Happened to run across this from the AP:
FACT CHECK: Are rich taxed less than secretaries?
By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER, Associated Press – 14 hours ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama says he wants to make sure millionaires are taxed at higher rates than their secretaries. The data say they already are.
"Warren Buffett's secretary shouldn't pay a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett. There is no justification for it," Obama said as he announced his deficit-reduction plan this week. "It is wrong that in the United States of America, a teacher or a nurse or a construction worker who earns $50,000 should pay higher tax rates than somebody pulling in $50 million."
On average, the wealthiest people in America pay a lot more taxes than the middle class or the poor, according to private and government data. They pay at a higher rate, and as a group, they contribute a much larger share of the overall taxes collected by the federal government.
The 10 percent of households with the highest incomes pay more than half of all federal taxes. They pay more than 70 percent of federal income taxes, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
In his White House address on Monday, Obama called on Congress to increase taxes by $1.5 trillion as part of a 10-year deficit reduction package totaling more than $3 trillion. He proposed that Congress overhaul the tax code and impose what he called the "Buffett rule," named for the billionaire investor.
The rule says, "People making more than $1 million a year should not pay a smaller share of their income in taxes than middle-class families pay." Buffett wrote in a recent piece for The New York Times that the tax rate he paid last year was lower than that paid by any of the other 20 people in his office.
"Middle-class families shouldn't pay higher taxes than millionaires and billionaires," Obama said. "That's pretty straightforward. It's hard to argue against that."
There may be individual millionaires who pay taxes at rates lower than middle-income workers. In 2009, 1,470 households filed tax returns with incomes above $1 million yet paid no federal income tax, according to the Internal Revenue Service. But that's less than 1 percent of the nearly 237,000 returns with incomes above $1 million.
This year, households making more than $1 million will pay an average of 29.1 percent of their income in federal taxes, including income taxes, payroll taxes and other taxes, according to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank.
Households making between $50,000 and $75,000 will pay an average of 15 percent of their income in federal taxes.
Lower-income households will pay less. For example, households making between $40,000 and $50,000 will pay an average of 12.5 percent of their income in federal taxes. Households making between $20,000 and $30,000 will pay 5.7 percent.
The latest IRS figures are a few years older — and limited to federal income taxes — but show much the same thing. In 2009, taxpayers who made $1 million or more paid on average 24.4 percent of their income in federal income taxes, according to the IRS.
Those making $100,000 to $125,000 paid on average 9.9 percent in federal income taxes. Those making $50,000 to $60,000 paid an average of 6.3 percent.
Obama's claim hinges on the fact that, for high-income families and individuals, investment income is often taxed at a lower rate than wages. The top tax rate for dividends and capital gains is 15 percent. The top marginal tax rate for wages is 35 percent, though that is reserved for taxable income above $379,150.
With tax rates that high, why do so many people pay at lower rates? Because the tax code is riddled with more than $1 trillion in deductions, exemptions and credits, and they benefit people at every income level, according to data from the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, Congress' official scorekeeper on revenue issues.
The Tax Policy Center estimates that 46 percent of households, mostly low- and medium-income households, will pay no federal income taxes this year. Most, however, will pay other taxes, including Social Security payroll taxes.
"People who are doing quite well and worry about low-income people not paying any taxes bemoan the fact that they get so many tax breaks that they are zeroed out," said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center. "People at the bottom of the distribution say, 'But all of those rich guys are getting bigger tax breaks than we're getting,' which is also the case."
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was pressed at a White House briefing on the number of millionaires who pay taxes at a lower rate than middle-income families. He demurred, saying that people who make most of their money in wages pay taxes at a higher rate, while those who get most of their income from investments pay at lower rates.
"So it really depends on what is your profession, where's the source of your income, what's the specific circumstances you face, and the averages won't really capture that," Geithner said.
Copyright © 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iP3lhS4ZQ-UhyUvFfUgdPCiu-jJA?docId=47a565563a294b2bad96544a7f0ddc1b
Again defending the Millionaire's and the Billionaires. Again stupid thinking. Wake up Honey Poo. :doh:
Quote from: The Troll on September 20, 2011, 06:39:39 PM
Again defending the Millionaire's and the Billionaires. Again stupid thinking. Wake up Honey Poo. :doh:
All I did was post the article.
Quote from: me on September 20, 2011, 09:03:18 PM
All I did was post the article.
You're still defending the super rich. I sure don't understand someone who says that she worked really hard at jobs that didn't pay all that well, but will go out of their way to defend the rich who doesn't give a damn about you "ME". :no: :no: :rolleyes:
I really hope you wake up one of these days Troll.
Quote from: me on September 21, 2011, 03:22:36 AM
I really hope you wake up one of these days Troll.
"Me" if it means that I have to get down on my knees and kiss the ring and kiss the ass :kissit: of the super rich and the super rich and predatory capitalist corporations you and I will long gone from this earth. There is no way I will give up my freedom to these greedy and selfish SOBs. :trustme: on that statement. Sweet Poo. :yes: :biggrin:
Troll, why is it, that when Reagan CUT TAXES on the wealthy from 70% to 28% that the federal revenue doubled?...it went from 1/2 a trillion to almost a trillion!
If it was up to you, you would return those rates on the wealty, and it would completely shut our economy down.
This is not rocket science.............what we need is JOBS...the best way to create them is to get these weathy folks to INVEST BACK into the USA, by cutting corp rates lower than other countries and giving incentives to spend their money, instead of tryng to take it away from them by force.
why is it so simple yet so hard for many to understand?....it is THAT freaking simple.
Winston Churchill once said that "for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity, is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle."
That is exactly what Obama and the democrats are trying to do. Where in the hell is the common sense?...it has left the building.
That is why we need the likes of a Chris Christie to take over the reins....
Quote from: Henry Hawk on September 21, 2011, 12:51:47 PM
Troll, why is it, that when Reagan CUT TAXES on the wealthy from 70% to 28% that the federal revenue doubled?...it went from 1/2 a trillion to almost a trillion!
Lie; as a percentage of GDP, federal revenues declined under Reagan. He did, however, more than double the annual deficit; maybe that's what you're thinking of.
Quote from: Exterminator on September 21, 2011, 03:29:29 PM
Lie; as a percentage of GDP, federal revenues declined under Reagan. He did, however, more than double the annual deficit; maybe that's what you're thinking of.
Here is another chart that show the federal revenue over the years following those tax cuts.....
what I stated was the federal revenue grew....
Do you believe it would have been MORE productive had Reagan left those tax rates as they were?.....seriously?
(http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2002/12/~/media/Images/Reports/B_1544_Chart_1lg_4/taxcuts2002.ashx)
Quote from: Henry Hawk on September 21, 2011, 04:17:49 PM
Here is another chart that show the federal revenue over the years following those tax cuts.....
what I stated was the federal revenue grew....
To simple people like you who don't understand the importance of context, I'm sure that's meaningful. You're trying to imply that the increases in revenue were because of the tax cuts and that is categorically false.
QuoteDo you believe it would have been MORE productive had Reagan left those tax rates as they were?.....seriously?
It would have been about the same; Bush Sr. and Clinton both raised taxes and the economy continued to expand.
Quote from: Exterminator on September 21, 2011, 04:29:44 PM
To simple people like you who don't understand the importance of context, I'm sure that's meaningful. You're trying to imply that the increases in revenue were because of the tax cuts and that is categorically false.
It would have been about the same; Bush Sr. and Clinton both raised taxes and the economy continued to expand.
you think 70% is a fair rate for the wealthy?
Quote from: Henry Hawk on September 21, 2011, 04:31:56 PM
you think 70% is a fair rate for the wealthy?
Actually, I don't care what they pay. Are you suggesting that someone would forego an additional $10 million in income if they only got to take home $3 million of it? Your hero, Reagan, lowered it to 50%; is that fair?
But since you brought it up, let's explore your little 70% tax rate fallacy; shall we? First and foremost, it is important to note that not all of a person's income is taxed at that rate, only the income that exceeds the threshold for the highest tax bracket is. I'm not sure if you're being intentionally misleading or if you simply don't know any better but income below that threshold is taxed at the same rate everyone else pays. When Reagan took office, the threshold for the top bracket was $212,000.00; under him, the threshold for the top bracket was $106,000.00. Are people making $106,000.00 wealthy? As wealthy as people making $10 million? How about $50 million?
Now let's address your suggestion that there's a causal relationship between the health of the economy and the tax rate for the top tax bracket. In the years preceding the Great Depression, the threshold for the top bracket was $100,000.00, the tax rate was 24-25% and the economy collapsed. In the 1950's, the threshold was $400,000.00, the rate was over 90% and the country saw unprecedented growth! History doesn't seem to support your claims...at all.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on September 21, 2011, 12:51:47 PM
Troll, why is it, that when Reagan CUT TAXES on the wealthy from 70% to 28% that the federal revenue doubled?...it went from 1/2 a trillion to almost a trillion!
If it was up to you, you would return those rates on the wealty, and it would completely shut our economy down.
This is not rocket science.............what we need is JOBS...the best way to create them is to get these weathy folks to INVEST BACK into the USA, by cutting corp rates lower than other countries and giving incentives to spend their money, instead of tryng to take it away from them by force.
why is it so simple yet so hard for many to understand?....it is THAT freaking simple.
Winston Churchill once said that "for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity, is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle."
That is exactly what Obama and the democrats are trying to do. Where in the hell is the common sense?...it has left the building.
That is why we need the likes of a Chris Christie to take over the reins....
Mr. Hawk I have two questions for you. Why is it that after old Alzheimer's brain Ronald Reagan left office he had the highest deficit in the history of the America up to that time? What do you have to say about that. Tax cuts my ass. :mad:
OK Mr. Hawk I want you to give just one answer, it sure won't be to hard. Name me just one thing a law, one government plan that the Republican Party has done or signed for the betterment of the working men or women and the poor of this country. I don't think you can name me one and I don't think cutting taxes is one of them.
Now don't run off and take your bat and ball and hide. I want an answer from you Mr. Hawk. :doh:
It seems to me that the Tea/Republican Party want to destroy unions, unemployment, Social Security, Medicare, Medicade, Davis - Bacon act, Fair Labor Act that covers minimum wage, 8 hour work day, EPA, OSHA, Collective Labor Law and the Child Labor Labor Laws. This is just a few of the laws that the Tea/Republican Party wants to kill. :mad: :mad: :mad: :knife:
Guess you'll have to wait until tomorrow. Henry is apparently only able to post about how worthless union workers are for wasting time on the clock when he's on the clock.
Quote from: Exterminator on September 21, 2011, 11:13:25 PM
Guess you'll have to wait until tomorrow. Henry is apparently only able to post about how worthless union workers are for wasting time on the clock when he's on the clock.
Hee, hee hee Ex. You don't know how many times I have want to say that he was posting on his company's time. Thank you, you got him good. :rotfl: :rotfl: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :bliss: :bliss: :bliss: UAW workers waste company time. :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
As if it is any of your business....I am salary, and I work WAY more than forty hours a week and I also do a great deal of work from my home.... I rarely take a lunch break nor do I demand breaks through out the day. I am extremely productive at what I do. I actually have a job that I enjoy and I EARN every penny I make....unlike many UAW employees.
and btw, it was a democrat congress that spent that money and created the deficit. Reagan was not perfect, but he DID put forth policies that stimulated our economy, unemployment dropped, inflation rate dropped, and he strengthend our military and to boot, we had the longest recorded era of peacetime prosperity WITHOUT a recession.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on September 22, 2011, 08:37:03 AM
As if it is any of your business....I am salary, and I work WAY more than forty hours a week and I also do a great deal of work from my home.... I rarely take a lunch break nor do I demand breaks through out the day. I am extremely productive at what I do. I actually have a job that I enjoy and I EARN every penny I make....unlike many UAW employees.
Methinks thou doth protest too loudly.
Quoteand btw, it was a democrat congress that spent that money and created the deficit. Reagan was not perfect, but he DID put forth policies that stimulated our economy, unemployment dropped, inflation rate dropped, and he strengthend our military and to boot, we had the longest recorded era of peacetime prosperity WITHOUT a recession.
The only thing that Reagan accomplished was to start what has now been a three decades long trend of low tax rates on the rich which have resulted only in concentrating America's wealth at the very top and leaving everyone else worse off. I'm sure that make him a hero in your mind. :rolleyes:
Me, you notice how this thread kind of got hijacked and turned around?...........the bottom line is the rich pay a great deal more than secretaries, by percentage.....there is plenty of proof to support it too........this is nothing more than MORE SCRARE TACTICS by Obama and playing politics....he is getting worried and desperate and the lies are spewing.
that is the bottom line about this ... getting people like the Troll to get angry. It is pure propaganda....and millions of sheep will believe it.
here are some "opinions" by others:
AP: (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iP3lhS4ZQ-UhyUvFfUgdPCiu-jJA?docId=47a565563a294b2bad96544a7f0ddc1b)
President Barack Obama makes it sound as if there are millionaires all over America paying taxes at lower rates than their secretaries. . . . The data tell a different story. On average, the wealthiest people in America pay a lot more taxes than the middle class or the poor, according to private and government data. They pay at a higher rate, and as a group, they contribute a much larger share of the overall taxes collected by the federal government. ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/09/fact-check-the-richtheir-secretaries-and-taxes/):
Treasury Secretary Geithner yesterday declined to answer a key question about the president's proposed 'Buffett Rule': How many millionaires and billionaires pay lower tax rates than middle-income families? The answer appears to be this: not many. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center has crunched the numbers and found that Warren Buffett and his secretary are the exception to the rule. For the most part, the wealthy pay a significantly higher percentage of their income in taxes than middle-income workers. The Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904194604576580800735800830.html):
There's one small problem: The entire Buffett Rule premise is false . . . . [N]early all millionaires still paid a rate that is more than twice the 8.9% average rate paid by those earning between $50,000 and $100,000, and more than three times the 7.2% average rate paid by those earning less than $50,000. The larger point is that the claim that CEOs are routinely paying lower tax rates than their secretaries is Omaha hokum. And the WSJ calls it what it really is:
We rehearse all of this because it shows that the real point of Mr. Obama's Buffett Rule and his latest deficit proposal isn't tax justice or good tax policy. It is all about re-election politics.
Even NBC is on to the game: (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/09/20/7856057-first-thoughts-the-governing-phase-is-over)
With some 14 months until Election Day 2012, Obama's speech yesterday essentially marked the end of the governing season and the beginning of the campaign. White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer admitted as much to the New York Times. 'The popular narrative is that we sought compromise in a quixotic quest for independent votes. We sought out compromise because a failure to get funding of the government last spring and then an extension of the debt ceiling in August would have been very bad for the economy and for the country.' Pfeiffer added, 'We were in a position of legislative compromise by necessity. That phase is behind us.
If you just want to talk to someone else who is as delusional about his/her understanding of how things work as you are, why don't the two of you simply email each other? If, on the other hand, you come here and publicly post bullshit, you should expect people to challenge you on it.
So about that article...is the "leftist, main stream media" only wrong when they don't agree with you?
Similarly, a lot of your complaints about the current administration revolve around spending money we don't have. As disingenuous as it is, you dismiss questions about the previous administration doing the same thing by claiming that you weren't much of a supporter of his either. However misguided, clearly you are a huge Reagan fan and he spent money we didn't have...lots of it...what gives?
Quote from: Exterminator on September 22, 2011, 01:11:38 PM
If you just want to talk to someone else who is as delusional about his/her understanding of how things work as you are, why don't the two of you simply email each other? If, on the other hand, you come here and publicly post bullshit, you should expect people to challenge you on it.
So about that article...is the "leftist, main stream media" only wrong when they don't agree with you?
Similarly, a lot of your complaints about the current administration revolve around spending money we don't have. As disingenuous as it is, you dismiss questions about the previous administration doing the same thing by claiming that you weren't much of a supporter of his either. However misguided, clearly you are a huge Reagan fan and he spent money we didn't have...lots of it...what gives?
I have never dismissed the previous admin for over spending.......go back and look. Bush SUCKED on several things, and I always stated so. He allowed WAY too much spending. Yes, Reagan too allowed it. I happen to think he did many, many great things aside from that.
Politicians SPEND money, that is what they do best....Repubs, Dems, all of them.............I am NOW interested in someone who is going to start doing the right things.......and there will probably not be anyone to step up. I'm almost positive there won't be.
Challange AWAY my friend.........I have been here since 2006 and I'm still here....by choice. There are plenty of other forums I could go that agree with me on almost everything.......but, I have zero interest in that. to be honest, I don't have a great deal of interest in staying here, but yet I do. Hard one to figure out.......You and Troll have a great deal of hatred towards me, yet I still kind of like you two, and I cannot quite put my finger on it. Troll, is a good guy, who worked hard and has a great sense of humor.
YOU on the other hand, a MOSTLY a prick and arrogant...but you kind of remind me of my brother, who is just as cocky, but has a great heart......I have picked on many things with you over the years and think deep down you are a 1/2 way decent person...I don't always disagree with you, you make good points....but, overall I have confidence in my opinions and what I believe to be best for this country and my family.
btw, there is NOTHING disingenuous about the obnoxious spending by this administration....NOTHING.
:)
I asked about your hero, Reagan's, spending and about whether or not his 50% tax rate was fair.
And what you see as me being an arrogant prick is really nothing more than your frustration over not being able to answer the most fundamental question relating to your assertion that letting wealthy people keep more of their money creates jobs. The wealthy have been doing very well for years now; when is this money going to magically rain down on the rest of us?
Quote from: Exterminator on September 22, 2011, 01:42:11 PM
I asked about your hero, Reagan's, spending and about whether or not his 50% tax rate was fair.
first of all, show me where you asked that....
I missed it.
and you ARE an arrogant prick, well because you are.....it has NOTHING to do with your knowledge of anything it is just that you are a prick and full of yourself...AT LEAST THAT IS MY OPINION.
Quote from: Exterminator on September 22, 2011, 01:49:32 PM
And what you see as me being an arrogant prick is really nothing more than your frustration over not being able to answer the most fundamental question relating to your assertion that letting wealthy people keep more of their money creates jobs. The wealthy have been doing very well for years now; when is this money going to magically rain down on the rest of us?
and you think if we raise the tax rates back to where the were, it WILL magically rain wealth on us? and jobs will be created?
Quote from: Henry Hawk on September 22, 2011, 03:13:18 PM
and you think if we raise the tax rates back to where the were, it WILL magically rain wealth on us? and jobs will be created?
Nope but it'll lower the deficit! Conversely, lowering taxes has proven to be of no benefit whatsoever. Your ilk would have us believe that even corporate taxes are too high but the reality is that if Apple's corporate taxes were halved tomorrow, it would not encourage them to suddenly want to build a manufacturing plant in the U.S., thereby creating jobs. They would still build their iPads and iPhones in China or wherever and the execs would all give themselves fat raises at the rest of our expense.
Your way doesn't work.
Quote from: Exterminator on September 22, 2011, 03:44:26 PM
Nope but it'll lower the deficit! Your way doesn't work.
So you think we can tax our way into prosperity?....What makes you so certain, that the very folks who are responsible for spending trillions of $$ we do not have, will apply any money raised from these taxes to paying towards teh deficit? Don't you think cutting expenses is first and foremost? And would it NOT make more sense to somehow, get the private sector to once again, INVEST into America, to create jobs, thusly increasing the federal revenue?
THAT is the only way we can truly turn things around.....JOBS, JOBS, JOBS.
Quote from: Exterminator on September 22, 2011, 03:44:26 PM
Nope but it'll lower the deficit! Conversely, lowering taxes has proven to be of no benefit whatsoever. Your ilk would have us believe that even corporate taxes are too high but the reality is that if Apple's corporate taxes were halved tomorrow, it would not encourage them to suddenly want to build a manufacturing plant in the U.S., thereby creating jobs. They would still build their iPads and iPhones in China or wherever and the execs would all give themselves fat raises at the rest of our expense.
Your way doesn't work.
What you and a lot of others seem to be overlooking in all this is the fact that if the companies move or can't sell their product because the economy is in the dumpers because there are no jobs their won't be any incoming revenue from taxes because there won't be anyone left to pay them, they will be out of business. All the figures on that little piece of paper mean nothing unless it actually happens period.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on September 22, 2011, 04:08:59 PM
So you think we can tax our way into prosperity?....What makes you so certain, that the very folks who are responsible for spending trillions of $$ we do not have, will apply any money raised from these taxes to paying towards teh deficit? Don't you think cutting expenses is first and foremost? And would it NOT make more sense to somehow, get the private sector to once again, INVEST into America, to create jobs, thusly increasing the federal revenue?
THAT is the only way we can truly turn things around.....JOBS, JOBS, JOBS.
Raising taxes will reduce the deficit. The rich has really had a ball for the last 10 years making money hand over fist and they haven't created one job here in America, paying the lowest tax rate since World II.
But boy oh boy have they increased JOBS in China, Mexico, India, Canada and other over seas companies. You can't buy American shoes, clothes, plumbing goods and so many other goods and all of the foreign cars that almost put our auto manufacturing out of business. When in hell are you going to wake up Hawk. :cube: <--- Hawk :rotfl: :rotfl:
At one time the tax rate on the rich was 90% and American businesses soared. So did some space alien came down and zapped you in to thinking that only the rich built this country. It was the American workers and we did when the Union, the trade unions were strong and working conditions were good. You not only have your head up your ass you have your shoulder in too. :rolleyes: what a dufass. :razz:
Quote from: The Troll on September 22, 2011, 04:34:22 PM
Raising taxes will reduce the deficit.
I will ask YOU this....How will it reduce the deficit, IF those bozo's don't quit spending?..........and that is both dems and repubs.
How much do you want it raised?...........there are NOT THAT many billionaires to where it will make THAT big a difference...
YOU can not TAX your way into prosperity...........why is this hard to digest?
and unless YOU are talking about the super rich...........taxing the $250,000 folks is going to CRUSH this economy........EVEN Obama said this much just a few months ago..........is THAT what he wants?.....you call repubs stupid, but stop and think about it.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on September 22, 2011, 04:56:16 PM
I will ask YOU this....How will it reduce the deficit, IF those bozo's don't quit spending?..........and that is both dems and repubs.
How much do you want it raised?...........there are NOT THAT many billionaires to where it will make THAT big a difference...
YOU can not TAX your way into prosperity...........why is this hard to digest?
and unless YOU are talking about the super rich...........taxing the $250,000 folks is going to CRUSH this economy........EVEN Obama said this much just a few months ago..........is THAT what he wants?.....you call repubs stupid, but stop and think about it.
The whole problem is they haven't stopped to think that the powers that be aren't going to pass anything that hurts them, either party, and they definitely aren't going to pass something that will harm their contributors. Only the smaller businesses will be hurt and they will be taken over by the larger corporations which will get some more TARP then the government will start running them and we'll all be working for the government and handing them our money, or most of it, for the "free" everyone has to be equal programs. Ya, I could'a sat here and wrote out a big college type explanation of how that works but if ya ain't smart enough to see what's comin' ya wouldn't understand it anyway.
You steel cladded headed idiots. I'm tired of your crap. Your wonderful George W. got us into this depression. I taking a vacation from you twins. Have at, I not going to argue with you now. Until the election come closer. You can put out all of your Teabagger crap. The Zoners know what the crap is. :wink: I'm taking a rest. :flash: <------ And you twins can swim all you want too. :biggrin:
Quote from: me on September 22, 2011, 07:56:07 PM
Ya, I could'a sat here and wrote out a big college type explanation of how that works but if ya ain't smart enough to see what's comin' ya wouldn't understand it anyway.
Because you and your cohort, both of whom have proven yourselves abject failures at managing even your own personal finances, are well equipped to understand something as complex as the entire country's economic system; right?
Quote from: Henry Hawk on September 22, 2011, 04:08:59 PM
THAT is the only way we can truly turn things around.....JOBS, JOBS, JOBS.
Jobs doing what, genius?
Quote from: Exterminator on September 22, 2011, 08:33:59 PM
Because you and your cohort, both of whom have proven yourselves abject failures at managing even your own personal finances, are well equipped to understand something as complex as the entire country's economic system; right?
I'm smart enough to know ya can't/shouldn't be spending money ya don't have and going further into debt by spending more and depending on someone else to pay your bills doesn't work and that is exactly what's going on. You just go ahead living in your credit card dream world and you'll be off in lala land somewhere when it hits and still have no clue what happened.
Quote from: Exterminator on September 22, 2011, 08:33:59 PM
Because you and your cohort, both of whom have proven yourselves abject failures at managing even your own personal finances, are well equipped to understand something as complex as the entire country's economic system; right?
That is why you are a prick...............you always try to make things personal and make attacks instead of talking about the issues....You are arrogant into believing that only YOU have the intelligence to understand our economic system...........why do you even come here?.........do you not have a life?.....you spend most of your day here, trying to prove something that no one gives a shit about....is it your lifes goal to change me and me?.....
methinks you need a new hobby.
Quote from: me on September 23, 2011, 04:32:44 AM
I'm smart enough to know ya can't/shouldn't be spending money ya don't have and going further into debt by spending more and depending on someone else to pay your bills doesn't work and that is exactly what's going on. You just go ahead living in your credit card dream world and you'll be off in lala land somewhere when it hits and still have no clue what happened.
Really? So where were you when Bush was doing that?
EX, you got to be more sensitive. They want to live in their La La Land with their stupid ideas and prejudices.
Did you see that "ME" thinks that this George W's depression was caused by the few people who don't want to work. :rotfl: :rotfl:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on September 23, 2011, 08:14:51 AM
That is why you are a prick...............you always try to make things personal and make attacks instead of talking about the issues....You are arrogant into believing that only YOU have the intelligence to understand our economic system...........why do you even come here?.........do you not have a life?.....you spend most of your day here, trying to prove something that no one gives a shit about....is it your lifes goal to change me and me?.....
methinks you need a new hobby.
I'm simply stating facts and the facts are that the biggest reason all of this spending was necessary was because of the near collapse of the world economy due to the mortgage derivative debacle and you are one of the people directly responsible for it. Now you want to point the finger at everyone else, talk about how fucked up they are and tell us all about your solutions to fix the problem that you helped cause! And I'm arrogant?
It's ironic that you accuse me of that while deluding yourself into believing that you have any understanding of economics whatsoever despite your complete lack of any formal education on the subject. Sorry but your "common sense" ploy doesn't work with me; it is not a substitute for actual knowledge of a subject even if you had it and the only reading on the subject you've ever done is by other internet experts like yourself.
I guess I could ask you why you come here as well, Henry? Are you not satisfied with simply being presumed a fool and feel it necessary to come here and prove it every day?
Quote from: Exterminator on September 23, 2011, 09:09:59 AM
I'm simply stating facts and the facts are that the biggest reason all of this spending was necessary was because of the near collapse of the world economy due to the mortgage derivative debacle and you are one of the people directly responsible for it. Now you want to point the finger at everyone else, talk about how fucked up they are and tell us all about your solutions to fix the problem that you helped cause! And I'm arrogant?
It's ironic that you accuse me of that while deluding yourself into believing that you have any understanding of economics whatsoever despite your complete lack of any formal education on the subject. Sorry but your "common sense" ploy doesn't work with me; it is not a substitute for actual knowledge of a subject even if you had it and the only reading on the subject you've ever done is by other internet experts like yourself.
I guess I could ask you why you come here as well, Henry? Are you not satisfied with simply being presumed a fool and feel it necessary to come here and prove it every day?
The only thing foolish I am guilty of is hanging out with fools........
(this is not aimed at everyone here on the forum...you know exactly who I am referring too....)
I have to say this, for a guy who is a self-proclaimed educated person in economics.....you could not be more wrong. If you honestly believe that Obama's spending a TRILLION dollars SAVED the world from collapsing....then I have nothing else to say or discuss.
Not self proclaimed...I have transcripts to prove it. You should quit hanging out with those fools...they're filling your head with bullshit and lies that you then come here and repeat.
Quote from: Exterminator on September 23, 2011, 09:09:59 AM
I'm simply stating facts and the facts are that the biggest reason all of this spending was necessary was because of the near collapse of the world economy due to the mortgage derivative debacle and you are one of the people directly responsible for it. Now you want to point the finger at everyone else, talk about how fucked up they are and tell us all about your solutions to fix the problem that you helped cause! And I'm arrogant?
It's ironic that you accuse me of that while deluding yourself into believing that you have any understanding of economics whatsoever despite your complete lack of any formal education on the subject. Sorry but your "common sense" ploy doesn't work with me; it is not a substitute for actual knowledge of a subject even if you had it and the only reading on the subject you've ever done is by other internet experts like yourself.
I guess I could ask you why you come here as well, Henry? Are you not satisfied with simply being presumed a fool and feel it necessary to come here and prove it every day?
Tell me something Ex how is HH even remotely responsible for that mortgage mess? That started with Clinton and you know it. You dealt, or deal, with commercial properties which are different than housing and don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about either because I've sold both and helped obtain loans for both. You would not have known about the types of mortgages which were made available for home owners because there would have been no need for you to know. All you know about are conventional loans and business loans. Under Clinton the secondary market had so many different kinds of no down payment, no statement, low income type loans available it was hard for the loan officers to keep up with them and some banks didn't, and wouldn't, even offer them. They were mostly obtained through mortgage brokers who dealt with several mortgage companies and obtained the loans through the one that fit the buyer or person refinancing the best. Investors bought properties through them because of the relaxed rules and you could borrow more than the home was actually worth to get money back in your pocket at closing. That was strictly a Clinton democrat thing and was beginning to tighten up under Bush. Don't even try to blame the housing bubble on Bush or the conservatives. If you weren't so busy trying to convenience everyone you know it all you might realize that there are others that may know more about some things than you or at least know as much.
Oh and for the record, no I didn't sell a huge commercial property it was a couple of smaller ones but that was enough to know it was a whole different ball game from home mortgages.
Ya know they say the accuser is the doer and I'm beginning to wonder if you are the one in trouble financially here and got yourself in too deep mortgage wise and are trying to dig yourself out of a hole. You sure seem to want to tag HH and me with it a lot for some reason.
And what is so hard to understand about you spend more than you have and borrow more than you can pay back you're gonna eventually get into trouble from a small scale household to a country? The only difference is the numbers are larger when it applies to a country but the principle remains the same. The governments money comes from the people who are going broke and the individuals money comes from their job which a lot of people don't have now. The governments source of income, us and businesses, varies so there is no way to determine with a certainty how much revenue will be coming in by simply raising taxes because that source of income might not be there when push comes to shove but they seem to spend it before they actually have it and people like you don't seem to understand the difference between theoretical and actual. It's that "well it works on paper" attitude that gets people like you into trouble.
Quote from: me on September 23, 2011, 09:58:39 AM
Tell me something Ex how is HH even remotely responsible for that mortgage mess?
Simple. He's one of the people who bought a house he couldn't afford and then defaulted on the mortgage.
QuoteThat was strictly a Clinton democrat thing and was beginning to tighten up under Bush. Don't even try to blame the housing bubble on Bush or the conservatives.
You were making some good points until you threw this bullshit into the mix; both parties share the blame on this one.
QuoteYa know they say the accuser is the doer and I'm beginning to wonder if you are the one in trouble financially here and got yourself in too deep mortgage wise and are trying to dig yourself out of a hole. You sure seem to want to tag HH and me with it a lot for some reason.
LMAO! Nice try...don't throw your shoulder out of joint reaching.
QuoteAnd what is so hard to understand about you spend more than you have and borrow more than you can pay back you're gonna eventually get into trouble from a small scale household to a country?
Well, that all sounds very good except that it is an overly simplistic view of a very complicated problem. You and Henry seem to have a lot of really simple solutions that somehow continue to evade the well-learned people whose job it is to actually do something to help this failing economy. Why do you think that is?
That notwithstanding, neither of you has any credibility on the spending issue because you sat silent while Bush ran up a trillion dollars in debt over an unfunded drug program or got us into two wars, one of them completely unneccesarily with a price tag of several trillion dollars. To come along now and claim that you're suddenly worried about spending money we don't have is disingenuous at best.
Now to the part that you seem to have a difficult time grasping...the economy is faltering at present primarily because no one has any money to spend. Traditional economic wisdom dictates that at such times, the government must spend money to keep the economy moving, however slowly. If the government stops spending now, we will certainly see a depression, the results of which will be much graver and much more violent than the depression in the 30's. Is that what you're advocating?
better get your facts straight before you blow your mouth off...but, that seems to be what you are best at.
Which facts are those?
Quote from: Exterminator on September 23, 2011, 11:25:51 AM
Which facts are those?
Ex, I asked Henery to answer one question. I asked him what bill, what action, law that the Republican Party passed that was for the betterment of the American work classes. No tax cut need to be given. Cricket, cricket, cricket.
Do you think that Hawk is not informed or not smart enough to answer it. :confused: :rotfl:
Quote from: The Troll on September 23, 2011, 05:43:07 PM
Ex, I asked Henery to answer one question. I asked him what bill, what action, law that the Republican Party passed that was for the betterment of the American work classes. No tax cut need to be given. Cricket, cricket, cricket.
Do you think that Hawk is not informed or not smart enough to answer it. :confused: :rotfl:
It's not that he isn't smart enough to answer it's that you aren't smart enough to understand it. :razz:
Quote. . .by Stephen Ohlemacher
WASHINGTON – As millions of procrastinators scramble to meet Monday's tax filing deadline, ponder this: The super rich pay a lot less taxes than they did a couple of decades ago, and nearly half of U.S. households pay no income taxes at all.
The Internal Revenue Service tracks the tax returns with the 400 highest adjusted gross incomes each year. The average income on those returns in 2007, the latest year for IRS data, was nearly $345 million. Their average federal income tax rate was 17 percent, down from 26 percent in 1992.
Over the same period, the average federal income tax rate for all taxpayers declined to 9.3 percent from 9.9 percent.
The top income tax rate is 35 percent, so how can people who make so much pay so little in taxes? The nation's tax laws are packed with breaks for people at every income level. There are breaks for having children, paying a mortgage, going to college, and even for paying other taxes. Plus, the top rate on capital gains is only 15 percent.
. . .
http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/economic-news/2011/4/18/stephen-ohlemacher-super-rich-see-federal-taxes-drop-dramati.html (http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/economic-news/2011/4/18/stephen-ohlemacher-super-rich-see-federal-taxes-drop-dramati.html)
. . . And before you trash the "source", it's the AP, and it was carried by one of "your" favorite sources "yahoo". . .
Published on Sunday, April 17, 2011 by Associated PressSo it begs the question; which is it Stevie? Or is it that you are such a whore for money that you'll write anything that gains you an audience? :rolleyes:
Humm. . . same guy but different approach back in April of this year. . .
Just think if we paid everybody minimum wage $7.25 under people making a Million dollars a year. Just think how much richer we could make the Super Rich richer. :wink: :smile:
I had better keep this idea to myself. The Tea/Republican Party have this idea in the Republican platform. :yes: :biggrin:
Quote from: Palehorse on September 23, 2011, 10:03:08 PM
http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/economic-news/2011/4/18/stephen-ohlemacher-super-rich-see-federal-taxes-drop-dramati.html (http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/economic-news/2011/4/18/stephen-ohlemacher-super-rich-see-federal-taxes-drop-dramati.html)
. . . And before you trash the "source", it's the AP, and it was carried by one of "your" favorite sources "yahoo". . . Published on Sunday, April 17, 2011 by Associated Press
So it begs the question; which is it Stevie? Or is it that you are such a whore for money that you'll write anything that gains you an audience? :rolleyes:
Humm. . . same guy but different approach back in April of this year. . .
LMAO! Wow...
Two words.......FAIR TAX
Quote from: Henry Hawk on September 26, 2011, 10:51:11 AM
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer
Uh, yeah, I've read that and am all for a consumption based model for fair taxation (been saying that for years) but think that the prebate portion of this approach is unmanageable. So the government is going to send checks to every household in the U.S. every month? Think about it and consider all of the variables...
Quote from: Exterminator on September 26, 2011, 12:23:37 PM
Uh, yeah, I've read that and am all for a consumption based model for fair taxation (been saying that for years) but think that the prebate portion of this approach is unmanageable. So the government is going to send checks to every household in the U.S. every month? Think about it and consider all of the variables...
I know it is not a "perfect" plan, but it is excellent start.....I wish this dialogue would get more serious on a National level.....it seems it is to many, but there several who are completely unaware of this possiblity....
Quote from: Exterminator on September 26, 2011, 12:23:37 PM
Uh, yeah, I've read that and am all for a consumption based model for fair taxation (been saying that for years) but think that the prebate portion of this approach is unmanageable. So the government is going to send checks to every household in the U.S. every month? Think about it and consider all of the variables...
They send out thousands of checks every month. During WWII they had had rationing and everyone had a ration card. Now they could just load it on a debit card like they do welfare and food stamps and social security.
Quote from: Anne on September 26, 2011, 01:11:10 PM
They send out thousands of checks every month. During WWII they had had rationing and everyone had a ration card. Now they could just load it on a debit card like they do welfare and food stamps and social security.
Something like that might work if the card keeps track of your tax free food allocation and charges tax on everything above that amount but if they try to actually disburse funds, people will figure out a way to game the system and it will be a train wreck.
Quote from: Exterminator on September 26, 2011, 02:32:59 PM
Something like that might work if the card keeps track of your tax free food allocation and charges tax on everything above that amount but if they try to actually disburse funds, people will figure out a way to game the system and it will be a train wreck.
Ex, there is nothing FAIR about the FAIR TAX. It's another way to protect the rich from paying taxes. It was dreamed up by the rich. I'm not stupid enough to fall for it and I hope the middle class doesn't fall for for it to. :jc:
Quote from: The Troll on September 26, 2011, 03:39:02 PM
Ex, there is nothing FAIR about the FAIR TAX. It's another way to protect the rich from paying taxes. It was dreamed up by the rich. I'm not stupid enough to fall for it and I hope the middle class doesn't fall for for it to.
I disagree. People with more money tend to spend more money, both by buying more and buying more expensive items, and would therefore pay more taxes. They could, of course, avoid paying those taxes by simply spending less but most won't. This type of system encourages saving and investing which also helps the economy. I've always thought a national sales tax was a good idea.
Quote from: Exterminator on September 26, 2011, 02:32:59 PM
Something like that might work if the card keeps track of your tax free food allocation and charges tax on everything above that amount but if they try to actually disburse funds, people will figure out a way to game the system and it will be a train wreck.
Couldn't there just be a set amount per person. Say, $100 per month for each person for food for example? That would cover the basics and if you wanted to eat sirloin or lobster every night you have to do that on your own.
Quote from: Exterminator on September 26, 2011, 03:50:50 PM
I disagree. People with more money tend to spend more money, both by buying more and buying more expensive items, and would therefore pay more taxes. They could, of course, avoid paying those taxes by simply spending less but most won't. This type of system encourages saving and investing which also helps the economy. I've always thought a national sales tax was a good idea.
What do you do about the rich buying the jet planes from Brazil and their yachts from out of county sources. Diamonds, if there is a way to get around the tax the rich has many professional to get it done. :dam:
Another thing I was thinking about. Say we have a couple that make together $10 million a year. They both deside that for 5 years they were going to live like middle class people. They sell every thing, which would be tax free to them.
They rent where they live, lease a car and just eat and live like the rest of us. Just how much money would these people pay in taxes. In five years they would make one hell of a lot of money. This Fair tax takes for granted that the rich will continue to live as high as they are now.
If there is way to cheat on the money the rich makes and the things the rich buy, THEY WILL CHEAT! :trustme:
Quote from: The Troll on September 26, 2011, 07:12:29 PM
Another thing I was thinking about. Say we have a couple that make together $10 million a year. They both deside that for 5 years they were going to live like middle class people. They sell every thing, which would be tax free to them.
They rent where they live, lease a car and just eat and live like the rest of us. Just how much money would these people pay in taxes. In five years they would make one hell of a lot of money. This Fair tax takes for granted that the rich will continue to live as high as they are now.
If there is way to cheat on the money the rich makes and the things the rich buy, THEY WILL CHEAT! :trustme:
Lets say you sell everything you have and decide to live like a lower middle class income person for 5yrs. What you sell would be tax free to you and in 5yrs you would make a hell of a lot of money so what's yer point. No one whether rich or poor should have to pay taxes on anything they own which they decide to sell.
Ya'll just don't seem to understand that raising taxes on the uber rich just ain't gonna get it. Sooner or later they're gonna come after everyone and my bet is on sooner.
And one more news flash for you Troll, there are tax cheats in every income level, just look at all the dems in congress and some of Obama's appointee's they've caught lately who didn't pay taxes and haven't for years. That in itself was a chunk of change.
I doubt if anyone who made that much money would ever last more than a month. Too much work.
Quote from: me on September 26, 2011, 08:21:20 PM
Ya'll just don't seem to understand that raising taxes on the uber rich just ain't gonna get it.
Get over yourself. You are not nor will you ever be uber-rich, don't hang out with anyone uber-rich nor do the uber-rich want anything to do with you. Neither am I but the difference between us is that you defend these people who would pass you around like a joint on the Dennis Hopper estate as a cheap whore to 80 year-olds to make a dollar. You're seriously delusional if you think any one of them gives a crap if you live or die. What an idiot...
Quote from: Exterminator on September 26, 2011, 10:26:03 PM
Get over yourself. You are not nor will you ever be uber-rich, don't hang out with anyone uber-rich nor do the uber-rich want anything to do with you. Neither am I but the difference between us is that you defend these people who would pass you around like a joint on the Dennis Hopper estate as a cheap whore to 80 year-olds to make a dollar. You're seriously delusional if you think any one of them gives a crap if you live or die. What an idiot...
What has that got to do with the fact that raising taxes on
just the rich ain't gonna help a damn thing? You are delusional if you thing the middle class, upper or lower, are not going to get a tax increase. It may not be called a tax increase but will be disguised as some sort of "fee" that you will gladly and blindly go along with. You're talkin' like raising their tax rate to, say 75%, will save your sorry ass and it won't.
My sorry ass doesn't need saved; yours does.
All this jabbering about increasing taxation not he rich not doing anything. Really?
Seems to me the CUT we gave them years ago, and still give them, is directly responsible for a large chunk of the deficit we are experiencing, and for the spending we now have to do in order to shore up our nation's finances!
Quote from: Exterminator on September 27, 2011, 07:34:35 AM
My sorry ass doesn't need saved; yours does.
Whatever grasshopper.
Quote from: Exterminator on September 26, 2011, 10:26:03 PM
Get over yourself. You are not nor will you ever be uber-rich, don't hang out with anyone uber-rich nor do the uber-rich want anything to do with you. Neither am I but the difference between us is that you defend these people who would pass you around like a joint on the Dennis Hopper estate as a cheap whore to 80 year-olds to make a dollar. You're seriously delusional if you think any one of them gives a crap if you live or die. What an idiot...
Isn't it amazing the under Eisenhower who had a 90% tax of the rich the country BOOMED!
Under Clinton who lowered the tax to 50% the country BOOMED! Under George W. who lowered the Tax to 38% the country fell on it's ass.
You can't have a prosperous county unless the rich is paying their fair share of taxes. They got rich of the back's and pockets of American workers, they GOT TO PAY THEIR TAXES. :yes: :yes: :yes: :yes:
Quote from: The Troll on September 27, 2011, 08:00:17 PM
Isn't it amazing the under Eisenhower who had a 90% tax of the rich the country BOOMED!
Under Clinton who lowered the tax to 50% the country BOOMED! Under George W. who lowered the Tax to 38% the country fell on it's ass.
You can't have a prosperous county unless the rich is paying their fair share of taxes. They got rich of the back's and pockets of American workers, they GOT TO PAY THEIR TAXES. :yes: :yes: :yes: :yes:
Whatever you say grasshopper.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/09/30/warren_buffett_does_not_endorse_buffett_rule.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/09/30/warren_buffett_does_not_endorse_buffett_rule.html)
interesting... ;)
Warren Buffett Does Not Endorse WH's "Buffett Rule"
CNBC: "Are you happy that the way it is being described. Is the program that the White House has presented a million dollars and over your program? "
Warren Buffett: "Well, the precise program which will -- I don't know what their program will be. My program would be on the very high incomes that are taxed very low. Not just high incomes. Somebody making $50 million a year playing baseball, his taxes won't change. Make $50 million a year appearing on television, his income won't change. But, if they make a lot of money and pay a very low tax rate, like me, it would be changed by a minimum tax that would only bring them up to what other people pay."
CNBC: "Does that mean you disagree with the president's new jobs proposal which would be paid for by raising taxes on households with incomes of over $250,000."
Buffett: "That's another program that I won't be discussing. My program is to have a tax on ultra-rich people who are very tax rates. Not just all rich people. It would probably apply to 50,000 people in a population of 300 million."
Quote from: Henry Hawk on September 30, 2011, 11:43:05 AM
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/09/30/warren_buffett_does_not_endorse_buffett_rule.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/09/30/warren_buffett_does_not_endorse_buffett_rule.html)
interesting... ;)
Warren Buffett Does Not Endorse WH's "Buffett Rule"
CNBC: "Are you happy that the way it is being described. Is the program that the White House has presented a million dollars and over your program? "
Warren Buffett: "Well, the precise program which will -- I don't know what their program will be. My program would be on the very high incomes that are taxed very low. Not just high incomes. Somebody making $50 million a year playing baseball, his taxes won't change. Make $50 million a year appearing on television, his income won't change. But, if they make a lot of money and pay a very low tax rate, like me, it would be changed by a minimum tax that would only bring them up to what other people pay."
CNBC: "Does that mean you disagree with the president's new jobs proposal which would be paid for by raising taxes on households with incomes of over $250,000."
Buffett: "That's another program that I won't be discussing. My program is to have a tax on ultra-rich people who are very tax rates. Not just all rich people. It would probably apply to 50,000 people in a population of 300 million."
I think it is great. One thing Hawk, I know that with your pay from that second rate company you won't be affected in this new tax rate. :rotfl: :rotfl:
But your the brainy one who thinks that the Flat Tax is what the working people need. :doh: :wall:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on September 30, 2011, 11:43:05 AM
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/09/30/warren_buffett_does_not_endorse_buffett_rule.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/09/30/warren_buffett_does_not_endorse_buffett_rule.html)
interesting... ;)
Warren Buffett Does Not Endorse WH's "Buffett Rule"
CNBC: "Are you happy that the way it is being described. Is the program that the White House has presented a million dollars and over your program? "
Warren Buffett: "Well, the precise program which will -- I don't know what their program will be. My program would be on the very high incomes that are taxed very low. Not just high incomes. Somebody making $50 million a year playing baseball, his taxes won't change. Make $50 million a year appearing on television, his income won't change. But, if they make a lot of money and pay a very low tax rate, like me, it would be changed by a minimum tax that would only bring them up to what other people pay."
CNBC: "Does that mean you disagree with the president's new jobs proposal which would be paid for by raising taxes on households with incomes of over $250,000."
Buffett: "That's another program that I won't be discussing. My program is to have a tax on ultra-rich people who are very tax rates. Not just all rich people. It would probably apply to 50,000 people in a population of 300 million."
Nothing more than republican spin that takes Mr. Buffett's statements out of context and exercises undue license to inject meaning(s) that isn't/aren't there in the first place. All the while totally ignoring the opening phrases that clearly indicate that Mr. Buffett does not know what the plan is, and "won't be discussing it".
Nice try though. . .
What we need is a FLAT TAX. That way the rich and the corporations will not have to pay on Capital Gains, Royalties, Interest. WOW, just what the Rich want! :bliss: :bliss: :bliss: and :bliss: Right Hawk? :biggrin:
Quote from: The Troll on October 01, 2011, 09:39:55 AM
What we need is a FLAT TAX. That way the rich and the corporations will not have to pay on Capital Gains, Royalties, Interest. WOW, just what the Rich want! :bliss: :bliss: :bliss: and :bliss: Right Hawk? :biggrin:
But they will be contributing more because they will be buying more expensive things. Also everyone will be paying and not just a select few and it will be impossible for
anyone to cheat.
Quote from: me on October 01, 2011, 07:38:43 PM
But they will be contributing more because they will be buying more expensive things. Also everyone will be paying and not just a select few and it will be impossible for anyone to cheat.
What ever you say, Grass Hopper! :puke:
When President Obama says that the rich don't pay their share of taxes, he is lying, distorting, and demagoging.
Here are the facts according to the IRS:
• Those making more than $1 million pay 24% of income in taxes
• Those making $200,000 to $300,000 pay 17.5%
• Those making $100,000 to $125,000 pay 9.9%
• Those making $50,000 to $60,000 pay 6.3%
• Those making $20,000 to $30,000 pay 2.5%
And what of millionaires who pay no taxes?
There are 1,470 of them. They represent six-tenths of one percent of all those with million dollar incomes in the U.S. If we assume that they make an average income of $2 million a year each, taxing them at the same rate as other millionaires (24.4%) would yield $367 million, which would increase Treasury income tax revenues by 30 one-hundredths of one percent or one-third of one-tenth of one percent!
Quote from: Henry Hawk on October 03, 2011, 09:07:22 AM
When President Obama says that the rich don't pay their share of taxes, he is lying, distorting, and demagoging.
Here are the facts according to the IRS:
• Those making more than $1 million pay 24% of income in taxes
• Those making $200,000 to $300,000 pay 17.5%
• Those making $100,000 to $125,000 pay 9.9%
• Those making $50,000 to $60,000 pay 6.3%
• Those making $20,000 to $30,000 pay 2.5%
And what of millionaires who pay no taxes?
There are 1,470 of them. They represent six-tenths of one percent of all those with million dollar incomes in the U.S. If we assume that they make an average income of $2 million a year each, taxing them at the same rate as other millionaires (24.4%) would yield $367 million, which would increase Treasury income tax revenues by 30 one-hundredths of one percent or one-third of one-tenth of one percent!
Damn Hawk, I guess you never heard of creative tax avoidance. The rich and corporations use it to extremes. Why is it that GE didn't pay any taxes on the millions and millions of dollars they made last year. You're brain dead.
Plain a simple you don't know a damn thing you are talking about. :jester: I sure wish there was a symbol for a dumb ass. :biggrin:
Quote from: The Troll on October 03, 2011, 10:04:56 AM
Damn Hawk, I guess you never heard of creative tax avoidance. The rich and corporations use it to extremes. Why is it that GE didn't pay any taxes on the millions and millions of dollars they made last year. You're brain dead.
Plain a simple you don't know a damn thing you are talking about. :jester: I sure wish there was a symbol for a dumb ass. :biggrin:
YEAH, the FACTS from the IRS are probably wrong... :rolleyes:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on October 03, 2011, 09:07:22 AM
• Those making more than $1 million pay 24% of income in taxes
• Those making $200,000 to $300,000 pay 17.5%
• Those making $100,000 to $125,000 pay 9.9%
• Those making $50,000 to $60,000 pay 6.3%
• Those making $20,000 to $30,000 pay 2.5%
Based on your information, the following could also be true:
Those making $30,001 to $49,999 pay 30%
Those making $60,000 to $99,999 pay 39%
Those making $125,001 to $199,999 pay 15%
Those making $330,001 to $999,999 pay 2%
I'm just filling in the holes since whomever you plagiarized this from left quite a few income ranges out. The mental midget who wrote this tripe also calculates the tax on income as though it is a tax on salary whereas people making large quantities of annual income typically earn most of it in deferred income on which they pay
no taxes.
Quote from: The Troll on October 03, 2011, 10:04:56 AM
Damn Hawk, I guess you never heard of creative tax avoidance. The rich and corporations use it to extremes. Why is it that GE didn't pay any taxes on the millions and millions of dollars they made last year. You're brain dead.
Plain a simple you don't know a damn thing you are talking about. :jester: I sure wish there was a symbol for a dumb ass. :biggrin:
Ask Obama the CEO is his buddy ya know.
Quote from: me on October 04, 2011, 03:56:26 AM
Ask Obama the CEO is his buddy ya know.
Because GE's relationship with the government just started when he got into office; right? :rolleyes:
Quote from: Exterminator on October 04, 2011, 08:52:42 AM
Because GE's relationship with the government just started when he got into office; right? :rolleyes:
You figure it out, you're the one with all the brains.
Very interesting.... :yes:
http://www.wealthwire.com/news/finance/1971 (http://www.wealthwire.com/news/finance/1971)
Wealth Wire BET Founder: Obama, Stop Attacking the Wealthy
Why is our country beginning to demonize anyone who has obtained success? ...
It's all over the media these days. High rank and sustainable fiscal success are suddenly qualities of a stereotypical "bad" person. But, why?...
On yesterday's "FOX News Sunday" program, BET founder Robert Johnson explained how Obama is sending the wrong message to hard-working Americans with his recent financial decisions.
According to Johnson, this is no good strategy for someone in a leadership position. Leaders should want to encourage competitive behavior in a capitalistic economy. "Demeaning success" is no way to get the sector of hard-working Americans to like you, let alone re-elect you int office.
Johnson elaborates:
"And by attacking me it is not going to convince me that I should take a bigger hit because I happen to be wealthy. You know, it is the old -- I think Ted and Fred and I we both sort of take the old Ethel Merman approach to life. I've tried poor and I tried rich and I like rich better. It doesn't mean that I am a bad guy.
"I didn't go in to business to create a public policy success for either party, Republican or Democrat. I went in business to create jobs and opportunity, create opportunity, create value for myself and my investors. And that's what the president should be praising, not demagoguing us simply because Warren Buffet says he pays more than his secretary. He should pay the secretary more and she will pay more."
Additionally, Johnson emphasized our county's need to change its mentality about our economy – focusing more directly on the global community. Until we do so, we will remain stuck in the rut (recession) we're in.
(http://img.wpdigital.net/rf/image_606w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2011/09/30/Editorial-Opinion/Graphics/toles10032011.jpg)
So raising taxes will create JOBS?... :confused:
We had around 5% unemployment during the Bush years AFTER those tax cuts...
The reason we have had Job loss is NOT because we cut taxes...maybe it has something to do with we have the second highest corporate tax rates in the world and some of the heaviest regulations in the world...We have had extremely strong Unions to deal with, that other countries do not deal with.....is it right or wrong?....all I know is these are facts, and Investors jobs are to make a profit, they are not charities, and our government is NOT supposed to be either.
also, the top 25% of the wage earners currently pay around 86% of all the federal taxes......so, continue to raise them during a down economy and only THEN will you guys see what a real recession/depression will do to us.
Of course this is the same ol record playing on here, but THAT is the way it is, from my perspective.
We're really not interested in hearing a perspective on corporate taxes from someone who can't spell corporate.
you have a mouse in your pocket?
and WHAT are you talking about?... ;)
Quote from: Exterminator on October 04, 2011, 04:30:43 PM
We're really not interested in hearing a perspective on corporate taxes from someone who can't spell corporate.
Someone once asked me why I pick out one phrase of a post to pick on.
It's as if someone were to write a very passionate, fact-filled essay on why global warming is a myth. They present very pertinent data and arrange in in a logical manner. But then in summary they write "As proof, they now can't grow grapes in England."
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
Kind of destroys the whole point ....
So ... which president said this? ....
"We're going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that allow some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share. In theory, some of those loopholes were understandable, but in practice they sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying ten percent of his salary, and that's crazy. [...] Do you think the millionaire ought to pay more in taxes than the bus driver or less?"
...............................
Ronald Reagan!!! June 6, 1985
Now, just in case you all think that he was misquoted, here's the video ....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgbJ-Fs1ikA&feature=player_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgbJ-Fs1ikA&feature=player_embedded)
Quote from: Olias on October 07, 2011, 08:32:04 AM
So ... which president said this? ....
"We’re going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that allow some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share. In theory, some of those loopholes were understandable, but in practice they sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying ten percent of his salary, and that’s crazy. [...] Do you think the millionaire ought to pay more in taxes than the bus driver or less?"
...............................
Ronald Reagan!!! June 6, 1985
Now, just in case you all think that he was misquoted, here's the video ....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgbJ-Fs1ikA&feature=player_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgbJ-Fs1ikA&feature=player_embedded)
Nobody is disputing those words either. TAX LOOP HOLES is the key words. I think ALL conservatives WANT to re-do the tax system. IT does suck.
This proves to me, that the left does NOT understand the TEA PARTY movement AT ALL. That is one of the main issues they dislike.....a corrupt system, in washington....not just the wreckless spending by our government, but the F'd up laws in our tax code...........they are sick of it all.
Reagan was 100% dead on RIGHT (as always)
Quote from: Henry Hawk on October 07, 2011, 08:38:45 AM
Nobody is disputing those words either. TAX LOOP HOLES is the key words. I think ALL conservatives WANT to re-do the tax system. IT does suck.
This proves to me, that the left does NOT understand the TEA PARTY movement AT ALL. That is one of the main issues they dislike.....a corrupt system, in washington....not just the wreckless spending by our government, but the F'd up laws in our tax code...........they are sick of it all.
Reagan was 100% dead on RIGHT (as always)
Doesn't closing tax loopholes on the rich equate to raising their taxes?
Isn't the title of this thread "Are rich taxed less than secretaries?"
Did you actually watch the video?
Didn't Reagan say "Do you think the millionaire ought to pay more in taxes than the bus driver or less?"
...............
Now I realize that is a lot of questions, but please try to answer all of them.
Quote from: Olias on October 07, 2011, 08:48:29 AM
Doesn't closing tax loopholes on the rich equate to raising their taxes?
Isn't the title of this thread "Are rich taxed less than secretaries?"
Did you actually watch the video?
Didn't Reagan say "Do you think the millionaire ought to pay more in taxes than the bus driver or less?"
...............
Now I realize that is a lot of questions, but please try to answer all of them.
who said they should NOT pay their fair taxes?...........answer me that one?...........They need to pay a certain tax rate......and do away with the loop holes........not all businessmen have fancy lawyers to find those loopholes.........some of the hard working entreprenuers ARE paying more than their fair share. People like Warren Buffet know HOW to take advantage of the system and NOT pay his fair share.
so NO, MOST of the rich do not pay less taxes than their secretaries do............do you really think they do? seriously?
i am pretty sure i paid more than my secretary. she always got a refund, it was a big deal. I always paid at tax time, even when the kids were home. i got a refund once for about 3 dollars. i dont think they ever did send me that. i am calling someone. i want my three bucks.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on October 07, 2011, 08:56:09 AM
so NO, MOST of the rich do not pay less taxes than their secretaries do............do you really think they do? seriously?
The rich do not receive the majority of their compensation as salary and therefore pay a lower marginal rate on most of their income. It really isn't difficult to understand.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on October 07, 2011, 08:38:45 AM
This proves to me, that the left does NOT understand the TEA PARTY movement AT ALL.
Sure we do; it's people like you who don't. One conservative who gets it explains it well here. (http://24ahead.com/s/tea-parties)
Read this for a better understanding of the conservatives regarding raising taxes:
From Walter Williams,
This year, Congress will spend $3.7 trillion dollars. That turns out to be about $10 billion per day. Can we prey upon the rich to cough up the money? According to IRS statistics, roughly 2 percent of U.S. households have an income of $250,000 and above. By the way, $250,000 per year hardly qualifies one as being rich. It's not even yacht and Learjet money. All told, households earning $250,000 and above account for 25 percent, or $1.97 trillion, of the nearly $8 trillion of total household income. If Congress imposed a 100 percent tax, taking all earnings above $250,000 per year, it would yield the princely sum of $1.4 trillion. That would keep the government running for 141 days, but there's a problem because there are 224 more days left in the year.
How about corporate profits to fill the gap? Fortune 500 companies earn nearly $400 billion in profits. Since leftists think profits are little less than theft and greed, Congress might confiscate these ill-gotten gains so that they can be returned to their rightful owners. Taking corporate profits would keep the government running for another 40 days, but that along with confiscating all income above $250,000 would only get us to the end of June. Congress must search elsewhere.
According to Forbes 400, America has 400 billionaires with a combined net worth of $1.3 trillion. Congress could confiscate their stocks and bonds, and force them to sell their businesses, yachts, airplanes, mansions and jewelry. The problem is that after fleecing the rich of their income and net worth, and the Fortune 500 corporations of their profits, it would only get us to mid-August. The fact of the matter is there are not enough rich people to come anywhere close to satisfying Congress' voracious spending appetite. They're going to have to go after the non-rich.
Quote from: Exterminator on October 07, 2011, 11:49:53 AM
Sure we do; it's people like you who don't. One conservative who gets it explains it well here. (http://24ahead.com/s/tea-parties)
Hum, and look who owns the domain for 24ahead: http://www.crunchbase.com/person/chris-kelly
I don't believe he would be classed as a conservative. And gosh, imagine this he writes for the Huffington Post too: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-kelly Well, so much for your "conservative" explanation huh? Seems to me all you've found is another bunch of liberal garbage and tried to make it pass. Like you tell HH and me all the time...check out your sources a little better.....a liberal blog trying to pass themselves off as conservative just ain't gonna cut it.
Quote from: me on October 07, 2011, 12:35:55 PM
Hum, and look who owns the domain for 24ahead: http://www.crunchbase.com/person/chris-kelly
I don't believe he would be classed as a conservative. And gosh, imagine this he writes for the Huffington Post too: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-kelly Well, so much for your "conservative" explanation huh? Seems to me all you've found is another bunch of liberal garbage and tried to make it pass. Like you tell HH and me all the time...check out your sources a little better.....a liberal blog trying to pass themselves off as conservative just ain't gonna cut it.
Ok, you got me. Now can you dispute what he's saying or...
Quote from: me on October 07, 2011, 12:39:54 PM
...if ya can't dispute their point then demonize and name call.
Quote from: Exterminator on October 08, 2011, 01:25:10 PM
Ok, you got me. Now can you dispute what he's saying or...
[Quote from: me on October 07, 2011, 12:39:54 PM
...if ya can't dispute their point then demonize and name call.]
I will dispute what he's saying because I don't revert to juvenile name calling and demonizing. I will do it later when I have time to read thru it and do it properly. I have plans for this evening and need to get ready to go.
Quote from: me on October 08, 2011, 04:26:04 PM
I will dispute what he's saying because I don't revert to juvenile name calling and demonizing. I will do it later when I have time to read thru it and do it properly. I have plans for this evening and need to get ready to go.
Aren't you glad to be living in America on your Social Security, your Medicare and your husband's pension so you can go out this evening.
Just think "ME" if it wasn't for the Democrats you wouldn't have a pot to piss in, or a window to throw it out and speaking German. :doh: The Democrats made it possible to have unions and the unions made the middle class. :flag: :salute: It sure wasn't the Republicans. :yes: :biggrin:
Quote from: The Troll on October 10, 2011, 10:16:20 AM
Aren't you glad to be living in America on your Social Security, your Medicare and your husband's pension so you can go out this evening.
Just think "ME" if it wasn't for the Democrats you wouldn't have a pot to piss in, or a window to throw it out and speaking German. :doh: The Democrats made it possible to have unions and the unions made the middle class. :flag: :salute: It sure wasn't the Republicans. :yes: :biggrin:
Yes grasshopper I certainly am glad to have that SS that I also paid into at the maximum amount for quite a few years and, as I stated in another post, would be getting more pr. month in interest if it had been banked into a savings account all those years.
Quote from: me on October 10, 2011, 12:56:56 PM
Yes grasshopper I certainly am glad to have that SS that I also paid into at the maximum amount for quite a few years and, as I stated in another post, would be getting more pr. month in interest if it had been banked into a savings account all those years.
If...
Quote from: The Troll on October 10, 2011, 10:16:20 AM
Aren't you glad to be living in America on your Social Security, your Medicare and your husband's pension so you can go out this evening.
Just think "ME" if it wasn't for the Democrats you wouldn't have a pot to piss in, or a window to throw it out and speaking German. :doh: The Democrats made it possible to have unions and the unions made the middle class. :flag: :salute: It sure wasn't the Republicans. :yes: :biggrin:
Yeah, I'm REAL happy that the democrats spent all of my SS..........so I'm screwed because of BIG FREAKIN Government and the liberal, entitlement mentality.......
THANKS GUYS!
LOL! The democrats...the republicans weren't complicit at all; huh? Partisan fool.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on October 10, 2011, 01:02:18 PM
Yeah, I'm REAL happy that the democrats spent all of my SS..........so I'm screwed because of BIG FREAKIN Government and the liberal, entitlement mentality.......
THANKS GUYS!
It hasn't happen yet and won't if the Democrats have any thing to do with it.
But your Teabagger/Republican party gets their hands on it you won't have anything, that's for sure. With the present plans the Teabaggers have you will be safe at 51. Just get your head out of your ass and think who is your real friends. The Super Rich, Big super corporations loving Republicans or the Democrats. Anyone with a brain can figure that out. :doh:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on October 10, 2011, 01:02:18 PM
Yeah, I'm REAL happy that the democrats spent all of my SS..........so I'm screwed because of BIG FREAKIN Government and the liberal, entitlement mentality.......
THANKS GUYS!
Huh...a little research reveals that the president who initiated spending Social Security surpluses was George H. W. Bush so I guess this is just more bullshit lies!
Quote from: Exterminator on October 10, 2011, 01:58:43 PM
Huh...a little research reveals that the president who initiated spending Social Security surpluses was George H. W. Bush so I guess this is just more bullshit lies!
Yes, EX. In Hawk's and "ME"s life, lies and bull shit rules. :yes: :biggrin:
Quote from: The Troll on October 10, 2011, 05:53:20 PM
Yes, EX. In Hawk's and "ME"s life, lies and bull shit rules. :yes: :biggrin:
Na, what you say doesn't rule my life and neither does what Ex says. :razz:
Quote from: me on October 10, 2011, 08:14:54 PM
Na, what you say doesn't rule my life and neither does what Ex says. :razz:
Quote from: Exterminator on October 10, 2011, 01:58:43 PM
Huh...a little research reveals that the president who initiated spending Social Security surpluses was George H. W. Bush so I guess this is just more bullshit lies!
Facts are facts though; no mater who shines the light on them. . .
Quote from: Palehorse on October 10, 2011, 08:27:58 PM
Facts are facts though; no mater who shines the light on them. . .
Just because Ex said HE did some research and that Makes this facts now? really?
Quote from: Henry Hawk on October 11, 2011, 08:57:31 AM
Just because Ex said HE did some research and that Makes this facts now? really?
Basic research indicates that he is absolutely correct. The Government has now been taking BILLIONS from the SS fund and transferring it to the general reserve, and as of 1998 it owed SS 736 BILLION dollars!
Quote from: Henry Hawk on October 11, 2011, 08:57:31 AM
Just because Ex said HE did some research and that Makes this facts now? really?
You should try it sometime; might help you to prevent making a fool of yourself.
Quote from: Palehorse on October 11, 2011, 09:51:12 AM
Basic research indicates that he is absolutely correct. The Government has now been taking BILLIONS from the SS fund and transferring it to the general reserve, and as of 1998 it owed SS 736 BILLION dollars!
I never said he did not innitate any of this.....are YOU saying the HW Bush was the first to do this? and WHO is it that actually DID this during his term? the democrats, led by a democrat congress and house. Also, I was referring to the FACT that entitlement programs such as medicare started by LBJ by admending S.S legislation...THAT was what I was clearly talking about. fact do some research and see if I am wrong...I am NOT.
You should be happy about that since you'll be needing that medicare when you retire. lol...
Quote from: Exterminator on October 11, 2011, 10:23:52 AM
You should try it sometime; might help you to prevent making a fool of yourself.
EX, that's impossible for the Hawk. It isn't hard to make a fool out of yourself, with your head up your ass. :wink: :smile:
Quote from: The Troll on October 11, 2011, 02:12:43 PM
EX, that's impossible for the Hawk. It isn't hard to make a fool out of yourself, with your head up your ass. :wink: :smile:
And you are speaking from the voice of experience without a doubt.
Hank- GWB signed the legislationn and as you are so fond of saying, he was the POTUS and had the power of veto. He should have exercised a little leadership and plugged the hole, but he didn't.
Just like he did in Desert Storm when our military was knocking on SH's door and could have (should have) removed him from poweran but did not because GWB said no and stopped it.
Had he followed through and demonstrated leadership, we wouldn't have to be there still!
Wasn't part of the deal with the other arab states that they would not interfere/retaliate if we did not cross into Iraq? I seem to remember a lot of talk about him being a leader who could gain cooperation with the arabs.
Quote from: Anne on October 11, 2011, 06:46:50 PM
Wasn't part of the deal with the other arab states that they would not interfere/retaliate if we did not cross into Iraq? I seem to remember a lot of talk about him being a leader who could gain cooperation with the arabs.
You're confusing Iraq I (where Iraq invaded Kuwait) with Iraq II (the quest for oil).
Quote from: Palehorse on October 11, 2011, 06:23:48 PM
Hank- GWB signed the legislationn and as you are so fond of saying, he was the POTUS and had the power of veto. He should have exercised a little leadership and plugged the hole, but he didn't.
Just like he did in Desert Storm when our military was knocking on SH's door and could have (should have) removed him from poweran but did not because GWB said no and stopped it.
Had he followed through and demonstrated leadership, we wouldn't have to be there still!
what are you talking about?
Quote from: Palehorse on October 11, 2011, 09:05:10 PM
You're confusing Iraq I (where Iraq invaded Kuwait) with Iraq II (the quest for oil).
Desert Storm was President George H W Bush, not President George W Bush. How would George W. Bush stop the military at Iraq boarders in Desert Storm?
Quote from: Anne on October 11, 2011, 11:26:01 PM
Desert Storm was President George H W Bush, not President George W Bush. How would George W. Bush stop the military at Iraq boarders in Desert Storm?
Well, excuse me for forgetting an initial! I'll not post from my phone moving forward, to facilitate your comfort! :rolleyes:
The fact remains you are confusing the two initiatives, so don't blow smoke!
For your edification, the coalition during Desert Storm consisted of Arab nations, and when Iraq launched SCUD missiles at Israel, the concern was that Israel would retaliate and their doing so would risk those Arab entities flip-flopping over the involvement of Israel int he conflict.
SH had insisted front he onset of the conflict, that inclusion of the Israel disagreement be a portion of any agreement of withdrawing Iraqi troops from Kuwait. The US and UN steadfastly refused throughout, so SH launched SCUDS at them and Saudi Arabia in order to try to entice Israel into the fray as a means to win over Arab State coalition members to his side. It didn't work.
US and coalition forces pursued those Iraqi troops to within striking distance of Baghdad, and could have removed SH at that time, but were turned around.
Quote from: Palehorse on October 12, 2011, 09:18:42 AM
US and coalition forces pursued those Iraqi troops to within striking distance of Baghdad, and could have removed SH at that time, but were turned around.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I
What changed? Oh, yeah...that was before Halliburton, with Cheney as its CEO, was heavily involved in providing services to our military.
BUMP
Quote from: Henry Hawk on October 07, 2011, 12:07:11 PM
Read this for a better understanding of the conservatives regarding raising taxes:
From Walter Williams,
This year, Congress will spend $3.7 trillion dollars. That turns out to be about $10 billion per day. Can we prey upon the rich to cough up the money? According to IRS statistics, roughly 2 percent of U.S. households have an income of $250,000 and above. By the way, $250,000 per year hardly qualifies one as being rich. It's not even yacht and Learjet money. All told, households earning $250,000 and above account for 25 percent, or $1.97 trillion, of the nearly $8 trillion of total household income. If Congress imposed a 100 percent tax, taking all earnings above $250,000 per year, it would yield the princely sum of $1.4 trillion. That would keep the government running for 141 days, but there's a problem because there are 224 more days left in the year.
How about corporate profits to fill the gap? Fortune 500 companies earn nearly $400 billion in profits. Since leftists think profits are little less than theft and greed, Congress might confiscate these ill-gotten gains so that they can be returned to their rightful owners. Taking corporate profits would keep the government running for another 40 days, but that along with confiscating all income above $250,000 would only get us to the end of June. Congress must search elsewhere.
According to Forbes 400, America has 400 billionaires with a combined net worth of $1.3 trillion. Congress could confiscate their stocks and bonds, and force them to sell their businesses, yachts, airplanes, mansions and jewelry. The problem is that after fleecing the rich of their income and net worth, and the Fortune 500 corporations of their profits, it would only get us to mid-August. The fact of the matter is there are not enough rich people to come anywhere close to satisfying Congress' voracious spending appetite. They're going to have to go after the non-rich.
Is Mr. Williams suggesting with that tripe that the other 98% of the population doesn't pay anything? Has anyone even remotely suggested that the households with over $250K of income shoulder the entire burden themselves? Sure, it makes for good sound bites for simple-minded fools but any thinking person immediately recognizes how ridiculous it is.
Quote from: Exterminator on October 12, 2011, 01:33:54 PM
Is Mr. Williams suggesting with that tripe that the other 98% of the population doesn't pay anything? Has anyone even remotely suggested that the households with over $250K of income shoulder the entire burden themselves? Sure, it makes for good sound bites for simple-minded fools but any thinking person immediately recognizes how ridiculous it is.
it does not take a math genius to realize even THAT would not be enough to pay for the mess we are in...THAT is Mr. Williams point.
btw, THAT is my last response to any of your posts.....no more. It has been fun though. :yes:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on October 12, 2011, 02:21:58 PM
it does not take a math genius to realize even THAT would not be enough to pay for the mess we are in...THAT is Mr. Williams point.
It would certainly help.
Quotebtw, THAT is my last response to any of your posts.....no more. It has been fun though. :yes:
I couldn't care less. I will, however, continue to expose yours for the garbage and often outright lies that they are.
:fireworks: :fireworks: :pink: :pink: HAWK CHICKENS OUT. :chick: :pink: :pink: :fireworks: :fireworks:
Takes ball and bat home!
Troll wants the same tax rate that Eisenhower had, 90% on rich.
:4th4:
Quote from: The Troll on October 12, 2011, 03:01:31 PM
:fireworks: :fireworks: :pink: :pink: HAWK CHICKENS OUT. :chick: :pink: :pink: :fireworks: :fireworks:
Takes ball and bat home!
naw, I will leave my ball and bat for you guys to play with...just have nothing to say to Ex. I'm not even mad or upset...just come to the conclusion that thre is nothing to gain or lose, so why even do it. You on the other hand, I will continue to TRY to make a decent conservative out of you yet. You are just one mule kick to the head away....
Quote from: Henry Hawk on October 12, 2011, 03:16:11 PM
naw, I will leave my ball and bat for you guys to play with...just have nothing to say to Ex. I'm not even mad or upset...just come to the conclusion that thre is nothing to gain or lose, so why even do it. You on the other hand, I will continue to TRY to make a decent conservative out of you yet. You are just one mule kick to the head away....
May an elephant sit on your head and fart. :gha:
Quote from: Palehorse on October 12, 2011, 09:18:42 AM
Well, excuse me for forgetting an initial! I'll not post from my phone moving forward, to facilitate your comfort! :rolleyes:
The fact remains you are confusing the two initiatives, so don't blow smoke!
For your edification, the coalition during Desert Storm consisted of Arab nations, and when Iraq launched SCUD missiles at Israel, the concern was that Israel would retaliate and their doing so would risk those Arab entities flip-flopping over the involvement of Israel int he conflict.
SH had insisted front he onset of the conflict, that inclusion of the Israel disagreement be a portion of any agreement of withdrawing Iraqi troops from Kuwait. The US and UN steadfastly refused throughout, so SH launched SCUDS at them and Saudi Arabia in order to try to entice Israel into the fray as a means to win over Arab State coalition members to his side. It didn't work.
US and coalition forces pursued those Iraqi troops to within striking distance of Baghdad, and could have removed SH at that time, but were turned around.
Nope. I wasn't confused, President George H W Bush had a stated mission for Desert Storm, get Iraq out of Kuwait, period. He did what he set out to do and ended it. Going on into Iraq would have raised he** over here and with the arab states. You associated Desert Storm with the wrong President.
U really need a hobby. Keep twisting though; I find it amusing.
Wonder how long before your head starts spinning kooks?
And if u truly think daddy Bush as CIC did not go into Iraq, you are out of your skull. (As usual) look it up before you dig yourself in deeper!
Quote from: Palehorse on October 12, 2011, 07:08:21 PM
U really need a hobby. Keep twisting though; I find it amusing.
Wonder how long before your head starts spinning kooks?
And if u truly think daddy Bush as CIC did not go into Iraq, you are out of your skull. (As usual) look it up before you dig yourself in deeper!
And here's a hint; Desert Sabre.
Ok, what did I say was wrong? Did President George HW Bush initiate Desert Storm or not. Did the US broker an alliance with the arab states to refrain from interfering with US ousting Iraq from Kuwait? Wasn't the stated purpose of Desert Storm to get Iraq out of Kuwait, not to invade Iraq.
Quote from: Anne on October 12, 2011, 09:07:32 PM
Ok, what did I say was wrong? Did President George HW Bush initiate Desert Storm or not. Did the US broker an alliance with the arab states to refrain from interfering with US ousting Iraq from Kuwait? Wasn't the stated purpose of Desert Storm to get Iraq out of Kuwait, not to invade Iraq.
Only part you got right was Desert Storm -
The Arab states joined the coalition of they're own free will, under the cloak of the UN. Each one of them also wanted Iraq out of Kuwait and committed arms and troops in support of this initiative.
Desert Sabre (The ground war)
The coalition forces, including US, French, British, and participating allied Arab forces, pursued the retreating Elite Iraqi (including the Republican Guard) out of Kuwait and into Iraq, to within 150 miles of Baghdad.
The troops and their field leadership pressed for permission to go further but were turned around only at the insistence of daddy Bush; whom the allied coalition asked to make the call. Daddy Bush folded, preferring instead to place his hopes on a CIA run operation internally within Iraq, designed to fan the flames of dissent with opposing factions internally, in the hope of SH being overthrown.
FAIL!Thus came the motivation for Junior Bush to tack Iraq onto the war on terror, and finish daddy's handy work. . .
FAIL II ! (He lied trying to hide his deep held desire for revenge, and oil).
Members of the Coalition included Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belgium, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Egypt, France, Greece, Honduras, Hungary, Italy, Kuwait, Malaysia, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Syria, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America.
Germany and Japan provided financial assistance and donated military hardware, but did not send direct military assistance.
On 26 February, Iraqi troops began retreating from Kuwait, after they had set its oil fields on fire (737 oil wells were set on fire). A long convoy of retreating Iraqi troops formed along the main Iraq-Kuwait highway. Although they were retreating, this convoy was bombed so extensively by Coalition air forces that it came to be known as the Highway of Death. Hundreds of Iraqi troops were killed. Forces from the United States, the United Kingdom, and France continued to pursue retreating Iraqi forces over the border and back into Iraq, eventually moving to within 150 miles (240 km) of Baghdad before withdrawing back to the Iraqi border with Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War)
You left out the part about many members of the coalition were reluctant to join but were eventually convinced to job because of Iraq's hostility toward other arab nations and offers of financial aid and/or with holding of aid, that the US contributed 73% of the forces. If the coalition had gone further into Iraq and taken out SH it would have risked the arab participation in the coalition. Information from the same article you quoted.
Quote from: The Troll on October 12, 2011, 04:22:32 PM
May an elephant sit on your head and fart. :gha:
pink elephant farts smell like cotton candy. i sure hope it is pink and not a chocolate one!!
:biggrin:
Quote from: damfast on October 13, 2011, 01:34:38 PM
pink elephant farts smell like cotton candy. i sure hope it is pink and not a chocolate one!!
:biggrin:
:)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrPGoPFRUdc&feature=player_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrPGoPFRUdc&feature=player_embedded)
typical wallstreet protester... :rolleyes:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on October 13, 2011, 04:20:08 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrPGoPFRUdc&feature=player_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrPGoPFRUdc&feature=player_embedded)
typical wallstreet protester... :rolleyes:
Again Hawk (Squawk) talks out of his ass. He take one person out of thousands and tries to make him a poster boy.
Squawk let's see some of your Teabaggers with the guns and machine guns. Squawk a typical Teabagger. :jester:
Quote from: The Troll on October 13, 2011, 07:12:58 PM
Again Hawk (Squawk) talks out of his ass. He take one person out of thousands and tries to make him a poster boy.
Squawk let's see some of your Teabaggers with the guns and machine guns. Squawk a typical Teabagger. :jester:
You'd fit right in with that bunch in NY. I think you and Ex should fly to NY and participate with them in fact 'cause they're your kind of people. :biggrin:
Quote from: me on October 13, 2011, 07:51:46 PM
You'd fit right in with that bunch in NY. I think you and Ex should fly to NY and participate with them in fact 'cause they're your kind of people. :biggrin:
You're damn right "ME" (Honey Dipper) As you know I am on a fixed income. But you can bet you ass if I lived in New York I would be there. Again you have your head up your ass, just like Squawk. You can go back to your house. :spot:
Quote from: The Troll on October 13, 2011, 10:12:05 PM
You're damn right "ME" (Honey Dipper) As you know I am on a fixed income. But you can bet you ass if I lived in New York I would be there. Again you have your head up your ass, just like Squawk. You can go back to your house. :spot:
I kinda thought you would be.... :biggrin:
Quote from: me on October 14, 2011, 01:17:38 AM
I kinda thought you would be.... :biggrin:
That statement was sure a pant load. :rolleyes: :razz:
Quote from: me on October 13, 2011, 07:51:46 PM
You'd fit right in with that bunch in NY. I think you and Ex should fly to NY and participate with them in fact 'cause they're your kind of people. :biggrin:
Yes, they are and I'd much rather hang out with them than a bunch of ignorant rednecks like, well, you, for example.
Quote from: Exterminator on October 14, 2011, 11:21:01 AM
Yes, they are and I'd much rather hang out with them than a bunch of ignorant rednecks like, well, you, for example.
Yep they're your kind of people :biggrin: :rotfl:
Quote from: me on October 14, 2011, 11:34:47 AM
Yep they're your kind of people :biggrin: :rotfl:
Whereas yours can be found tonight at the Anderson Speedway.
Quote from: Exterminator on October 14, 2011, 11:45:49 AM
Whereas yours can be found tonight at the Anderson Speedway.
Yep, real people who you don't have to put up a front for and pretend you're something you're not.
Quote from: me on October 14, 2011, 02:42:23 PM
Yep, real people who you don't have to put up a front for and pretend you're something you're not.
No, uneducated hillbillies like this guy:
(http://keithgrossman.com/brain.jpg)
And how are the Wall Street protestors putting up a front and pretending like they're something they're not?
Or educated liberals like this:
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/10/08/article-2046586-0E481DB700000578-865_634x366.jpg)
Quote from: Henry Hawk on October 14, 2011, 04:26:10 PM
Or educated liberals like this:
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/10/08/article-2046586-0E481DB700000578-865_634x366.jpg)
Another pant load from the Hawk. He's going to need some more Depends.
Like it or not Hawk you are a 99%er. Your 51 years old and I guarantee you will never be a 1%er. You're too much of a dumb ass. Just when are you going to grow up and be a man, rather than a clown. :jester: :doh:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on October 14, 2011, 04:26:10 PM
Or educated liberals like this:
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/10/08/article-2046586-0E481DB700000578-865_634x366.jpg)
How do we know that this picture was taken at these protests and/or that this isn't just some random street person and not one of the protestors at all? Answer: we don't...it's just more of your random bullshit. I mean seriously, it's not as though we haven't established that you will blatantly lie to try to make a point.
Exterminator, just Goggle in "picture of man shitting on police car" Then you will see where the Hawk comes up with this stuff. We have a real sick laddie boy here, or a pervert. :biggrin:
Quote from: The Troll on October 15, 2011, 03:25:22 PM
Exterminator, just Goggle in "picture of man shitting on police car" Then you will see where the Hawk comes up with this stuff. We have a real sick laddie boy here, or a pervert. :biggrin:
Did it for ya.
http://www.google.com/search?q=picture+of+man+shitting+on+police+car&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
(http://i475.photobucket.com/albums/rr111/hlovett_2008/183939_10150399119875254_480488100253_17505676_200597_n.jpg)
Quote from: me on October 15, 2011, 03:41:23 PM
Did it for ya.
http://www.google.com/search?q=picture+of+man+shitting+on+police+car&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
All I see is a bunch of right-wing websites propagating the same lie.
Quote from: Exterminator on October 16, 2011, 10:24:30 AM
All I see is a bunch of right-wing websites propagating the same lie.
Then why don't you just fly up there and check it out for yourself? Did ya ever stop to think it just might be true?
Quote from: me on October 16, 2011, 10:33:58 PM
Then why don't you just fly up there and check it out for yourself? Did ya ever stop to think it just might be true?
And you call us gullible.
Quote from: me on October 16, 2011, 10:42:05 PM
If the shoe fits.
If the shoe fits and no one is around but a camera, there no better to take a shit than on a cop car. Inside on the driver side is the best. :yes: :biggrin: