The ..2012.... Political thread
-
I don't want to support freeloaders, personal injury opportunists and low-income individuals who insist on having additional kids that they can't afford either. But those cases are miniscule when you look at the big picture. Why are you conservatives so blood-thirstily hung-up on less than 1% of the budget when corporate welfare is killing us????!!!???
-
audi:
I don't want to support freeloaders, personal injury opportunists and low-income individuals who insist on having additional kids that they can't afford either. But those cases are miniscule when you look at the big picture. Why are you conservatives so blood-thirstily hung-up on less than 1% of the budget when corporate welfare is killing us????!!!???
And that's where our differences lie - I believe people who take advantage of our welfare/disability programs far outweigh people who are truly in need.
-
.
-
rich n:
.
===some people do the hardest work...for the lowest wages and, when they are out of work...all they have is food stamps ...or some other form of government supplied income
-
You do see what they buy with their food stamps -right?
-
rich n:
You do see what they buy with their food stamps -right?
90% of all people act responsibly...90% of the time...regardless of their life situation...Why would you think that...all people...are irresponsible...all of the time?
-
That's one receipt. Maybe they were having a long-overdue party. Or maybe they just really like seafood. God knows, a lot of processed "affordable" items are loaded with carcinogens and fat-inducing agents. Besides, it's nobody's business who buys what for their own household. It's like we're dealing with Mrs. Kravitz from an episode of Bewitched.
-
rich n:
.
Now, show me a tax return of a company that ships jobs overseas despite generous breaks, courtesy of politicians who they own.
-
audi:
rich n:
.
Now, show me a tax return of a company that ships jobs overseas despite generous breaks, courtesy of politicians who they own.
Funny thing you've headed in that direction given I had just this piece a short while ago...LOL http://www.factcheck.org/2010/04/a-false-tax-attack/
-
You didn't address the much, much larger problem and issue of corporate welfare, which audi raised, rich n. Which is "killing us."
-
audi:
rich n:
.
Now, show me a tax return of a company that ships jobs overseas despite generous breaks, courtesy of politicians who they own.
Whether it is welfare for the poor or welfare for the rich, where there is money involved there will be abuses of it on both ends. Taxes & Spending are like one in the same. It is like one is heads and the other tails on the same coin. Things have snow balled out of control, bottom line is... America has a spending problem. Its priorities are way out of whack. Perhaps that is what causes the most friction... determining priorities.
-
rich n:
service_gamer:
rich n:
service_gamer:
rich n:
SusyLuvsPaul:
Well...why ARE you? Instead of for the suffering masses.
Its not about interest in the wealthy...its about liberals eagerness to streak from those who earned what they have and give it to a freeloader. The ratio of those living inpoverty due to lack of ambition far outways those who are truly unfortunately.
That's an opinion, not a fact. Stating opinion as fact usually underscores a flimsy argument, or at least an argument that the person in question isn't qualified to make (in this case, how do you know exactly that freeloaders "far" outweigh the unfortunate? Oh, that's right, you're just pulling assumptions out your rear). Now, why do conservatives try to act like taxing the rich a bit more amounts to outright stealing hard-earned wealth to give handouts to lazy degenerates? I would bet (see, this signifies an opinion, since I'm not qualified to assert it as a fact) that the silver-spoon-in-mouth trust-fund babies to self-made men and women far outweighs the number of freeloaders to unfortunate. And besides, regardless of how the money was earned, it's indisputable that responsibility for our current economic mess rests in the hands of wealthy folks (which wealthy people, and how much they contributed are debatable). Why is taxing the rich a bit more so off-limits? Conservatives cry socialism, but unless the rich are taxed to the point that they take home the same amount as the lower class after taxes, that isn't socialism. It seriously makes me want to beat my head against a wall. To dispel any confusion on my thoughts on this, I think that the tax system should work roughly like this. If someone makes ten million annually, have a rate up to 250,000, up a bit from like 250,001 to 2 million, then maybe 2 to 5 million, then 5 to 10, etc. Why is this socialism and/or why is this so bad?
This is so far off the mark, I don't know where to start. I'd be willing to bet (yes, an opinion on my part too...LOL) self made millionaires far outweigh the old 'silver spoon' crowd (not everyone who's rich in America is a Kennedy) Second, rich people pay way more taxes that poor people do...(people with an annual income of over $1m pay 29.1% in various taxes compared to only 15% for people who have annual incomes of 50K to 75K). This here is a fact and not opinion. The focus of the problem is that rich people aren't taxed on their investments. But then again, nobody is - the money leaving my paycheck and put into my 401K is not taxed and I'm as polar opposite to rich as you can get...LOL. Basically the rules are no one gets taxed on their investments (unless you break the terms of agreement and take money before the investments have matured - to which you then get hammered with taxes and penalties)...so basically, the rich are taxed at a greater rate, but get to play by the same rules as everyone else in terms of investing...so what's the problem? The link below is one of about a billion hits you can find if you google the topic (and since you and several others seem to not be able to discern opinions as well as slight exaggerations - a billion hits' might be a slight exaggeration...LOL): http://www.newser.com/story/129022/rich-people-dont-pay-less-taxes-than-secretaries.html
You?ve got to be kidding me. Don?t try to laugh off your predilection towards opinion as fact by saying that me ?and several others aren?t able to discern opinions as well as slight exaggerations.? First, the very premise is false since I called you on stating opinion as fact (that would be discerning an opinion). Second, it wasn?t a slight exaggeration, the comment in question was this: ?Its not about interest in the wealthy...its about liberals eagerness to streak from those who earned what they have and give it to a freeloader. The ratio of those living inpoverty due to lack of ambition far outways those who are truly unfortunately.? To claim that this was meant as a slight exaggeration is intellectually dishonest. It has no qualifiers (such as my ?I bet? example, which you mocked), plus it?s indicative of the type of rhetoric you constantly throw out. Despite the numerous examples of inherited wealth, you just happen to pick the Kennedy family. Why? It seems like common sense to pick a conservative family, even if it were just a thinly veiled attempt to maintain a modicum of objectivity. Instead, you undermine your argument even before you begin. Now, as for your little lecture on the tax system. This would be great if we lived in a world in which there were no tax loopholes. No, it?s not the fault of the wealthy that these loopholes exist and that they take advantage of them, but to shoot down talk of legitimate tax raises for the wealthy as ?class warfare? is absolutely vile. But they skip the details and convince average Americans that Democrats want to raise taxes and Republicans want to cut taxes, when in fact both uses of the word ?taxes? should be followed by ?for the wealthy.? Finally, why shouldn?t investments be taxed? Or at least, why shouldn?t there be bracketed taxes for returns on investments? It seems like this would be easiest to take care of. This is speaking in generalities again, but say someone earns $5 million on a $3 million investment for a total of $8 million. The original three isn?t taxed, and the rest could be bracketed: Earnings of a dollar to $2 million aren?t taxed, $2 to $4 million, 5%; $4 to 6 million, 7.5%; etc. Obviously there would be a cap on how high the rate gets to a certain point (maybe even no more than 10%), but for this example, the person earning $5 million pays ?just? $175,000 on a $5 million earning, leaving them with ?only? $4,825,000. You would probably counter that this is needlessly penalizing the rich, but I find something like this to be a compromise. Average Americans really are struggling, why not give them a tax break, even if it?s footed by the wealthiest citizens, rather than deride them as lazy and unmotivated? His comments were definitely taken a bit out of context, but you have Mitt Romney espousing your viewpoint, claiming that he doesn?t care about the very poor. I know what he meant, that there will always unfortunately be poor, and we must focus on the 90 to 95% that are struggling more than usual. But he claims he will be helping the middle class, when his tax plan, as noted by the non-partisan Tax Policy Center, most greatly benefits the wealthy. All the more galling, through various loopholes, Romney?s tax returns revealed he paid less than 15% in taxes in 2010, which, as you might note, is much lower than the 29.1% ?wealthy? rate and a smidge under the 15% ?average? rate that you so condescendingly tried to lecture me about. Your apparent need to tirelessly defend the GOP while making sure to deride Democrats and the president, both professionally and personally (take Romney?s gaffe; I objectively noted what I perceive he meant, you try to change the subject by giving us your best Sarah Palin impression with a William Ayers reference), even though it seems to contradict your best interests calls to mind Thomas Frank?s ?What?s the Matter with Kansas??
I see the baloney factory is producing at full strength today Your tax ideas are abysmal. You want to have more tax money available to help various groups in need? Have the gov't start allocating the money from taxes taken from us to where it should be instead of extorting more money from all of us (not just the rich)...and as mentioned before, all groups are privy to the same tax breaks you accuse the rich taking advantage of. I am in no way rich and I have a 401K - why don't you start blasting that since I'm not taxed on that money? Your attack at my example of the Kennedy's (democrats btw) is way off the mark as they are the poster children of what being born into money and becoming spoiled rich (not to mention cheating the gov't) is all about. And the part I bolded - it's you who wants to play this 'tit for tat' game about the differences between opinion and fact. And btw, your 'opinion' about the ratio of rich people who worked hard for their money vs who was born with a silver spoon in their mouth was in fact duly noted as just your opinion...but that doesn't protect it from me calling BS on it
I made it perfectly clear I was speaking in generalities, but as I've repeatedly pointed out, you've conveniently neglected the overall point of my argument as well as the idea that rich people (using the Romney example) may have a higher tax bracket, but get well below it with various loopholes. Additionally, conservatives fail to comprehend the fact that taxing a lower-class person at 15% and a wealthy person at 29% is excessively harsh to the wealthy; 71% of $5 million > 85% of $35,000. Why do conservatives try to act like everything's equal when it comes to this? Given the economic standing you purport to have, I don't think you should get taxed on your 401k, I just merely think that we are in such trouble that if some Americans are going to sacrifice, why not the uber wealthy, who can stand to share a bigger portion of the burden? Maybe that's not fair, but I'd rather not punish the lower-class for the upper-class' sins; I guess that's what separates me from you. And you apparently just don't understand the point of my argument. I take pains to qualify my opinions; you don't. You can try and joke or argue that we should just assume you are making an opinion, but you've constantly tried to assert opinion as fact (notice how you've offered no rebuttal to my opinion that silver spooners outnumber self-made men other than to try and distort the conversation without using facts). Here's a freebie: I'm probably wrong, although not as much as you'd think, as most people wouldn't consider Romney a silver spooner, although it's ludicrous to think that he would have accrued his wealth if he was from the working class rather than being born into privilege. He might have been relatively successful, but coming from a rich family gave him advantages every step of the way, so he was given quite a head start when he made it on his own. To hear Romney tell it, you'd think he abandoned his rich family at 18 to move to New York, wait tables and try to make it big from nothing (that's an exaggerated example). It's not 'tit for tat.' You've made assertions that you've tried to pass off as indisputable fact, when it's simply your opinion. Now that you've been called on it, you're trying to blur the line by claiming my comments are 'tit for tat' comparisons of fact and opinion, when I'm merely noting that you tried to pass off some comments as fact, when they're merely an unverified opinion. You can call BS on my comments all day, but I note opinions, you just try to mislead and misdirect your way through flimsy arguments. (Yeah, a receipt of someone taking advantage of food stamps is iron clad proof that most of these folks are free loaders; there's no way that can be doctored. Do you also believe the purported last photo from the WTC observation deck is legitimate too?) You also didn't understand my Kennedy comments. While I feel you are being too harsh on the family, I'm not ever going to dispute that they epitomize inherited wealth. But are they really any different the Bushes? My only critique of your example is that it seems to undermine your overall point when you take such a hateful stance on an offhand comment. If you would have used the Bush family in your example, it would have showed objectivity, instead you took the route of an attack on the opposite party, which undermines your argument, see? I just don't get why you proudly call yourself a middle-class conservative, then hold yourself to the same standards as the wealthiest earners. Such Republicans remind me of the worst guy on the high-school basketball team. He might not be very good, but he busts his butt just to get a spot on the end of the bench with no playing time. The jocks don?t give him the time of day, but he puts himself through daily misery just so he can have the prestige of being on the team. They might treat him like crap behind his back, but when any of his non-jock friends calls the star players on their behavior or posits any criticism, the benchwarmer sells out his friends to defend his ?teammates? that would never give him the time of day. You can throw out your conservative pearls about liberals giving handouts and conservatives rewarding hard work, but the Republican Party relishes manipulating people just like you into thinking you?re one of them, and will take your support to stab you in the back to help support the wealthiest. Once again, I refer you to ?What?s the Matter with Kansas??
-
The problem is you make too many assumptions...such as your assertion that while you only 'speak in generalities' while everything I post is unfounded 'facts'...LOL...And I didn't miss your point about the rich and the tax loopholes they take advantage of. I just don't agree with it because we have access to the same loopholes...I presented the example of the 401K and other investment plans as a means of avoiding having to pay tax...In fact, I recently found another loophole with my 401K - I was able to dip into it tax (and penalty) free...simply because I used it to pay for several of the courses I'm taking. So I propose to you (generally speaking of course - just an educated guess) that many people simply do not know/realize what 'loopholes' they have available to them (and with that, they obviously have no idea how to take advantage of them)...it's almost like shopping - you shop smart, you save a lot of money - if not, then you just pay full price. And don't try to feed me the baloney that the Democratic party doesn't live by the 'take from the rich, give to the poor' philosophy...it's their mantra...by mere definition, they are the party of gov't reliance.
-
Rich, I think you're a good guy, but you (conservative) focus on one insignificant source of the fleecing of America. And we (big ol' liberals) focus on a gigantic source that fleeces America. And you defend the latter.
-
SusyLuvsPaul:
You didn't address the much, much larger problem and issue of corporate welfare, which audi raised, rich n. Which is "killing us."
-
rich n:
The problem is you make too many assumptions...such as your assertion that while you only 'speak in generalities' while everything I post is unfounded 'facts'...LOL...And I didn't miss your point about the rich and the tax loopholes they take advantage of. I just don't agree with it because we have access to the same loopholes...I presented the example of the 401K and other investment plans as a means of avoiding having to pay tax...In fact, I recently found another loophole with my 401K - I was able to dip into it tax (and penalty) free...simply because I used it to pay for several of the courses I'm taking. So I propose to you (generally speaking of course - just an educated guess) that many people simply do not know/realize what 'loopholes' they have available to them (and with that, they obviously have no idea how to take advantage of them)...it's almost like shopping - you shop smart, you save a lot of money - if not, then you just pay full price. And don't try to feed me the baloney that the Democratic party doesn't live by the 'take from the rich, give to the poor' philosophy...it's their mantra...by mere definition, they are the party of gov't reliance.
Are you being serious? You do realize that I'm pointing out that I qualify my opinion by saying things like 'In my opinion,' or 'I think,' or 'I feel,' or 'I bet,' right? You don't. THAT'S THE POINT! You can mock my opinion, because I don't think either of us is going to convince the other to cede an inch, but I make no bones about the fact that it's an opinion. You assert things like they are fact, including the most recent example, your free loaders out-numbering the unfortunate comment in which you based the assertion on nothing more than your bluster. Seriously, why do you keep trying to distract from that point. This time, you've tried to make it look as if I qualify things by only talking in generalities; I only mentioned generalities when I was discussing a very simplified take on how I perceive taxes could work in certain areas. My use of 'generalities' had nothing to do with the fact/opinion divide. Read my posts again, show me where I said 'generalities' outside of discussions about taxation. I also don't understand how your anecdotal evidence of taking advantage of a tax loophole somehow validates such an approach from an obscenely wealthy person. I'm fully on board with a hard-working person such as yourself -- not that the rich can't be hard working, but I mean someone who in the lower or middle classes -- being able to take advantages like you describe. I just feel that we can't cut our way out of this economic mess and need to raise taxes somewhere, why not the wealthiest segment of the population? They can have there tax loopholes up to a point, but after a certain point why can't there be some taxation (as I describe in a previous post)? If that's stealing from the wealthy for the poor, as you've described the Dems' mantra, I'll not only avoid denying it, I'll happily support it. But you've got it in your head that Democrats want to let everyone leach off the government in some sort of food-stamps paradise welfare state, when in actuality its about trying to level the playing field a bit for the less fortunate. Go ahead, keep on hating, but I'll feel pretty damn good pulling the lever once again in November for the "food stamps" president.
-
Saw the new book on Mitt Romney in the library yesterday, it's out The same one exerpted in "Vanity Fair" magazine, with the harrowing anecdotes about the way Romney treated the two Mormon women. I wish I'd gotten it out now--I knew all the financial investment business parts would be heavy going and like a foreign language I don't know, to me. I think that's what prevented my checking the book out, but now I wish I had. I'm reading the huge new Steve Jobs biography presently and being unable to comprehend a lot of the computer jargon detracts from my experience reading the book. I've learned some new thing from you in your posts here, service gamer (judging by your "nic" doubtless you could grasp most or much of the Jobs biography!). Thanks for your lengthy detailed efforts.
-
Artistic Freedom By Peter V. Milo February 3, 2012 1:08 PM Provo, Utah (CBS Las Vegas) - In front of the White House a man is sitting on a park bench in the throes of depression. He is surrounded by all 43 presidents. In the forefront, purposefully ignoring the depressed man is President Obama, whose right foot is stepping on the Constitution. James Madison is next to Obama, pleading with him to stop. ...
-
Some say Ron Paul isn't for social programs. We all like to have protection but when it gets to a point where you quality of life is being taken away from you so you are funding others. Is it time to rethink that logic. Here is what we are taxed but I don't see airport tax,homeland security tax, 911 tax Notice no war tax. Because that would stop that practice. Accounts Receivable Tax Building Permit Tax CDL license Tax Cigarette Tax Corporate Income Tax Dog License Tax Excise Taxes Federal Income Tax Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA) Fishing License Tax Food License Tax Fuel Permit Tax Gasoline Tax (currently 44.75 cents per gallon) Gross Receipts Tax Hunting License Tax Inheritance Tax Inventory Tax IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax) Liquor Tax Luxury Taxes Marriage License Tax Medicare Tax Personal Property Tax Property Tax Real Estate Tax Service Charge Tax Social Security Tax Road Usage Tax Recreational Vehicle Tax Sales Tax School Tax State Income Tax State Unemployment Tax (SUTA) Telephone Federal Excise Tax Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax Telephone Recurring and Nonrecurring Charges Tax Telephone State and Local Tax Telephone Usage Charge Tax Utility Taxes Vehicle License Registration Tax Vehicle Sales Tax Watercraft Registration Tax Well Permit Tax Workers Compensation Tax Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago We were the riches nation in the world, are middle class ruled and mother stayed home with their kids. We had a few millionairess but no billionaires. 545 politicians make rules for 300 million people. Here a poem Just add the melody of Subterranean Homesick Blues and Dylan singing it and I think we got a OWS anthem. Tax his land, Tax his bed, Tax the table, At which he's fed. Tax his tractor, Tax his mule, Teach him taxes Are the rule. Tax his work, Tax his pay, He works for peanuts anyway! Tax his cow, Tax his goat, Tax his pants, Tax his coat. Tax his ties, Tax his shirt, Tax his work, Tax his dirt. Tax his tobacco, Tax his drink, Tax him if he Tries to think. Tax his cigars, Tax his beers, If he cries Tax his tears. Tax his car, Tax his gas, Find other ways To tax his ass. Tax all he has Then let him know That you won't be done Till he has no dough. When he screams and hollers; Then tax him some more, Tax him till He's good and sore. Then tax his coffin, Tax his grave, Tax the sod in Which he's laid... Put these words Upon his tomb, 'Taxes drove me to my doom...' When he's gone, Do not relax, Its time to apply The inheritance tax.
-
service_gamer:
rich n:
The problem is you make too many assumptions...such as your assertion that while you only 'speak in generalities' while everything I post is unfounded 'facts'...LOL...And I didn't miss your point about the rich and the tax loopholes they take advantage of. I just don't agree with it because we have access to the same loopholes...I presented the example of the 401K and other investment plans as a means of avoiding having to pay tax...In fact, I recently found another loophole with my 401K - I was able to dip into it tax (and penalty) free...simply because I used it to pay for several of the courses I'm taking. So I propose to you (generally speaking of course - just an educated guess) that many people simply do not know/realize what 'loopholes' they have available to them (and with that, they obviously have no idea how to take advantage of them)...it's almost like shopping - you shop smart, you save a lot of money - if not, then you just pay full price. And don't try to feed me the baloney that the Democratic party doesn't live by the 'take from the rich, give to the poor' philosophy...it's their mantra...by mere definition, they are the party of gov't reliance.
... but I'll feel pretty damn good pulling the lever once again in November for the "food stamps" president.
Newt Gingrich's dog-whistle tactics are shameful. He and Rick Santorum are bigots in their unrelenting implications that most black Americans are on food stamps -- and that blacks are complacent with it. My family was never on them. Never. And every person I know who is on food stamps is white.