 08:30 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: citydog]
Here's Johnny Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 11/14/10
Posts: 854
Loc: New York
Good point, and I am merely repeating what she said. Must be she exaggerated. Thanks for the reality check! I certainly try to keep it real on here, believe it or not.

Top
#1239063 --- 12/10/10 09:07 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: sands]
Zorn Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/06/06
Posts: 1376
Loc: ny
Originally Posted By: sands
Originally Posted By: Zorn
I hope to convince the govt to take from some neighbors and give to others.



"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it." --Thomas Jefferson


You must be right, what does Thomas Jefferson know about freedom?


True, coming from someone who owned slaves... I'm sure he really knows how Freedom works.

Again, the original Constitution did not allow non-land owners to vote. How's that for 'freedom'? Rich people always talk about how evil it is to take from one person and give to another, and then people LIKE JEFFERSON set up governments that only allow people who own land to vote. Blacks, servants, women... no votes for you!

Please, PLEASE tell me again how we should follow their ideas without question!
_________________________
"I guess I want smaller government and my Social Security". - Tea Party Member

Top
#1239064 --- 12/10/10 09:11 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Zorn]
Zorn Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/06/06
Posts: 1376
Loc: ny
Also, FA Hayek, Milton Friedman (famous liberarian, nobel prize winning economists) among others espouse a basic income grant or minimum wage (not our own minimum wage, a much higher one).

So I will see your slave owner and raise you two famous libertarian nobel prize winning economists, who also championed liberty and freedom.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income_guarantee
_________________________
"I guess I want smaller government and my Social Security". - Tea Party Member

Top
#1239078 --- 12/10/10 10:17 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: kyle585]
sands Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/05/05
Posts: 8255
Loc: NY
Originally Posted By: kyle585
Happy days are here again!



Most Americans Say They’re Worse Off Under Obama, Poll Shows

By Rich Miller - Dec 9, 2010 12:00 AM ET

Dec. 9 (Bloomberg) -- More than 50 percent of Americans say they are worse off now than they were two years ago when President Barack Obama took office, and two-thirds believe the country is headed in the wrong direction, a Bloomberg National Poll shows.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-09...poll-shows.html
_________________________
01 - 20 - 2017

Top
#1239086 --- 12/10/10 11:43 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: sands]
Zorn Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/06/06
Posts: 1376
Loc: ny
Wow, what a revelation. Considering the worst economic crash happened just as he took office, I would say people are definitely worse off.

In 2001, after 9/11, people were worse off than they were when Bush took office (big stock market crash, economy in a slump due to attacks). Does that mean Bush was the reason for the problem?
_________________________
"I guess I want smaller government and my Social Security". - Tea Party Member

Top
#1239089 --- 12/10/10 11:51 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Zorn]
kimmer Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/26/07
Posts: 1403
Loc: here,there and back again
Did anyone really believe that just because a new president took office everything wrong would be magically corrected quickly? I don't care who had won the last election, things would have still continued to tank. How do we expect anything to get better when no one can even name the real reason for all the turmoil in the economy?


Edited by kimmer (12/10/10 11:52 PM)
_________________________
Why is it so hard for some to properly use your and you're??

Top
#1239211 --- 12/11/10 06:10 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: kimmer]
alummule Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 01/23/07
Posts: 622
Loc: yes
Yes Kimmer Just left Manchester McDonalds where the only station played is always Fox . Yes they really believe that just because a new president took office everything wrong should have been magically corrected .

Top
#1239214 --- 12/11/10 06:16 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: kimmer]
Harleybobb Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/21/10
Posts: 4061
Loc: Walloon Freedom Fighter
Originally Posted By: kimmer
Did anyone really believe that just because a new president took office everything wrong would be magically corrected quickly? I don't care who had won the last election, things would have still continued to tank. How do we expect anything to get better when no one can even name the real reason for all the turmoil in the economy?

You mean too tell me that the Hopey-Changey thing The Antichrist President Barack Hussein Obama II was spewing is a line of crap?
_________________________
Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you *keep* it a *secret*!

Top
#1239215 --- 12/11/10 06:24 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: alummule]
Harleybobb Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/21/10
Posts: 4061
Loc: Walloon Freedom Fighter
Originally Posted By: alummule
Yes Kimmer Just left Manchester McDonalds where the only station played is always Fox . Yes they really believe that just because a new president took office everything wrong should have been magically corrected .
Yes sir McDonald's is some gooooooooooood eatin'! Do you super-size your meals?
_________________________
Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you *keep* it a *secret*!

Top
#1239243 --- 12/11/10 10:11 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Harleybobb]
Ranger Offline
Diamond Member

Registered: 10/23/00
Posts: 25141
Loc: GOD's 1/2 acre
When government takes control of all aspects of life, and entitlements become the norm, you have a future view of the USA by looking to Europe. Take a realistic look at what's happening there, and then ask yourself if you want that for us. We need to get out house in order, or we will be another Europe. We still have a chance to prevent what's happening there, from happening here. But we will have to make some hard choices, and soon. This is our moment in history, will we rise to it? Will we take responsibility for our actions, and do the right thing?
_________________________
TRUTH HAS NO AGENDA

Top
#1239253 --- 12/12/10 12:29 AM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Ranger]
sands Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/05/05
Posts: 8255
Loc: NY
Let's see, what has Obama accomplished in his two years in office? Oh yea...




_________________________
01 - 20 - 2017

Top
#1239267 --- 12/12/10 02:11 AM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Ranger]
Zorn Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/06/06
Posts: 1376
Loc: ny
Originally Posted By: Ranger
When government takes control of all aspects of life, and entitlements become the norm, you have a future view of the USA by looking to Europe. Take a realistic look at what's happening there, and then ask yourself if you want that for us. We need to get out house in order, or we will be another Europe. We still have a chance to prevent what's happening there, from happening here. But we will have to make some hard choices, and soon. This is our moment in history, will we rise to it? Will we take responsibility for our actions, and do the right thing?


You mean where everyone gets healthcare, many countries offer free tuition to all citizens and people average 4 times the vacation time that we do? Where husbands get paid paternity leave by law? That Europe?

This is our moment in history? Are you kidding me?

Here is your 'take responsibility' candidate for you:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/11/nyregion/11nassau.html?_r=1

Tea Party candidate wins and... lowers taxes but does not cut spending. Hmm, sounds like every Republican president I can remember. And now Nassau county is in big trouble. It blows my mind that you people still vote Republican, they NEVER cut spending!
_________________________
"I guess I want smaller government and my Social Security". - Tea Party Member

Top
#1239289 --- 12/12/10 03:59 AM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Zorn]
Harleybobb Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/21/10
Posts: 4061
Loc: Walloon Freedom Fighter
Originally Posted By: Zorn
Originally Posted By: Ranger
When government takes control of all aspects of life, and entitlements become the norm, you have a future view of the USA by looking to Europe. Take a realistic look at what's happening there, and then ask yourself if you want that for us. We need to get out house in order, or we will be another Europe. We still have a chance to prevent what's happening there, from happening here. But we will have to make some hard choices, and soon. This is our moment in history, will we rise to it? Will we take responsibility for our actions, and do the right thing?


You mean where everyone gets healthcare, many countries offer free tuition to all citizens and people average 4 times the vacation time that we do? Where husbands get paid paternity leave by law? That Europe?

This is our moment in history? Are you kidding me?

Here is your 'take responsibility' candidate for you:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/11/nyregion/11nassau.html?_r=1

Tea Party candidate wins and... lowers taxes but does not cut spending. Hmm, sounds like every Republican president I can remember. And now Nassau county is in big trouble. It blows my mind that you people still vote Republican, they NEVER cut spending!

Yep, life is good in Greece...free everything!
And the Republicans, may never cut spending and you'll never stop being a freeloader!
_________________________
Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you *keep* it a *secret*!

Top
#1239325 --- 12/12/10 01:08 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Harleybobb]
Harleybobb Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/21/10
Posts: 4061
Loc: Walloon Freedom Fighter
Originally Posted By: Harleybobb
Originally Posted By: Zorn
Originally Posted By: Ranger
When government takes control of all aspects of life, and entitlements become the norm, you have a future view of the USA by looking to Europe. Take a realistic look at what's happening there, and then ask yourself if you want that for us. We need to get out house in order, or we will be another Europe. We still have a chance to prevent what's happening there, from happening here. But we will have to make some hard choices, and soon. This is our moment in history, will we rise to it? Will we take responsibility for our actions, and do the right thing?


You mean where everyone gets healthcare, many countries offer free tuition to all citizens and people average 4 times the vacation time that we do? Where husbands get paid paternity leave by law? That Europe?

This is our moment in history? Are you kidding me?

Here is your 'take responsibility' candidate for you:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/11/nyregion/11nassau.html?_r=1

Tea Party candidate wins and... lowers taxes but does not cut spending. Hmm, sounds like every Republican president I can remember. And now Nassau county is in big trouble. It blows my mind that you people still vote Republican, they NEVER cut spending!

Yep, life is good in Greece...free everything!
And the Republicans, may never cut spending and you'll never stop being a freeloader!



Zorn the free life is good fact sheet on European tax rates!

Subject: Current European tax rates - America next?


Take a look at these current European tax rates and ask yourself, is America next? Read the text below the table and be scared.

Current European tax rates:

United Kingdom
Income Tax: 50% VAT: 17.5% TOTAL: 67.5%

Germany
Income Tax: 45% VAT: 19% TOTAL: 64%

France
Income Tax: 40% VAT: 19.6% TOTAL: 59.6%

Greece
Income Tax: 40% VAT: 25% TOTAL: 65%

Spain
Income Tax: 45% VAT: 16% TOTAL: 61%

Portugal
Income Tax: 42% VAT: 20% TOTAL: 62%

Sweden
Income Tax: 55% VAT: 25% TOTAL: 80%

Norway
Income Tax: 54.3% VAT: 25% TOTAL: 79.3%

Netherlands
Income Tax: 52% VAT: 19% TOTAL: 71%

Denmark
Income Tax: 58% VAT: 25% TOTAL: 83%

Finland
Income Tax: 53% VAT: 22% TOTAL: 75%


If you've started to wonder what the real costs of "socialism" are going to be, once the full program in these United States hits your wallet, take a look at the table. As you digest these mind-boggling figures, keep in mind that in spite of these astronomical tax rates, these countries are still not financing their social welfare programs exclusively from tax revenues!

They are deeply mired in public debt of gargantuan proportions. Greece has reached the point where its debt is so huge it is in imminent danger of defaulting. That is the reason the European economic community has intervened to bail them out. If you're following the financial news, you know Spain and Portugal are right behind Greece.


PS: If you want the source zorn...tough!
I might kick in 50 bucks for a plane ticket if you want to move to Greece.
_________________________
Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you *keep* it a *secret*!

Top
#1239346 --- 12/12/10 01:40 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Harleybobb]
Zorn Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/06/06
Posts: 1376
Loc: ny
Ahh, HArley attempts to provide evidence and stops trolling for a post! Awesome. Lets look at this.

I see Finland, Sweden and Norway all below the US in their debt as a % of GDP

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

These are all very 'socialist' countries. I do see France and Germany ahead of the US. Since not all socialist countries are in more debt than the US, could it be that their debt does not relate to their social programs?

Because you pointed it out... they have high taxes. My wife and I have paid over $50,000 in day care costs for two kids, and we aren't done yet.

If we lived in Germany, our cost would be... about $8k. The daycare there is of a higher quality there too, want to know why? Because the govt uses tax money to subsidize it, so the salaries of daycare providers is higher there. Will someone here in the US get a 4 year degree in child care to make $8-9 an hour?

Germany also... has NO ONE without health care, and every family can send their kid to college at no *extra* cost to them. You don't care about this, but do you realize how many kids graduating high school today are looking at starting life with $200K in debt?

The reality is that they pay more in taxes, but no one goes bankrupt over a medical bill, no one sends their kid to work at walmart because they cant afford to borrow for their college tuition. They pay more in taxes but SAVE money because of it. They have less in their paycheck, but SAVE on tuition, child care, health care, etc.

Now think about who benefits from this? if I had to pay more in taxes but got cheap child care, free health care, free tuition... I would be better off. But would bill gates be better off, when he is paying 60% of his income to the govt? This is why all but a few of the super rich fight higher taxes and social programs - they pay a lot more but don't get much in return, even though it means people in the US can't go to the doctor.
_________________________
"I guess I want smaller government and my Social Security". - Tea Party Member

Top
#1239349 --- 12/12/10 01:49 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Zorn]
Ranger Offline
Diamond Member

Registered: 10/23/00
Posts: 25141
Loc: GOD's 1/2 acre
Originally Posted By: Zorn
Originally Posted By: Ranger
When government takes control of all aspects of life, and entitlements become the norm, you have a future view of the USA by looking to Europe. Take a realistic look at what's happening there, and then ask yourself if you want that for us. We need to get out house in order, or we will be another Europe. We still have a chance to prevent what's happening there, from happening here. But we will have to make some hard choices, and soon. This is our moment in history, will we rise to it? Will we take responsibility for our actions, and do the right thing?


You mean where everyone gets healthcare, many countries offer free tuition to all citizens and people average 4 times the vacation time that we do? Where husbands get paid paternity leave by law? That Europe?

This is our moment in history? Are you kidding me?

Here is your 'take responsibility' candidate for you:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/11/nyregion/11nassau.html?_r=1

Tea Party candidate wins and... lowers taxes but does not cut spending. Hmm, sounds like every Republican president I can remember. And now Nassau county is in big trouble. It blows my mind that you people still vote Republican, they NEVER cut spending!


And the Democrats DO \:o How much has the deficit gone up since Obama has been in office?

When are you going to figure out there really is no difference between the parties, and stop pitting one side against another. There has to be a perpetrator and a victim with you.

We are all "victims" of our government! Our government has so perverted itself, it's hardly recognizable any more. We need to go back to the beginning and start over. We need to get government out of our lives, and govern ourselves. Not some elite class that thinks it knows what's best for us. We should have the ability to take care of our own. We don't need big Brother taking care of us. Our government must be on a more local level to meet the needs of the citizens. Give States back control. The Federal government has just compounded our problems since they have taken control away from the States. They are trying to control everything, instead of doing what they are supposed to do.
_________________________
TRUTH HAS NO AGENDA

Top
#1239352 --- 12/12/10 01:50 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Zorn]
Chosenspot Offline
Member

Registered: 01/05/10
Posts: 137
Loc: Penn Yan, New York
Compare our bloated 700 billion dollar plus military budget to any of these countries or all of them combined. None of our politicans or even folks on this forum talk about cuts in that budget.

Top
#1239358 --- 12/12/10 02:27 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Chosenspot]
tomwaits Offline
Member

Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 360
Loc: BetweenMud&FlintCreek

Top
#1239364 --- 12/12/10 02:54 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Chosenspot]
Ranger Offline
Diamond Member

Registered: 10/23/00
Posts: 25141
Loc: GOD's 1/2 acre
Originally Posted By: Chosenspot
Compare our bloated 700 billion dollar plus military budget to any of these countries or all of them combined. None of our politicans or even folks on this forum talk about cuts in that budget.


There isn't a budget or a program that shouldn't or couldn't be cut.
_________________________
TRUTH HAS NO AGENDA

Top
#1239379 --- 12/12/10 03:36 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Zorn]
twocats Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 02/10/10
Posts: 11904
Loc: NYS
Originally Posted By: Zorn
Ahh, HArley attempts to provide evidence and stops trolling for a post! Awesome. Lets look at this.

I see Finland, Sweden and Norway all below the US in their debt as a % of GDP

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

These are all very 'socialist' countries. I do see France and Germany ahead of the US. Since not all socialist countries are in more debt than the US, could it be that their debt does not relate to their social programs?

Because you pointed it out... they have high taxes. My wife and I have paid over $50,000 in day care costs for two kids, and we aren't done yet.

If we lived in Germany, our cost would be... about $8k. The daycare there is of a higher quality there too, want to know why? Because the govt uses tax money to subsidize it, so the salaries of daycare providers is higher there. Will someone here in the US get a 4 year degree in child care to make $8-9 an hour?

Germany also... has NO ONE without health care, and every family can send their kid to college at no *extra* cost to them. You don't care about this, but do you realize how many kids graduating high school today are looking at starting life with $200K in debt?

The reality is that they pay more in taxes, but no one goes bankrupt over a medical bill, no one sends their kid to work at walmart because they cant afford to borrow for their college tuition. They pay more in taxes but SAVE money because of it. They have less in their paycheck, but SAVE on tuition, child care, health care, etc.

Now think about who benefits from this? if I had to pay more in taxes but got cheap child care, free health care, free tuition... I would be better off. But would bill gates be better off, when he is paying 60% of his income to the govt? This is why all but a few of the super rich fight higher taxes and social programs - they pay a lot more but don't get much in return, even though it means people in the US can't go to the doctor.


THIS is what most people don't understand. I wish this could be posted EVERY day! Higher tax rate, lower debt, more education and child care and heath care for the MAJORITY of Americans.
_________________________
Humanity is an ocean; if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty.

Top
#1239388 --- 12/12/10 03:59 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: alummule]
kimmer Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/26/07
Posts: 1403
Loc: here,there and back again
Originally Posted By: alummule
Yes Kimmer Just left Manchester McDonalds where the only station played is always Fox . Yes they really believe that just because a new president took office everything wrong should have been magically corrected .


Manchester has a McDonalds? With a TV? With cable? but only one channel? and it's Fox "news"? How did you find this magical place?
_________________________
Why is it so hard for some to properly use your and you're??

Top
#1239389 --- 12/12/10 04:01 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Harleybobb]
kimmer Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/26/07
Posts: 1403
Loc: here,there and back again
Originally Posted By: Harleybobb
Originally Posted By: kimmer
Did anyone really believe that just because a new president took office everything wrong would be magically corrected quickly? I don't care who had won the last election, things would have still continued to tank. How do we expect anything to get better when no one can even name the real reason for all the turmoil in the economy?

You mean too tell me that the Hopey-Changey thing The Antichrist President Barack Hussein Obama II was spewing is a line of crap?


They all spew crap and you know it.
_________________________
Why is it so hard for some to properly use your and you're??

Top
#1239399 --- 12/12/10 04:51 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: kimmer]
alummule Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 01/23/07
Posts: 622
Loc: yes
Gotta take the good with the bad most do offer free Internet connection.
http://www.mcdonalds.com/content/us/en/restaurant_locator/restaurant_locationsresults.html?
McDonalds responce
http://foxnewsboycott.com/fox-news/boycott-response-from-mcdonalds/
country=usa&method=search&primaryCity=14504&postalCode=14504
Originally Posted By: kimmer
Originally Posted By: alummule
Yes Kimmer Just left Manchester McDonalds where the only station played is always Fox . Yes they really believe that just because a new president took office everything wrong should have been magically corrected .


Manchester has a McDonalds? With a TV? With cable? but only one channel? and it's Fox "news"? How did you find this magical place?

Top
#1239521 --- 12/13/10 02:27 AM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Zorn]
sands Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/05/05
Posts: 8255
Loc: NY
Originally Posted By: Zorn
Milton Friedman (famous liberarian, nobel prize winning economists) among others espouse a basic income grant or minimum wage (not our own minimum wage, a much higher one).

So I will see your slave owner and raise you two famous libertarian nobel prize winning economists, who also championed liberty and freedom.


What's a "liberarian"?

Milton Friedman was a big fan of giving tax money to the government...Ha!

"If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in five years there’d be a shortage of sand.” - Milton Friedman




Sorry if I called your bluff...

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." - Thomas Jefferson

"It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world." - Thomas Jefferson

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." - Thomas Jefferson

"My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government." - Thomas Jefferson
_________________________
01 - 20 - 2017

Top
#1239595 --- 12/13/10 02:13 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: sands]
Zorn Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/06/06
Posts: 1376
Loc: ny
That quote means Friedman felt the govt was wasteful. How does it show he is not a proponent of free market capitalism?

Also, good catch on my spelling mistake! I hope I can bear the shame. I don't have to worry about catching you and the other neo-cons here in grammar or spelling mistakes... all you do is copy and paste quotes from the Founding Fathers or full articles from some right wing blogger.

But lets go down this road, what would you have the govt do? National defense of course, what else?
_________________________
"I guess I want smaller government and my Social Security". - Tea Party Member

Top
#1239672 --- 12/13/10 11:51 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Zorn]
sands Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/05/05
Posts: 8255
Loc: NY
Originally Posted By: Zorn
But lets go down this road, what would you have the govt do? National defense of course, what else?



Which level of government? Local, state or Federal?

P.S. It's "let's"
_________________________
01 - 20 - 2017

Top
#1239679 --- 12/14/10 12:23 AM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: sands]
Here's Johnny Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 11/14/10
Posts: 854
Loc: New York
Roads, police and fire protection, education, help for the truly indigent would be things that are worth spending taxes on.
But no more grants or earmarks. Trim a decent percentage from everything. Let's try to do that.

Top
#1239686 --- 12/14/10 12:48 AM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: sands]
Zorn Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/06/06
Posts: 1376
Loc: ny
Originally Posted By: sands
Originally Posted By: Zorn
But lets go down this road, what would you have the govt do? National defense of course, what else?



Which level of government? Local, state or Federal?

P.S. It's "let's"


Wow you must be a riot at parties.

Anyway, your Jefferson quotes do not differentiate between local state or federal. (OMG I FORGOT COMMAS!) Now it depends on what level? Can you provide a Jefferson quote to back this up?
_________________________
"I guess I want smaller government and my Social Security". - Tea Party Member

Top
#1239687 --- 12/14/10 12:50 AM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Here's Johnny]
Zorn Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/06/06
Posts: 1376
Loc: ny
Originally Posted By: Here's Johnny
Roads, police and fire protection, education, help for the truly indigent would be things that are worth spending taxes on.
But no more grants or earmarks. Trim a decent percentage from everything. Let's try to do that.


Obviously no social programs then. Protect people from fire, but not their health. Got it. No EPA? What about labor laws? Zoning laws? These all restrict Liberty you know.
_________________________
"I guess I want smaller government and my Social Security". - Tea Party Member

Top
#1239697 --- 12/14/10 01:08 AM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Zorn]
sands Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/05/05
Posts: 8255
Loc: NY
Originally Posted By: Zorn
Now it depends on what level? Can you provide a Jefferson quote to back this up?



Close. Article I, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.
_________________________
01 - 20 - 2017

Top
#1239714 --- 12/14/10 02:17 AM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Zorn]
Here's Johnny Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 11/14/10
Posts: 854
Loc: New York
Originally Posted By: Zorn
Originally Posted By: Here's Johnny
Roads, police and fire protection, education, help for the truly indigent would be things that are worth spending taxes on.
But no more grants or earmarks. Trim a decent percentage from everything. Let's try to do that.


Obviously no social programs then. Protect people from fire, but not their health. Got it. No EPA? What about labor laws? Zoning laws? These all restrict Liberty you know.


I am open to have other things included. All that has to happen is that we can pay for it all without borrowing the tons of money that we do now. And if I could, although I don't know if it could happen, I would shut down the war machine at the Pentagon.


Edited by Here's Johnny (12/14/10 02:18 AM)

Top
#1239752 --- 12/14/10 09:44 AM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Zorn]
Harleybobb Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/21/10
Posts: 4061
Loc: Walloon Freedom Fighter
Originally Posted By: Zorn
Originally Posted By: Here's Johnny
Roads, police and fire protection, education, help for the truly indigent would be things that are worth spending taxes on.
But no more grants or earmarks. Trim a decent percentage from everything. Let's try to do that.


Obviously no social programs then. Protect people from fire, but not their health. Got it. No EPA? What about labor laws? Zoning laws? These all restrict Liberty you know.
Ahahahahahaha... no free rides for you zorn.
_________________________
Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you *keep* it a *secret*!

Top
#1239754 --- 12/14/10 09:50 AM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Here's Johnny]
Harleybobb Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/21/10
Posts: 4061
Loc: Walloon Freedom Fighter
Originally Posted By: Here's Johnny
Originally Posted By: Zorn
Originally Posted By: Here's Johnny
Roads, police and fire protection, education, help for the truly indigent would be things that are worth spending taxes on.
But no more grants or earmarks. Trim a decent percentage from everything. Let's try to do that.


Obviously no social programs then. Protect people from fire, but not their health. Got it. No EPA? What about labor laws? Zoning laws? These all restrict Liberty you know.


I am open to have other things included. All that has to happen is that we can pay for it all without borrowing the tons of money that we do now. And if I could, although I don't know if it could happen, I would shut down the war machine at the Pentagon.

you'd crash this countries economy if you did that.
_________________________
Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you *keep* it a *secret*!

Top
#1239787 --- 12/14/10 10:56 AM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Here's Johnny]
Zorn Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/06/06
Posts: 1376
Loc: ny
Originally Posted By: Here's Johnny
Originally Posted By: Zorn
Originally Posted By: Here's Johnny
Roads, police and fire protection, education, help for the truly indigent would be things that are worth spending taxes on.
But no more grants or earmarks. Trim a decent percentage from everything. Let's try to do that.


Obviously no social programs then. Protect people from fire, but not their health. Got it. No EPA? What about labor laws? Zoning laws? These all restrict Liberty you know.


I am open to have other things included. All that has to happen is that we can pay for it all without borrowing the tons of money that we do now. And if I could, although I don't know if it could happen, I would shut down the war machine at the Pentagon.


So you aren't anti government, just anti debt, which makes sense. Some debt is ok I think. What we should be doing is having budget surpluses during boom times, and then borrow if necessary during lean times.

Cutting the defense budget in half would go a long way in stopping our borrowing.
_________________________
"I guess I want smaller government and my Social Security". - Tea Party Member

Top
#1239861 --- 12/14/10 06:19 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Zorn]
cwjga Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 11/06/08
Posts: 12660
Loc: NY
Originally Posted By: Zorn
Originally Posted By: Here's Johnny
Roads, police and fire protection, education, help for the truly indigent would be things that are worth spending taxes on.But no more grants or earmarks. Trim a decent percentage from everything. Let's try to do that.


Obviously no social programs then. Protect people from fire, but not their health. Got it. No EPA? What about labor laws? Zoning laws? These all restrict Liberty you know.


Here is your problem Zorn, it is pretty obvious that you either can not read or choose not to, unless of course it agrees with your lunacy. I highlighted in red the part you should have read before making another stupid comment.

Top
#1240030 --- 12/15/10 10:36 AM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Zorn]
Ranger Offline
Diamond Member

Registered: 10/23/00
Posts: 25141
Loc: GOD's 1/2 acre
You should be really happy with Harry Reid's new Ominibus Budget, 1900+ pages, that no one has seen, and they have to pass it by Saturday, shades of Obamacare
_________________________
TRUTH HAS NO AGENDA

Top
#1240036 --- 12/15/10 10:54 AM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: cwjga]
Zorn Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/06/06
Posts: 1376
Loc: ny
Originally Posted By: cwjga
Originally Posted By: Zorn
Originally Posted By: Here's Johnny
Roads, police and fire protection, education, help for the truly indigent would be things that are worth spending taxes on.But no more grants or earmarks. Trim a decent percentage from everything. Let's try to do that.


Obviously no social programs then. Protect people from fire, but not their health. Got it. No EPA? What about labor laws? Zoning laws? These all restrict Liberty you know.


Here is your problem Zorn, it is pretty obvious that you either can not read or choose not to, unless of course it agrees with your lunacy. I highlighted in red the part you should have read before making another stupid comment.


Yep I missed that, I have to post fast... some of us work you know.
_________________________
"I guess I want smaller government and my Social Security". - Tea Party Member

Top
#1240037 --- 12/15/10 10:55 AM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Ranger]
Zorn Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/06/06
Posts: 1376
Loc: ny
Originally Posted By: Ranger
You should be really happy with Harry Reid's new Ominibus Budget, 1900+ pages, that no one has seen, and they have to pass it by Saturday, shades of Obamacare


Yes democrats suck too, they are just the lesser evil. I don't make excuses for them like you guys protect the Republicans. Just read this thread. Republicans suck, but you guys make excuses or try to change the subject.
_________________________
"I guess I want smaller government and my Social Security". - Tea Party Member

Top
#1240041 --- 12/15/10 11:43 AM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Zorn]
Ranger Offline
Diamond Member

Registered: 10/23/00
Posts: 25141
Loc: GOD's 1/2 acre
So you think that taking more of your income for anything and every thing, and controlling every aspect of your life is the lesser of 2 evils



mmmmmmmmmmmmm OK
_________________________
TRUTH HAS NO AGENDA

Top
#1240047 --- 12/15/10 12:23 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Zorn]
twocats Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 02/10/10
Posts: 11904
Loc: NYS
Cutting the defense budget in half would go a long way in stopping our borrowing.

Yup.

It's never even CONSIDERED by either party.
_________________________
Humanity is an ocean; if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty.

Top
#1240087 --- 12/15/10 03:10 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Zorn]
cwjga Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 11/06/08
Posts: 12660
Loc: NY
Someone needs to explain how leaving the tax rates the same as they have been for 10 years is adding to the deficit.

Top
#1240112 --- 12/15/10 05:34 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: cwjga]
Greymane Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 11/09/06
Posts: 6848
Loc: Central PA
Zorn, you seem to think that if we stop paying for the bloated and inefficient programs of the federal government. Every one of these departments and programs is duplicated at the state level. Why not remove the top level and let the states handle these things? For one, it will reduce national mandates that largely don't apply to many states. Second, it would greatly reduce the red tape.
_________________________
Against logic there is no armor like ignorance. - Dr. Lawrence J. Peter

Top
#1240521 --- 12/17/10 10:32 AM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Greymane]
kyle585 Offline
Gold Member

Registered: 02/18/09
Posts: 19801
Loc: Somewhere out there
It's a great time to be rich

If the tax cuts become law, the next two years will be the best in living memory for many wealthy Americans to shield their income and fortunes

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40701302/ns/business/

A bonanza of new and extended tax benefits could make it as easy as ever for the rich to stay that way.

Under legislation approved by the U.S. Senate on Wednesday, and now moving on to the House, savvy wealthy Americans would be able to capitalize on an environment in which their tax rates on income and investments remain at historic lows. Also, new rules would make it possible to pass on fortunes to heirs with less fuss and lower taxes than all but a brief period of the past 80 years.
_________________________
**** ATTENTION! BAD POLITICIANS ARE ELECTED BY GOOD PEOPLE WHO DON'T VOTE! ****

Top
#1240588 --- 12/17/10 06:55 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: kyle585]
sands Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/05/05
Posts: 8255
Loc: NY
Originally Posted By: kyle585
Also, new rules would make it possible to pass on fortunes to heirs with less fuss and lower taxes than all but a brief period of the past 80 years.



In the interest of full disclosure, fortunes = less than $5 million dollars.
_________________________
01 - 20 - 2017

Top
#1240632 --- 12/17/10 11:03 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: kyle585]
kimmer Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/26/07
Posts: 1403
Loc: here,there and back again
They deserve to keep more income, don't you know they are the job creators. LOL! Keep up the good work "creators"!


Edited by kimmer (12/17/10 11:04 PM)
_________________________
Why is it so hard for some to properly use your and you're??

Top
#1240634 --- 12/17/10 11:14 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: kimmer]
twocats Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 02/10/10
Posts: 11904
Loc: NYS
Absolutely! They work harder than the rest of us too!
_________________________
Humanity is an ocean; if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty.

Top
#1240679 --- 12/18/10 11:36 AM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: twocats]
Ranger Offline
Diamond Member

Registered: 10/23/00
Posts: 25141
Loc: GOD's 1/2 acre
Sounds as tho you are a bit jealous, maybe even envious, because someone is better off than you. And because of that, their families deserve somehow to be double taxed to make it more fair for you. The family farmer whose farm has been in the family for generations, and whose wealth is tied up in land, somehow, deserves to have to sell off property to satisfy your idea that they are wealthy. Not everyone has 5 million laying around in cash. Their wealth may be tied up in property, equipment, inventory. They may be businessmen, farmers, shopkeepers any type of family owned businesses. You want them to possibly shut down their operations and lay off people just to satisfy your need to make them pay because of some arbitrary amount of so-called wealth. Is it any wonder the country is in the shape it is in.

The wife and I probably make 50,000+ a year, I'm far from rich maybe even toward being in poverty, but I'm quite satisfied in what we have and how we got it. I live within my means maybe our government should do that too, instead of always looking for more. I also believe those that are "rich" earned their money too. Why should they be taxed at a higher rate just because they have more. And then double taxed because they happen to die and leave an estate. Most rich people are generous for the right causes. Not just drunk on spending and wanting to get re-elected. Trying to be everything for everyone. It has never worked and never will. History repeats itself, if you try to do the same things, the same way.
_________________________
TRUTH HAS NO AGENDA

Top
#1240696 --- 12/18/10 01:01 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Ranger]
Animal Lover Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 10/13/06
Posts: 1339
Loc: NY
I laugh at people who make $50,000 a year and somehow compare themselves to people making millions as if they will be making millions someday too. The comments of those of us who criticize the rich as jealous is a joke. Those who defend the rich are the fools. The kid who inherits the family farm and pays inheritance tax should be grateful to his elders for working hard and should have to work hard too. No one needs millions and millions of dollars.

And let's put it this way. If you can live on $50,000 and by some freakin' miracle get rich and become a millionaire, so what if you have to pay 4% more of your income in taxes or a higher estate tax? You would still have more than you could have dreamed. Why be so greedy? When it comes to financial issues, greed is worse than jealousy...hands down. But you keep fooling yourself and telling yourself that you too can be rich and greedy someday too. LOLOLOL.

Top
#1240699 --- 12/18/10 01:20 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Animal Lover]
Ranger Offline
Diamond Member

Registered: 10/23/00
Posts: 25141
Loc: GOD's 1/2 acre
Then you have yourself a good laugh, cause I never said anything about being rich monetarily, someday. The richness I covet is far greater than any wealth I could ever acquire. And to use derogatory comments about people limit the value of any argument you can make. I thought you liberals were so caring about your fellow man. Seems as though all you care about is how much you can take from him, so you can do for those that will not do for themselves. And then pat yourself on the back for being so high and mighty.
_________________________
TRUTH HAS NO AGENDA

Top
#1240701 --- 12/18/10 01:35 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Ranger]
twocats Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 02/10/10
Posts: 11904
Loc: NYS
Originally Posted By: Ranger
Why should they be taxed at a higher rate just because they have more. And then double taxed because they happen to die and leave an estate.




I am by no means jealous, I have a warm home, food in the fridge, money in the bank, and thank the Lord, good health in my loved ones. What more can a person ask for in this life?

BUT,

Why should I be taxed at a higher rate because I make less?
_________________________
Humanity is an ocean; if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty.

Top
#1240704 --- 12/18/10 01:47 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Ranger]
Animal Lover Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 10/13/06
Posts: 1339
Loc: NY
Originally Posted By: Ranger
Then you have yourself a good laugh, cause I never said anything about being rich monetarily, someday. The richness I covet is far greater than any wealth I could ever acquire. And to use derogatory comments about people limit the value of any argument you can make. I thought you liberals were so caring about your fellow man. Seems as though all you care about is how much you can take from him, so you can do for those that will not do for themselves. And then pat yourself on the back for being so high and mighty.


I care for the downtrodden. I do not care for greedy, hateful, bigoted people who have anything they could possibly need and pretty much everything they want but worry about a slightly higher percentage of money taken in taxes. I do not care for those that worry about their income over worrying about a child's health. I do not care for someone that worked for an insurance company and would turn down treatment for someone who was dieing because they had a preexisting condition or a lapse in insurance due to job loss.

Do I REALLY wish harm on them? No, of course not. But I wish they would wise up, get a clue, get a heart. I wish the same for you.

Top
#1240705 --- 12/18/10 01:54 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Ranger]
kimmer Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/26/07
Posts: 1403
Loc: here,there and back again
To compare a farmer whose net worth is tied up in property to a millionaire or billionaire is not fair. A farmer is less likely to have the cash access. If you earn it, you should pay the income tax on it. I find it ridiculous that a millionaire is called a "job creator" and should therefore be given an income tax break AS WELL AS tax breaks to "expand" their business. Somewhere along the line people became brainwashed.
_________________________
Why is it so hard for some to properly use your and you're??

Top
#1240713 --- 12/18/10 02:31 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: kimmer]
Animal Lover Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 10/13/06
Posts: 1339
Loc: NY
I agree kimmer. It's not socialism when government gives tax breaks or grants to businesses to expand their business but it is socialism to bail out businesses to keep from losing existing jobs.

People would go crazy if government created businesses with tax dollars and put the profits back into the government to pay debt, but see nothing wrong with government giving money to individuals to create supposed jobs, which in most cases, helps make them more wealthy. Meanwhile the government adds to the deficit, which adds to our tax burden for generations to come.

Top
#1240722 --- 12/18/10 02:51 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Animal Lover]
sands Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/05/05
Posts: 8255
Loc: NY
Originally Posted By: Animal Lover
I laugh at people who make $50,000 a year and somehow compare themselves to people making millions as if they will be making millions someday too.



Do you laugh at whites that worked to free the slaves as if they would be black someday too? Do you laugh at WWII vets that fought the Nazis as if they would be Jewish someday too? Do you laugh at men that voted to give women the right to vote as if they would be women someday too? What's right is right. It does not change because you aren't part of that particular group.
_________________________
01 - 20 - 2017

Top
#1240724 --- 12/18/10 03:12 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: kimmer]
sands Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/05/05
Posts: 8255
Loc: NY
Originally Posted By: kimmer
To compare a farmer whose net worth is tied up in property to a millionaire or billionaire is not fair.



I'm glad to see that you too feel the estate tax is unfair.
_________________________
01 - 20 - 2017

Top
#1240726 --- 12/18/10 03:19 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: sands]
Animal Lover Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 10/13/06
Posts: 1339
Loc: NY
Originally Posted By: sands
Originally Posted By: Animal Lover
I laugh at people who make $50,000 a year and somehow compare themselves to people making millions as if they will be making millions someday too.



Do you laugh at whites that worked to free the slaves as if they would be black someday too? Do you laugh at WWII vets that fought the Nazis as if they would be Jewish someday too? Do you laugh at men that voted to give women the right to vote as if they would be women someday too? What's right is right. It does not change because you aren't part of that particular group.


There is a slight chance that someone could be become rich.
OTOH, there is no chance a white man will turn black or a man can turn into a woman. Again, you make some really silly comparisons. You have a demented way of making a case for your fallacious arguments.

Not everyone is born with a silver spoon in their mouth or have the luck or skills to become rich. There can only be so many athletes, Oprah types, Gates or Kardashians. Maybe I think Ranger falls into the category that many people do. They stick up for the rich and make comments that the rich "earned" everything they get, when they (Ranger) probably works 10 times harder than the majority of those that he is defending.

Top
#1240728 --- 12/18/10 04:02 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: twocats]
cwjga Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 11/06/08
Posts: 12660
Loc: NY
Originally Posted By: twocats
Originally Posted By: Ranger
Why should they be taxed at a higher rate just because they have more. And then double taxed because they happen to die and leave an estate.




I am by no means jealous, I have a warm home, food in the fridge, money in the bank, and thank the Lord, good health in my loved ones. What more can a person ask for in this life?

BUT,

Why should I be taxed at a higher rate because I make less?


Your right you should not be. nice to see you might finally be comming around.

Top
#1240763 --- 12/18/10 06:13 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Animal Lover]
Ranger Offline
Diamond Member

Registered: 10/23/00
Posts: 25141
Loc: GOD's 1/2 acre
Originally Posted By: Animal Lover
Maybe I think Ranger falls into the category that many people do. They stick up for the rich and make comments that the rich "earned" everything they get, when they (Ranger) probably works 10 times harder than the majority of those that he is defending.


Your right, probably physically I work 10 times harder than most anyone. That's the lot I chose for myself. I could have finished college and became the CPA I thought I wanted to be. Luckily I knew early on that wasn't for me, I wouldn't have been happy in a suit and tie closed up in an office doing the same thing every day. I'm sure I would have probably earned a rather tidy income. But for me I'm very happy the way my life is going. No I'm not "rich". But I don't think that because someone is rich the government should "take" more from them. Do I think that those that are rich should help out where they can, sure. That should be their choice though. The way government does it, it seems more like taking advantage of one class of people to benefit another. Where does the Constitution ask for that? All men are created equal ;\) I was a caretaker for a "rich" lady for a few years. I saw first hand what she did in this area to help those less fortunate than her. She didn't want it known who was doing these things. She did it from the heart. She didn't need the government demanding their pound of flesh because she was well off. She did it because, if she did it herself, her money was put where she wanted it to go, and used wisely. Not just thrown at this program and that program, with no oversight. That may be a good reason why certain people are rich. They know how to handle money.
_________________________
TRUTH HAS NO AGENDA

Top
#1240766 --- 12/18/10 06:23 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: cwjga]
twocats Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 02/10/10
Posts: 11904
Loc: NYS
Originally Posted By: cwjga
Originally Posted By: twocats
Originally Posted By: Ranger
Why should they be taxed at a higher rate just because they have more. And then double taxed because they happen to die and leave an estate.




I am by no means jealous, I have a warm home, food in the fridge, money in the bank, and thank the Lord, good health in my loved ones. What more can a person ask for in this life?

BUT,

Why should I be taxed at a higher rate because I make less?


Your right you should not be. nice to see you might finally be comming around.

So you agree that a first priority should be to reduce the tax rate for the middle class? Wow, color me surprised.
_________________________
Humanity is an ocean; if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty.

Top
#1240768 --- 12/18/10 06:39 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Ranger]
Animal Lover Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 10/13/06
Posts: 1339
Loc: NY
Quote:
That may be a good reason why certain people are rich. They know how to handle money.


Ranger, I know how to handle money and live on a budget with very little debt. I'm sure you do too. I thought I read before where you mentioned you do construction work. While I agree that some people do well because they know how to handle money I also go along with the idea that rich people get richer for a reason and it's not always good. I've been stiffed by rich people and only got paid when I refused to give them what they wanted the next time they called on me. I know kids who have babysat for well to do people who had to beg for their money weeks after the fact. There are rich people who get rich because they take advantage of the those they think are beneath them or get special treatment (such as grants) because of who they are. They are not taking that money out of the goodness of their heart.

You worked for a special person but as in any group of people there are good and bad.

I agree, most of us choose our lot in life but don't you agree that not all people have the capabilities to do certain types of work? Not everyone is smart enough to be a CPA or do construction...to build things. A few percentage more out of people's income would not be the demise of the upper class. For the life of me I don't get how people can care so much about money, other people's money...even the wealthy themselves...why care so much about possessions? It doesn't compute. Bottom line, I will never agree that those that care about this issue does not have a greedy side to them. And in my world greed is one of the worst human traits.


Edited by Animal Lover (12/18/10 06:42 PM)

Top
#1240770 --- 12/18/10 07:11 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: twocats]
cwjga Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 11/06/08
Posts: 12660
Loc: NY
Originally Posted By: twocats
Originally Posted By: cwjga
Originally Posted By: twocats
Originally Posted By: Ranger
Why should they be taxed at a higher rate just because they have more. And then double taxed because they happen to die and leave an estate.




I am by no means jealous, I have a warm home, food in the fridge, money in the bank, and thank the Lord, good health in my loved ones. What more can a person ask for in this life?

BUT,

Why should I be taxed at a higher rate because I make less?


Your right you should not be. nice to see you might finally be comming around.

So you agree that a first priority should be to reduce the tax rate for the middle class? Wow, color me surprised.


The first priority should be to leave the tax rates the same as they have been for the last 10 years. Then Congress should get rid of the current tax code and vote in one tax rate on all indiviuals, and get rid of every social engineering you get a break if you behave the way we want you to tax deduction. Once that is done there would be no reason for the IRS as it is today, that would save billions alone.

Top
#1240773 --- 12/18/10 07:37 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: cwjga]
twocats Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 02/10/10
Posts: 11904
Loc: NYS
wow, we agree on something. \:\)
Yes, Virginia, there IS a Santa Claus!
_________________________
Humanity is an ocean; if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty.

Top
#1240775 --- 12/18/10 07:38 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: cwjga]
citydog Offline
Member

Registered: 08/29/10
Posts: 383
Loc: Ontario County
Originally Posted By: cwjga

The first priority should be to leave the tax rates the same as they have been for the last 10 years. Then Congress should get rid of the current tax code and vote in one tax rate on all indiviuals, and get rid of every social engineering you get a break if you behave the way we want you to tax deduction. Once that is done there would be no reason for the IRS as it is today, that would save billions alone.

A few questions for you:

What would you suggest the tax rate should be if it's one size fits all?

Should all deductions be eliminated for all taxpayers, and, if so, what do you think would be the result?

How much do you estimate would be saved if the IRS was eliminated altogether (keeping in mind that then there would be no mechanism to collect taxes)?
_________________________
Who let the dogs out

Top
#1240788 --- 12/18/10 10:38 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: citydog]
cwjga Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 11/06/08
Posts: 12660
Loc: NY
Originally Posted By: citydog
Originally Posted By: cwjga

The first priority should be to leave the tax rates the same as they have been for the last 10 years. Then Congress should get rid of the current tax code and vote in one tax rate on all indiviuals, and get rid of every social engineering you get a break if you behave the way we want you to tax deduction. Once that is done there would be no reason for the IRS as it is today, that would save billions alone.

A few questions for you:

What would you suggest the tax rate should be if it's one size fits all? Not as much as the polititians would want it to be.

Should all deductions be eliminated for all taxpayers, and, if so, what do you think would be the result? Yes, the result would be a lower tax rate for all the people that do not need to buy new furnace this year, or do not want to buy a house because they like to rent, or choose not to have kids, or choose to get married.

How much do you estimate would be saved if the IRS was eliminated altogether (keeping in mind that then there would be no mechanism to collect taxes)?


NOt sure check the federal budget for IRS. Considering that in a few years all tax payments have to be made electronicaly, it would take a very small office to do the job.


Add together your W-2 and your 1099's, multiple by the rate and send it in. If done electronicaly, everthing is checked electronicaly and the deal is done.

Top
#1240790 --- 12/18/10 10:48 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: cwjga]
twocats Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 02/10/10
Posts: 11904
Loc: NYS
Would put quite a few CPA's out of work.

They'd need a bailout.
_________________________
Humanity is an ocean; if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty.

Top
#1240797 --- 12/19/10 12:47 AM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Animal Lover]
sands Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/05/05
Posts: 8255
Loc: NY
Originally Posted By: Animal Lover
For the life of me I don't get how people can care so much about money, other people's money...



I know! You seem to have a fascination with rich people's money!
_________________________
01 - 20 - 2017

Top
#1242133 --- 12/26/10 09:05 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: sands]
kimmer Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/26/07
Posts: 1403
Loc: here,there and back again
Originally Posted By: sands
Originally Posted By: kimmer
It's call the making work pay credit.



Actually, the Bush tax cuts are called the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 and Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 .


Actually the way it shows on my tax return is Making Work Pay and Government Retiree Credits and we all got it if we had 2009 wages over $6451 single or $12903 married filed jointly. Maybe we weren't discussing the same thing.
_________________________
Why is it so hard for some to properly use your and you're??

Top
#1242484 --- 12/28/10 09:09 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: sands]
cwjga Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 11/06/08
Posts: 12660
Loc: NY
Come on Sands if the rich had just paid their fair share the last ten years there this would not have happened. ;\)

111th Congress Added More Debt Than First 100 Congresses Combined: $10,429 Per Person in U.S.
Monday, December 27, 2010
By Terence P. Jeffrey


(CNSNews.com) - The federal government has accumulated more new debt--$3.22 trillion ($3,220,103,625,307.29)—during the tenure of the 111th Congress than it did during the first 100 Congresses combined, according to official debt figures published by the U.S. Treasury.

That equals $10,429.64 in new debt for each and every one of the 308,745,538 people counted in the United States by the 2010 Census.

The total national debt of $13,858,529,371,601.09 (or $13.859 trillion), as recorded by the U.S. Treasury at the close of business on Dec. 22, now equals $44,886.57 for every man, woman and child in the United States.

In fact, the 111th Congress not only has set the record as the most debt-accumulating Congress in U.S. history, but also has out-stripped its nearest competitor, the 110th, by an astounding $1.262 trillion in new debt.

During the 110th Congress—which, according to the Clerk of the House, officially convened on Jan. 4, 2007 and adjourned on Jan. 4, 2009--the national debt increased $1.957 trillion. When that Congress adjourned less than two years ago, it claimed the record as the most debt-accumulating Congress in U.S. history. As it turned out, however, its record did not last long.

The $3.22 trillion in new federal debt run up during the 111th Congress exceeds by 64 percent the $1.957 trillion in new debt run up during the 110th.

Although the 111th Congress cast its last vote on Dec. 22, it will not officially adjourn until next week.

Democrats controlled both the House and Senate in the 110th and 111th Congresses.

The 108th Congress ($1.159 trillion in new debt) and 109th ($1.054 trillion in new debt) take third and fourth place among all U.S. Congresses for accumulating debt. In both these Congresses, Republicans controlled both the House and Senate.

Still, the $3.22 trillion in new debt accumulated during the record-setting 111th Congress is more than three times the $1.054 trillion in new debt accumulated by the last Republican-majority Congress (the 109th) which adjourned on Dec. 8, 2006.

Historically, according to the U.S. Treasury, the federal debt did not reach $3.22 trillion until September 1990, during the 101st Congress. Between the first Congress, which adjourned in 1791 leaving behind approximately $75 million in debt, and the convening of the 101st Congress, which occurred on Jan. 3, 1989, the national debt grew to $2.684 trillion.

During the Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) tenure as speaker, which commenced on Jan. 4, 2007, the federal government has run up $5.177 trillion in new debt. That is about equal to the total debt the federal government accumulated in the first 220 years of the nation's existence, with the federal debt rising from $5.173 trillion on July 23, 1996 to $5.181 trillion on July 24, 1996.

In her inaugural address as speaker, Pelosi vowed that Congress would engage in no new deficit spending.

"After years of historic deficits, this 110th Congress will commit itself to a higher standard: Pay as you go, no new deficit spending,” she said in an address from the speaker’s podium. “Our new America will provide unlimited opportunity for future generations, not burden them with mountains of debt."

Top
#1242551 --- 12/29/10 04:25 AM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: cwjga]
sands Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/05/05
Posts: 8255
Loc: NY
Democrats controlled both the House and Senate in the 110th and 111th Congresses.
_________________________
01 - 20 - 2017

Top
#1242611 --- 12/29/10 12:44 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: sands]
cwjga Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 11/06/08
Posts: 12660
Loc: NY
Originally Posted By: sands
Democrats controlled both the House and Senate in the 110th and 111th Congresses.



Yes they did \:\/

I was waiting for the whole "Look how much the last congress spent, so that must make it ok to spend more excuse"

Top
#1242809 --- 12/30/10 12:53 AM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: cwjga]
sands Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/05/05
Posts: 8255
Loc: NY
Originally Posted By: cwjga
Originally Posted By: sands
Democrats controlled both the House and Senate in the 110th and 111th Congresses.



Yes they did \:\/

I was waiting for the whole "Look how much the last congress spent, so that must make it ok to spend more excuse"



Democrats controlled both the House and Senate in the last Congress also.
_________________________
01 - 20 - 2017

Top
#1242832 --- 12/30/10 02:10 AM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: sands]
Zorn Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/06/06
Posts: 1376
Loc: ny
Originally Posted By: sands
Originally Posted By: cwjga
Originally Posted By: sands
Democrats controlled both the House and Senate in the 110th and 111th Congresses.



Yes they did \:\/

I was waiting for the whole "Look how much the last congress spent, so that must make it ok to spend more excuse"



Democrats controlled both the House and Senate in the last Congress also.



Yes democrats have done a lot of crappy things too. Now can you admit that adding $70 billion to the deficit to give tax cuts to rich people is bad, or are you going to make excuses for Republican politicians, as usual?
_________________________
"I guess I want smaller government and my Social Security". - Tea Party Member

Top
#1242840 --- 12/30/10 02:59 AM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Zorn]
sands Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/05/05
Posts: 8255
Loc: NY
Originally Posted By: Zorn
Now can you admit that adding $70 billion to the deficit to give tax cuts to rich people is bad, or are you going to make excuses for Republican politicians, as usual?



Can you admit that taking $70 billion from tax payers is bad, or are you going to make excuses for Democratic politicians, as usual?
_________________________
01 - 20 - 2017

Top
#1242868 --- 12/30/10 05:01 AM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Zorn]
Harleybobb Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/21/10
Posts: 4061
Loc: Walloon Freedom Fighter
Originally Posted By: Zorn
Originally Posted By: sands
Originally Posted By: cwjga
Originally Posted By: sands
Democrats controlled both the House and Senate in the 110th and 111th Congresses.



Yes they did \:\/

I was waiting for the whole "Look how much the last congress spent, so that must make it ok to spend more excuse"



Democrats controlled both the House and Senate in the last Congress also.



Yes democrats have done a lot of crappy things too. Now can you admit that adding $70 billion to the deficit to give tax cuts to rich people is bad, or are you going to make excuses for Republican politicians, as usual?
what are you whining about now, did you miss out on a free government handout?
_________________________
Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you *keep* it a *secret*!

Top
#1242912 --- 12/30/10 01:26 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: sands]
Zorn Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/06/06
Posts: 1376
Loc: ny
Originally Posted By: sands
Originally Posted By: Zorn
Now can you admit that adding $70 billion to the deficit to give tax cuts to rich people is bad, or are you going to make excuses for Republican politicians, as usual?



Can you admit that taking $70 billion from tax payers is bad, or are you going to make excuses for Democratic politicians, as usual?


To pay off debt? I thought you guys were all about paying off the debt and not adding to it?

Taxes are bad *if the money is wasted*. If you take tax money and provide some service to the people of a country then *no* taking $70 billion is NOT bad.

What republicans have done is put saving rich people money ABOVE paying off the debt or using the money to say... extend unemployment benefits ($60 billion a year).

Do you want to not pay any taxes? Would you not admit that paying taxes for things like police or fire departments is worth the money?

Then quit it with the lame argument that all taxes are bad.
_________________________
"I guess I want smaller government and my Social Security". - Tea Party Member

Top
#1242997 --- 12/30/10 07:07 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Zorn]
cwjga Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 11/06/08
Posts: 12660
Loc: NY
Originally Posted By: Zorn
Originally Posted By: sands
Originally Posted By: cwjga
Originally Posted By: sands
Democrats controlled both the House and Senate in the 110th and 111th Congresses.



Yes they did \:\/

I was waiting for the whole "Look how much the last congress spent, so that must make it ok to spend more excuse"



Democrats controlled both the House and Senate in the last Congress also.



Yes democrats have done a lot of crappy things too. Now can you admit that adding $70 billion to the deficit to give tax cuts to rich people is bad, or are you going to make excuses for Republican politicians, as usual?


No, because leaving the tax rates the same is not a cut.

Top
#1243032 --- 12/30/10 11:25 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Zorn]
sands Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/05/05
Posts: 8255
Loc: NY
Originally Posted By: Zorn
Originally Posted By: sands
Originally Posted By: Zorn
Now can you admit that adding $70 billion to the deficit to give tax cuts to rich people is bad, or are you going to make excuses for Republican politicians, as usual?



Can you admit that taking $70 billion from tax payers is bad, or are you going to make excuses for Democratic politicians, as usual?


To pay off debt? I thought you guys were all about paying off the debt and not adding to it?

Taxes are bad *if the money is wasted*. If you take tax money and provide some service to the people of a country then *no* taking $70 billion is NOT bad.

What republicans have done is put saving rich people money ABOVE paying off the debt or using the money to say... extend unemployment benefits ($60 billion a year).

Do you want to not pay any taxes? Would you not admit that paying taxes for things like police or fire departments is worth the money?

Then quit it with the lame argument that all taxes are bad.



Did you ever notice, with all their blathering*, liberals can never say the words, "cut spending"?




*blathering: Verb: Talk long-windedly without making very much sense.
_________________________
01 - 20 - 2017

Top
#1243034 --- 12/31/10 12:00 AM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: sands]
Harleybobb Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/21/10
Posts: 4061
Loc: Walloon Freedom Fighter
Originally Posted By: sands
Originally Posted By: Zorn
Originally Posted By: sands
Originally Posted By: Zorn
Now can you admit that adding $70 billion to the deficit to give tax cuts to rich people is bad, or are you going to make excuses for Republican politicians, as usual?



Can you admit that taking $70 billion from tax payers is bad, or are you going to make excuses for Democratic politicians, as usual?


To pay off debt? I thought you guys were all about paying off the debt and not adding to it?

Taxes are bad *if the money is wasted*. If you take tax money and provide some service to the people of a country then *no* taking $70 billion is NOT bad.

What republicans have done is put saving rich people money ABOVE paying off the debt or using the money to say... extend unemployment benefits ($60 billion a year).

Do you want to not pay any taxes? Would you not admit that paying taxes for things like police or fire departments is worth the money?

Then quit it with the lame argument that all taxes are bad.



Did you ever notice, with all their blathering*, liberals can never say the words, "cut spending"?




*blathering: Verb: Talk long-windedly without making very much sense.
ahahahahah... zorn is always look for the free government handout.
_________________________
Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you *keep* it a *secret*!

Top
#1243049 --- 12/31/10 12:54 AM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Harleybobb]
Zorn Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/06/06
Posts: 1376
Loc: ny
No morons, liberals do talk about cutting spending. Lets cut defense spending. I wouldnt advocate creating new programs without a way to pay for them. George Bush was great at passing Medicare D, but he had no plan on how to pay for it.

I would advocate increasing taxes IF the return to the average citizen were worth the increase. So if we increase taxes and get full health care for everyone, then that is ok IF there is evidence that govt health care would be superior or more efficient.

You retards though, you just want to cut taxes and any program YOU don't benefit from. Anything that you feel helps you though, even if it hurts others, is fair game.
_________________________
"I guess I want smaller government and my Social Security". - Tea Party Member

Top
#1243084 --- 12/31/10 03:04 AM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Zorn]
Harleybobb Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/21/10
Posts: 4061
Loc: Walloon Freedom Fighter
Going over the top again with the name calling sandwich man!
People get pissed when you use the "r" word.
_________________________
Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you *keep* it a *secret*!

Top
#1243136 --- 12/31/10 01:44 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Harleybobb]
Ranger Offline
Diamond Member

Registered: 10/23/00
Posts: 25141
Loc: GOD's 1/2 acre
when you won't fall lock and step into their rhetoric all the left has left is to name call.
racist
hate filled
retard
moron
etc
you know the list
_________________________
TRUTH HAS NO AGENDA

Top
Page 1 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >