fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
http://www.thiscantbehappening.net/?q=node/507
So, more people than ever aren't supporting military misadventures?
So, more people than ever aren't supporting military misadventures?
Record Numbers of People Paying No Income Tax
- Thread starter RAMSTORIA
- Start date
[quote name='Msut77']What about a top tax rate of 70% only effecting people who make over something ridiculous like 20 million?[/QUOTE]
No way. Why should they be penalized? Whatever happened to working hard and enjoying the fruits of your labor? Just because they might be able to afford paying it doesn't make it right.
No way. Why should they be penalized? Whatever happened to working hard and enjoying the fruits of your labor? Just because they might be able to afford paying it doesn't make it right.
[quote name='javeryh']No way. Why should they be penalized? Whatever happened to working hard and enjoying the fruits of your labor? Just because they might be able to afford paying it doesn't make it right.[/QUOTE]
Wouldn't that be an argument against all taxes?
Wouldn't that be an argument against all taxes?
[quote name='javeryh']No way. Why should they be penalized?[/quote]
"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."
-
"the expense of defending the society, and that of supporting the dignity of the chief magistrate, are both laid out for the general benefit of the whole society. It is reasonable, therefore, that they should be defrayed by the general contribution of the whole society, all the different members contributing, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities."
Cuts in tax rates were/are sold as (more or less) for the public good, good for the economy and usually a boon for investing and the savings rate.
What it has brought is massive income inequality and endless investment bubbles, because like I said before the only thing it really does is allow the super rich to buy more influence and then lobby for example more tax cuts or lax enforcement of current tax laws.
Since the only other real option is to tax the lower and middle classes more... I guess one would ask you the same thing like spaz pointed out. There is no doubt that some collecting that kind of money worked fairly hard but we are talking about in this example 20 million a year, give me a break.
Might? And yes there are other reasons that make it right.
"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."
-
"the expense of defending the society, and that of supporting the dignity of the chief magistrate, are both laid out for the general benefit of the whole society. It is reasonable, therefore, that they should be defrayed by the general contribution of the whole society, all the different members contributing, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities."
Cuts in tax rates were/are sold as (more or less) for the public good, good for the economy and usually a boon for investing and the savings rate.
What it has brought is massive income inequality and endless investment bubbles, because like I said before the only thing it really does is allow the super rich to buy more influence and then lobby for example more tax cuts or lax enforcement of current tax laws.
Since the only other real option is to tax the lower and middle classes more... I guess one would ask you the same thing like spaz pointed out. There is no doubt that some collecting that kind of money worked fairly hard but we are talking about in this example 20 million a year, give me a break.
Might? And yes there are other reasons that make it right.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah it really boils down to the fact that the only way we're going to get out of the huge national deficit, fix our terrible education system, be a decent society that takes care of our poor, disabled etc. is to:
1. Cut wasteful spending, stop starting pointless wars etc. etc. But that's only a small part of the solution. But the more we can do their without harming our country, the less we need to do number 2.
2. Raise taxes to generate more revenue to pay down debt, keep the social programs that are needed, fix infrastructure, fix education, fix health care etc.
And for number 2, there's not so much you can do with the lower class (can't get blood from a turnip) or middle class. So the burden falls on the upper classes.
Is it fair? I think so. They've been successful in this society, and can thus shoulder more of the burden.
1. Cut wasteful spending, stop starting pointless wars etc. etc. But that's only a small part of the solution. But the more we can do their without harming our country, the less we need to do number 2.
2. Raise taxes to generate more revenue to pay down debt, keep the social programs that are needed, fix infrastructure, fix education, fix health care etc.
And for number 2, there's not so much you can do with the lower class (can't get blood from a turnip) or middle class. So the burden falls on the upper classes.
Is it fair? I think so. They've been successful in this society, and can thus shoulder more of the burden.
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='Msut77']Might? And yes there are other reasons that make it right.[/QUOTE]
Off. Yachts are expensive. The cost of fuel and undocumented staff leave me with barely enough to buy a captain's hat and ammo in my gun to shoot seagulls and people who look like Charlie Chaplin from behind.
http://www.timesunion.com/specialreports/tu150/overview/graphics/overview_hearst.jpg
Off. Yachts are expensive. The cost of fuel and undocumented staff leave me with barely enough to buy a captain's hat and ammo in my gun to shoot seagulls and people who look like Charlie Chaplin from behind.http://www.timesunion.com/specialreports/tu150/overview/graphics/overview_hearst.jpg
[quote name='SpazX']Wouldn't that be an argument against all taxes?[/QUOTE]
Not really. Everyone should pay taxes, IMO. You obviously need things like schools, roads, public servants, etc. in order for a society to function. Everyone should chip in for this. I can even go as far as supporting the current tiered tax structure we have in place where the more you make the more you get taxed. I cannot support raising taxes to "whatever the rich can afford" - it is total bullshit tree hugging hippie nonsense.
There are other alternatives to raising money through taxes that for whatever reason the government is unwilling to go through with - like taxing the shit out of cigarettes and alcohol and legalizing marijuana. I also wouldn't mind if the government raised taxes on shit like movie tickets and other forms of non-essential entertainment. If you are poor this shouldn't affect you. If it does than you either aren't really poor or you are stupid and poor.
Not really. Everyone should pay taxes, IMO. You obviously need things like schools, roads, public servants, etc. in order for a society to function. Everyone should chip in for this. I can even go as far as supporting the current tiered tax structure we have in place where the more you make the more you get taxed. I cannot support raising taxes to "whatever the rich can afford" - it is total bullshit tree hugging hippie nonsense.
There are other alternatives to raising money through taxes that for whatever reason the government is unwilling to go through with - like taxing the shit out of cigarettes and alcohol and legalizing marijuana. I also wouldn't mind if the government raised taxes on shit like movie tickets and other forms of non-essential entertainment. If you are poor this shouldn't affect you. If it does than you either aren't really poor or you are stupid and poor.
[quote name='Msut77']"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."
-
"the expense of defending the society, and that of supporting the dignity of the chief magistrate, are both laid out for the general benefit of the whole society. It is reasonable, therefore, that they should be defrayed by the general contribution of the whole society, all the different members contributing, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities."
Cuts in tax rates were/are sold as (more or less) for the public good, good for the economy and usually a boon for investing and the savings rate.
What it has brought is massive income inequality and endless investment bubbles, because like I said before the only thing it really does is allow the super rich to buy more influence and then lobby for example more tax cuts or lax enforcement of current tax laws.
Since the only other real option is to tax the lower and middle classes more... I guess one would ask you the same thing like spaz pointed out. There is no doubt that some collecting that kind of money worked fairly hard but we are talking about in this example 20 million a year, give me a break.
Might? And yes there are other reasons that make it right.[/QUOTE]
The only real option is to tax the middle and lower classes? how about cutting some of theing ridiculous spending? No, no that can't be an option.
You know I think I'm going to steal the "America is addicted to oil" slogan, and say "America is addicted to spending". We cannot stop spending, if you cut this program, these poor people will suffer. If you cut that program, this person wont get a raise!, if you try to cut anything you people bitch. It really is easy for Congress to spend someone else's money, and you people sure are delighting in it as well.
This is not an argument to get rid of all taxes, because everyone knows the government has its place. The government needs to know where that place is, and reside in it because they are overextending themselves, and getting involved in areas they should not be touching.
Also your argument that the rich can handle it is flawed. I am still waiting to hear if you guys think the government should take all money in the U.S. and give us each $50,000 a year. We can all afford to live on that right? and the government can take the rest and make life wonderful for us!
-
"the expense of defending the society, and that of supporting the dignity of the chief magistrate, are both laid out for the general benefit of the whole society. It is reasonable, therefore, that they should be defrayed by the general contribution of the whole society, all the different members contributing, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities."
Cuts in tax rates were/are sold as (more or less) for the public good, good for the economy and usually a boon for investing and the savings rate.
What it has brought is massive income inequality and endless investment bubbles, because like I said before the only thing it really does is allow the super rich to buy more influence and then lobby for example more tax cuts or lax enforcement of current tax laws.
Since the only other real option is to tax the lower and middle classes more... I guess one would ask you the same thing like spaz pointed out. There is no doubt that some collecting that kind of money worked fairly hard but we are talking about in this example 20 million a year, give me a break.
Might? And yes there are other reasons that make it right.[/QUOTE]
The only real option is to tax the middle and lower classes? how about cutting some of the
ing ridiculous spending? No, no that can't be an option.You know I think I'm going to steal the "America is addicted to oil" slogan, and say "America is addicted to spending". We cannot stop spending, if you cut this program, these poor people will suffer. If you cut that program, this person wont get a raise!, if you try to cut anything you people bitch. It really is easy for Congress to spend someone else's money, and you people sure are delighting in it as well.
This is not an argument to get rid of all taxes, because everyone knows the government has its place. The government needs to know where that place is, and reside in it because they are overextending themselves, and getting involved in areas they should not be touching.
Also your argument that the rich can handle it is flawed. I am still waiting to hear if you guys think the government should take all money in the U.S. and give us each $50,000 a year. We can all afford to live on that right? and the government can take the rest and make life wonderful for us!
[quote name='javeryh']Not really. Everyone should pay taxes, IMO. You obviously need things like schools, roads, public servants, etc. in order for a society to function. Everyone should chip in for this. I can even go as far as supporting the current tiered tax structure we have in place where the more you make the more you get taxed. I cannot support raising taxes to "whatever the rich can afford" - it is total bullshit tree hugging hippie nonsense.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, but he didn't say "whatever the rich can afford" he said 70% on >20million. You responded by saying "No way. Why should they be penalized? Whatever happened to working hard and enjoying the fruits of your labor? Just because they might be able to afford paying it doesn't make it right."
That can be applied to any tax system. Even if the tax was flat you'd still have to have some people not paying because they can't afford it - hence you'll always be taxed more precisely because you can afford it more than some other group of people. That kind of absolute reasoning is what polarizes things when we're obviously talking about degrees of the same thing.
Yeah, but he didn't say "whatever the rich can afford" he said 70% on >20million. You responded by saying "No way. Why should they be penalized? Whatever happened to working hard and enjoying the fruits of your labor? Just because they might be able to afford paying it doesn't make it right."
That can be applied to any tax system. Even if the tax was flat you'd still have to have some people not paying because they can't afford it - hence you'll always be taxed more precisely because you can afford it more than some other group of people. That kind of absolute reasoning is what polarizes things when we're obviously talking about degrees of the same thing.
[quote name='SpazX']Yeah, but he didn't say "whatever the rich can afford" he said 70% on >20million. You responded by saying "No way. Why should they be penalized? Whatever happened to working hard and enjoying the fruits of your labor? Just because they might be able to afford paying it doesn't make it right."
That can be applied to any tax system. Even if the tax was flat you'd still have to have some people not paying because they can't afford it - hence you'll always be taxed more precisely because you can afford it more than some other group of people. That kind of absolute reasoning is what polarizes things when we're obviously talking about degrees of the same thing.[/QUOTE]
The problem with your arguement is that the rich already pay more. You are all arguing for them to pay even more as if they do not pay nearly enough.
That can be applied to any tax system. Even if the tax was flat you'd still have to have some people not paying because they can't afford it - hence you'll always be taxed more precisely because you can afford it more than some other group of people. That kind of absolute reasoning is what polarizes things when we're obviously talking about degrees of the same thing.[/QUOTE]
The problem with your arguement is that the rich already pay more. You are all arguing for them to pay even more as if they do not pay nearly enough.
[quote name='SpazX']Yeah, but he didn't say "whatever the rich can afford" he said 70% on >20million. You responded by saying "No way. Why should they be penalized? Whatever happened to working hard and enjoying the fruits of your labor? Just because they might be able to afford paying it doesn't make it right."
That can be applied to any tax system. Even if the tax was flat you'd still have to have some people not paying because they can't afford it - hence you'll always be taxed more precisely because you can afford it more than some other group of people. That kind of absolute reasoning is what polarizes things when we're obviously talking about degrees of the same thing.[/QUOTE]
I still feel the same way even if it is 70% on >$20M which to me is basically saying "you can afford it because you make >$20,000,000". This line of reasoning is completely insane to me. Tax exists on the theory that each citizen should contribute some money to the things we all share (i.e. government/state action). Do rich people somehow share disproportionately compared to the rest of society? Maybe a little (maybe) but this difference is made up for by basing the amount you pay on the amount you make (and yes I realize that 70% on >$20M would still be based on the amount you pay being relative to the amount you make).
I do agree that we are talking about degrees of the same thing though because I'm OK with the way things are right now (even though I think taxes overall are too high) but I would not support an increase on the rich at all.
That can be applied to any tax system. Even if the tax was flat you'd still have to have some people not paying because they can't afford it - hence you'll always be taxed more precisely because you can afford it more than some other group of people. That kind of absolute reasoning is what polarizes things when we're obviously talking about degrees of the same thing.[/QUOTE]
I still feel the same way even if it is 70% on >$20M which to me is basically saying "you can afford it because you make >$20,000,000". This line of reasoning is completely insane to me. Tax exists on the theory that each citizen should contribute some money to the things we all share (i.e. government/state action). Do rich people somehow share disproportionately compared to the rest of society? Maybe a little (maybe) but this difference is made up for by basing the amount you pay on the amount you make (and yes I realize that 70% on >$20M would still be based on the amount you pay being relative to the amount you make).
I do agree that we are talking about degrees of the same thing though because I'm OK with the way things are right now (even though I think taxes overall are too high) but I would not support an increase on the rich at all.
[quote name='Knoell']The problem with your arguement is that the rich already pay more. You are all arguing for them to pay even more as if they do not pay nearly enough.[/QUOTE]
Of course they already pay more, they'll always pay more. The problem with the arguments that generally come from people like you is that they act as if whatever the taxes currently are they can't possibly be higher, it would just be wrong. It's not a very good basis for arguing what percentage it should or shouldn't be.
[quote name='javeryh']I still feel the same way even if it is 70% on >$20M which to me is basically saying "you can afford it because you make >$20,000,000". This line of reasoning is completely insane to me. Tax exists on the theory that each citizen should contribute some money to the things we all share (i.e. government/state action). Do rich people somehow share disproportionately compared to the rest of society? Maybe a little (maybe) but this difference is made up for by basing the amount you pay on the amount you make (and yes I realize that 70% on >$20M would still be based on the amount you pay being relative to the amount you make).
I do agree that we are talking about degrees of the same thing though because I'm OK with the way things are right now (even though I think taxes overall are too high) but I would not support an increase on the rich at all.[/QUOTE]
I think that rich people at that extreme level do require more from society in order to create that kind of wealth, and I don't think that it's probably a linear increase, so greater percentages as one makes more money makes sense in that regard.
I think that it would be more fair to have more brackets above what currently exists, not that it would necessarily get to 70% or 90%.
Of course they already pay more, they'll always pay more. The problem with the arguments that generally come from people like you is that they act as if whatever the taxes currently are they can't possibly be higher, it would just be wrong. It's not a very good basis for arguing what percentage it should or shouldn't be.
[quote name='javeryh']I still feel the same way even if it is 70% on >$20M which to me is basically saying "you can afford it because you make >$20,000,000". This line of reasoning is completely insane to me. Tax exists on the theory that each citizen should contribute some money to the things we all share (i.e. government/state action). Do rich people somehow share disproportionately compared to the rest of society? Maybe a little (maybe) but this difference is made up for by basing the amount you pay on the amount you make (and yes I realize that 70% on >$20M would still be based on the amount you pay being relative to the amount you make).
I do agree that we are talking about degrees of the same thing though because I'm OK with the way things are right now (even though I think taxes overall are too high) but I would not support an increase on the rich at all.[/QUOTE]
I think that rich people at that extreme level do require more from society in order to create that kind of wealth, and I don't think that it's probably a linear increase, so greater percentages as one makes more money makes sense in that regard.
I think that it would be more fair to have more brackets above what currently exists, not that it would necessarily get to 70% or 90%.
[quote name='SpazX']I think that it would be more fair to have more brackets above what currently exists, not that it would necessarily get to 70% or 90%.[/QUOTE]
Another problem I have with the tax brackets is that it doesn't take into account cost of living at all. If I make $150,000 in NYC it hurts way more to pay the same percentage on that amount than if I was living in say, Kansas, or somewhere else where you can get more for your money.
Another problem I have with the tax brackets is that it doesn't take into account cost of living at all. If I make $150,000 in NYC it hurts way more to pay the same percentage on that amount than if I was living in say, Kansas, or somewhere else where you can get more for your money.
[quote name='Knoell']The problem with your arguement is that the rich already pay more. You are all arguing for them to pay even more as if they do not pay nearly enough.[/QUOTE]
Whoever said the rich don't create jobs is full of SHIT. Knoell's job on this board is to shill for the rich he'll never become.
Whoever said the rich don't create jobs is full of SHIT. Knoell's job on this board is to shill for the rich
he'll never become.[quote name='IRHari']Whoever said the rich don't create jobs is full of SHIT. Knoell's job on this board is to shill for the rich he'll never become.[/QUOTE]
who said the rich don't create jobs?
Secondly, if it was such a great system you would think I would want them to tax the rich as much as possible, I mean more money for me right? Theres just a small problem with that, it doesn't work.
Still waiting to see what you all think of my solution. Why doesn't the government take all money, give us each $50,000 a year, and take the rest to make life wonderful for us!
I mean why wouldn't that work? Although your examples are a little less extreme, your general principle is the same. You say we need to tax the rich as much as possible in order to give the rest of us more money in which we don't even get any. Instead we get for the most part useless programs that cost hundreds of millions, or even billions more than they have to.
he'll never become.[/QUOTE]who said the rich don't create jobs?
Secondly, if it was such a great system you would think I would want them to tax the rich as much as possible, I mean more money for me right? Theres just a small problem with that, it doesn't work.
Still waiting to see what you all think of my solution. Why doesn't the government take all money, give us each $50,000 a year, and take the rest to make life wonderful for us!
I mean why wouldn't that work? Although your examples are a little less extreme, your general principle is the same. You say we need to tax the rich as much as possible in order to give the rest of us more money in which we don't even get any. Instead we get for the most part useless programs that cost hundreds of millions, or even billions more than they have to.
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
I am more and more liking the idea of just making everyone under 50k either not pay taxes or pay a small graduated system. Over 50k, just do a flat 15% (or something like that). And pretty much eliminate almost all exemptions.
[quote name='thrustbucket']I am more and more liking the idea of just making everyone under 50k either not pay taxes or pay a small graduated system. Over 50k, just do a flat 15% (or something like that). And pretty much eliminate almost all exemptions.[/QUOTE]
That is how new york state income tax does it except at 25K they do like a 6.5% tax.
That is how new york state income tax does it except at 25K they do like a 6.5% tax.
[quote name='Knoell']how about cutting some of the ing ridiculous spending? No, no that can't be an option.[/quote]
The things that would be politically easy (possible might be more accurate) are things like foreign aid and ear marks, basically rounding errors when it comes to the federal budget.
---
Javeryh reiterated that he doesn't support bringing back the tax rates to what they were a few decades ago, but he hasn't come close to explaining why.
ing ridiculous spending? No, no that can't be an option.[/quote]The things that would be politically easy (possible might be more accurate) are things like foreign aid and ear marks, basically rounding errors when it comes to the federal budget.
---
Javeryh reiterated that he doesn't support bringing back the tax rates to what they were a few decades ago, but he hasn't come close to explaining why.
[quote name='Msut77']Javeryh reiterated that he doesn't support bringing back the tax rates to what they were a few decades ago, but he hasn't come close to explaining why.[/QUOTE]
Because it isn't fair. Why should people who earn more money have to pay a larger percentage of their income in taxes? Because they can? What a joke. I don't know how else to say it. I don't think the current structure is fair either but that's another topic.
Because it isn't fair. Why should people who earn more money have to pay a larger percentage of their income in taxes? Because they can? What a joke. I don't know how else to say it. I don't think the current structure is fair either but that's another topic.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
A gaping degree of wealth and income inequality should continue to exist and grow even wider because it would be *unfair* to do anything else?
That's preposterous logic.
That's preposterous logic.
[quote name='javeryh']Because it isn't fair. Why should people who earn more money have to pay a larger percentage of their income in taxes? Because they can? What a joke. I don't know how else to say it. I don't think the current structure is fair either but that's another topic.[/QUOTE]
And I could say it's not fair that some people make Millions while others are starving or going without health care etc.
Life's not fair, get over it.
Bills have to be paid to run a country, and those with huge incomes should should disproportionate amounts of the burden. They've achieved success in this society (most going to public schools etc.) and are making money off of people in the society etc.
But when it boils down to it, I think we need very high taxes on super high incomes to provide disincentive to making $10 million, $20 million and other absurd salaries and reducing the absurd gap between the rich and the middle class and getting away from having so much of the wealthy in 1-2% of the population.
And I could say it's not fair that some people make Millions while others are starving or going without health care etc.
Life's not fair, get over it.
Bills have to be paid to run a country, and those with huge incomes should should disproportionate amounts of the burden. They've achieved success in this society (most going to public schools etc.) and are making money off of people in the society etc.
But when it boils down to it, I think we need very high taxes on super high incomes to provide disincentive to making $10 million, $20 million and other absurd salaries and reducing the absurd gap between the rich and the middle class and getting away from having so much of the wealthy in 1-2% of the population.
[quote name='javeryh']There are other alternatives to raising money through taxes that for whatever reason the government is unwilling to go through with - like taxing the shit out of cigarettes and alcohol and legalizing marijuana. I also wouldn't mind if the government raised taxes on shit like movie tickets and other forms of non-essential entertainment. If you are poor this shouldn't affect you. If it does than you either aren't really poor or you are stupid and poor.[/QUOTE]
Wait, what? Those kinds of consumption taxes escalate your comparative tax burden as your income decreases. How is that any better? And in any event how is taxing the "poor" out of their ability to buy consumer goods going to help anybody?
Wait, what? Those kinds of consumption taxes escalate your comparative tax burden as your income decreases. How is that any better? And in any event how is taxing the "poor" out of their ability to buy consumer goods going to help anybody?
Last edited by a moderator:
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='Magus8472']And in any event how is taxing the "poor" out of their ability to buy consumer goods going to help anybody?[/QUOTE]
It would lower the price of consumer goods after all those poorer died off. And good riddance. They were making me look successful by comparison.
It would lower the price of consumer goods after all those poorer died off. And good riddance. They were making me look successful by comparison.
[quote name='dmaul1114']And I could say it's not fair that some people make Millions while others are starving or going without health care etc.[/QUOTE]
Sorry dmaul but you just don't get it. You're not viewing the problem in the eyes of people like javeryh. The people who are starving/going without healthcare are in that position because of something they did (or didn't do). It's completely their fault. Lazy freeloaders.
It's the same thing with healthcare. I only recently 'got it'. A lot of it wasn't about the merits of the health care bill. It was about another entitlement black liberal welfare spread the wealth program.
Sorry dmaul but you just don't get it. You're not viewing the problem in the eyes of people like javeryh. The people who are starving/going without healthcare are in that position because of something they did (or didn't do). It's completely their fault. Lazy freeloaders.
It's the same thing with healthcare. I only recently 'got it'. A lot of it wasn't about the merits of the health care bill. It was about another entitlement black liberal welfare spread the wealth program.
You people are nuts. The top 5% of income earners in the country pay over 60% of all income taxes collected. I'm not saying that poor people should be taxed the same as the rich because obviously paying 30% on $20,000 hurts a lot more than paying 30% on $20M (for simplicity's sake) - I'm just saying that the rich shouldn't be taxed any more than they already are.
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='javeryh']You people are nuts. The top 5% of income earners in the country pay over 60% of all income taxes collected. I'm not saying that poor people should be taxed the same as the rich because obviously paying 30% on $20,000 hurts a lot more than paying 30% on $20M (for simplicity's sake) - I'm just saying that the rich shouldn't be taxed any more than they already are.[/QUOTE]
And what about deductions?
And what about deductions?
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='javeryh']You people are nuts. The top 5% of income earners in the country pay over 60% of all income taxes collected. I'm not saying that poor people should be taxed the same as the rich because obviously paying 30% on $20,000 hurts a lot more than paying 30% on $20M (for simplicity's sake) - I'm just saying that the rich shouldn't be taxed any more than they already are.[/QUOTE]
Check out the data posted in the last few pages. The rich have been getting richer due to government intervention for years, most notably in the last couple years with government bailouts when some of the richest had the shit hit the fan on them. The government has run up massive debts and it has benefited the rich more than anyone else (see the wealth data). Government services help the rich more than the poor, since the rich have more to lose and many government programs even outside of one-time (hopefully) abominations like TARP go to the rich, like farm and ethanol subsidies, tariffs on sugar, steel and tires, and other government interventions in the market. So who should be more responsible for paying our debts off?
Seven years of power
The corporation claw
The rich control the government, the media, the law
To make some kind of difference
And everyone must know
Eradicate the fascists
Revolution will grow
Always liked that part.
Check out the data posted in the last few pages. The rich have been getting richer due to government intervention for years, most notably in the last couple years with government bailouts when some of the richest had the shit hit the fan on them. The government has run up massive debts and it has benefited the rich more than anyone else (see the wealth data). Government services help the rich more than the poor, since the rich have more to lose and many government programs even outside of one-time (hopefully) abominations like TARP go to the rich, like farm and ethanol subsidies, tariffs on sugar, steel and tires, and other government interventions in the market. So who should be more responsible for paying our debts off?
Seven years of power
The corporation claw
The rich control the government, the media, the law
To make some kind of difference
And everyone must know
Eradicate the fascists
Revolution will grow
Always liked that part.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
Had to google that.
Queensryche?
My money was on Bad Religion. Oh well.
Queensryche?
My money was on Bad Religion. Oh well.
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='mykevermin']Had to google that.
Queensryche?
My money was on Bad Religion. Oh well.[/QUOTE]
I also like Bad Religion
EDIT:
I don't ask questions, don't promote demonstration,
don't look for new consensus, don't stray from constitution
if I pierce the complexity I won't find salvation
just the bald and overt truth
of the evil and deception
Queensryche?
My money was on Bad Religion. Oh well.[/QUOTE]
I also like Bad Religion
EDIT:
I don't ask questions, don't promote demonstration,
don't look for new consensus, don't stray from constitution
if I pierce the complexity I won't find salvation
just the bald and overt truth
of the evil and deception
[quote name='elprincipe']Check out the data posted in the last few pages. The rich have been getting richer due to government intervention for years, most notably in the last couple years with government bailouts when some of the richest had the shit hit the fan on them. The government has run up massive debts and it has benefited the rich more than anyone else (see the wealth data). Government services help the rich more than the poor, since the rich have more to lose and many government programs even outside of one-time (hopefully) abominations like TARP go to the rich, like farm and ethanol subsidies, tariffs on sugar, steel and tires, and other government interventions in the market. So who should be more responsible for paying our debts off?
[/QUOTE]
Hmm... love it when people bring up TARP... Lets see... a loan with a pretty high interest rate forced on several banks so the government could partially control them... The whole thing was put out there to keep the common folk from making a run on the banks, which would in turn cause the banks to become insolvent and have to be covered by FDIC coverage which didn't have enough money to cover worst case scenatio... and guess what... if the money would have just been used for banks like it was supposed to be then we (the taxpayers) would as of right now actually made a profit from it. But it was decided to use it for other things like AIG which I can sort of understand but don't like. GMAC which I still have no clue. GM/Chrysler well we all know why this happened... one word.. union.
We'll never get the money back from any of those 4 and that's why we as taxpayers lost out with the TARP. The funny thing to me... three of those are either union or directly related.
I'm not saying the TARP was right or wrong just that a lot of people have an incorrect opinion of it due to the media using the phrase bailout... when the proper term should have been loan.
Tariffs... well they're just there to try to help us remain competative in out own country since payrolls have priced us out of competition.
Personally I think it's more of a question of shouldn't the government be more resposible with our hard earned tax dollar than who should be more responsible for out debts.
[/QUOTE]
Hmm... love it when people bring up TARP... Lets see... a loan with a pretty high interest rate forced on several banks so the government could partially control them... The whole thing was put out there to keep the common folk from making a run on the banks, which would in turn cause the banks to become insolvent and have to be covered by FDIC coverage which didn't have enough money to cover worst case scenatio... and guess what... if the money would have just been used for banks like it was supposed to be then we (the taxpayers) would as of right now actually made a profit from it. But it was decided to use it for other things like AIG which I can sort of understand but don't like. GMAC which I still have no clue. GM/Chrysler well we all know why this happened... one word.. union.
We'll never get the money back from any of those 4 and that's why we as taxpayers lost out with the TARP. The funny thing to me... three of those are either union or directly related.
I'm not saying the TARP was right or wrong just that a lot of people have an incorrect opinion of it due to the media using the phrase bailout... when the proper term should have been loan.
Tariffs... well they're just there to try to help us remain competative in out own country since payrolls have priced us out of competition.
Personally I think it's more of a question of shouldn't the government be more resposible with our hard earned tax dollar than who should be more responsible for out debts.
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='Afflicted']Hmm... love it when people bring up TARP... Lets see... a loan with a pretty high interest rate forced on several banks so the government could partially control them... The whole thing was put out there to keep the common folk from making a run on the banks, which would in turn cause the banks to become insolvent and have to be covered by FDIC coverage which didn't have enough money to cover worst case scenatio... and guess what... if the money would have just been used for banks like it was supposed to be then we (the taxpayers) would as of right now actually made a profit from it. But it was decided to use it for other things like AIG which I can sort of understand but don't like. GMAC which I still have no clue. GM/Chrysler well we all know why this happened... one word.. union.
We'll never get the money back from any of those 4 and that's why we as taxpayers lost out with the TARP. The funny thing to me... three of those are either union or directly related.
I'm not saying the TARP was right or wrong just that a lot of people have an incorrect opinion of it due to the media using the phrase bailout... when the proper term should have been loan.
Tariffs... well they're just there to try to help us remain competative in out own country since payrolls have priced us out of competition.
Personally I think it's more of a question of shouldn't the government be more resposible with our hard earned tax dollar than who should be more responsible for out debts.[/QUOTE]
Obviously the government should be more responsible. However, the fact is that it hasn't been responsible and we have a huge debt. We need to pay off that debt, regardless of how responsible we are in the future (it's likely we'll be just as irresponsible given the two parties that are likely to be in power).
TARP saved rich bankers' asses at the expense of smaller, responsible banks. That's stupid and wrong, and it should have never been done.
We'll never get the money back from any of those 4 and that's why we as taxpayers lost out with the TARP. The funny thing to me... three of those are either union or directly related.
I'm not saying the TARP was right or wrong just that a lot of people have an incorrect opinion of it due to the media using the phrase bailout... when the proper term should have been loan.
Tariffs... well they're just there to try to help us remain competative in out own country since payrolls have priced us out of competition.
Personally I think it's more of a question of shouldn't the government be more resposible with our hard earned tax dollar than who should be more responsible for out debts.[/QUOTE]
Obviously the government should be more responsible. However, the fact is that it hasn't been responsible and we have a huge debt. We need to pay off that debt, regardless of how responsible we are in the future (it's likely we'll be just as irresponsible given the two parties that are likely to be in power).
TARP saved rich bankers' asses at the expense of smaller, responsible banks. That's stupid and wrong, and it should have never been done.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
wat
depascal22
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 92 (100%)
Like Afflicted said, it had to be done because the FDIC guarantees most of the money anyway.
[quote name='IRHari']Wait weren't Republicans criticizing the Healthcare bill because it cut medicare? What the is with the flip-flop about cutting entitlements now?[/QUOTE]
Sorry to tell you, I don't support everything one party does. I just happen to support more of the things republicans do than democrats. I also have said many times that both sides are guilty of not cutting back on ridiculous spending because it would be political suicide. It is one of the biggest scandels that everyone ignores.
Which just happens to be what the tea party stands for, which is replacing the current government officials (democrats and republicans) who do not stand for fiscal responsibility with those that do. But for some reason you all turned that into a race issue...
is with the flip-flop about cutting entitlements now?[/QUOTE]Sorry to tell you, I don't support everything one party does. I just happen to support more of the things republicans do than democrats. I also have said many times that both sides are guilty of not cutting back on ridiculous spending because it would be political suicide. It is one of the biggest scandels that everyone ignores.
Which just happens to be what the tea party stands for, which is replacing the current government officials (democrats and republicans) who do not stand for fiscal responsibility with those that do. But for some reason you all turned that into a race issue...
[quote name='elprincipe']Obviously the government should be more responsible. However, the fact is that it hasn't been responsible and we have a huge debt. We need to pay off that debt, regardless of how responsible we are in the future (it's likely we'll be just as irresponsible given the two parties that are likely to be in power).
TARP saved rich bankers' asses at the expense of smaller, responsible banks. That's stupid and wrong, and it should have never been done.[/QUOTE]
So let me get this straight:
Obviously the government should be more responsible with our money, however it hasn't been responsible, and we have huge debt, so the rich should have to pay down this huge debt, while the government increases its irresponsible spending.
And people call me racist, stupid, and that I hate poor people, when I scream and shout about fiscal responsibility....
This is not directly attacking you elprincipe, I just feel this is the way alot of people on this forum think, and it is just sad.
TARP saved rich bankers' asses at the expense of smaller, responsible banks. That's stupid and wrong, and it should have never been done.[/QUOTE]
So let me get this straight:
Obviously the government should be more responsible with our money, however it hasn't been responsible, and we have huge debt, so the rich should have to pay down this huge debt, while the government increases its irresponsible spending.
And people call me racist, stupid, and that I hate poor people, when I scream and shout about fiscal responsibility....
This is not directly attacking you elprincipe, I just feel this is the way alot of people on this forum think, and it is just sad.
speedracer
Banned
[quote name='Knoell']Which just happens to be what the tea party stands for, which is replacing the current government officials (democrats and republicans) who do not stand for fiscal responsibility with those that do. But for some reason you all turned that into a race issue...[/QUOTE]
I think it's reasonable to split legislative agendas into two parts: social and economic. Tea partiers love to trumpet freedom and puppies and smaller government when talking economic, but let's be real here. This isn't a libertarian revolution. This is a kill government movement that's also ultra authoritarian on social issues. They aren't pro-legalization of any drugs or for the right of a woman to decide on abortion.
Meet the new conservative boss. Same as the old conservative boss. Only difference is ya'll can pretend to have nothing to do with the 8 years of explosive government growth under Bush.
Forgive us for sneering at the lack of "freedom" consistency.
There's no entity with which to negotiate or figurehead (except maybe Palin) to speak for the issues or a platform to debate. It's a bunch of people with signs that are pissy that they aren't being taken seriously that just happen to have been the same people that talked shit and minimized the people that had signs and were pissy about Bush's policies. Bush's spending like a crack addict didn't phase any of you more than a tacit "meh" (certainly not enough to change voting patterns), but now ya'll want the rest of us to legitimize your pathetic attempts to rewrite history and pretend you always cared. This from the group that's supposedly about taking responsibility.
Again, forgive us for not pretending along with you. Any libertarian sympathizers have already long jumped ship. Partisans are all that's left. I'd say go back to voting for Republicans, but they never stopped doing that anyway. Enjoy Scott Brown.
I think it's reasonable to split legislative agendas into two parts: social and economic. Tea partiers love to trumpet freedom and puppies and smaller government when talking economic, but let's be real here. This isn't a libertarian revolution. This is a kill government movement that's also ultra authoritarian on social issues. They aren't pro-legalization of any drugs or for the right of a woman to decide on abortion.
Meet the new conservative boss. Same as the old conservative boss. Only difference is ya'll can pretend to have nothing to do with the 8 years of explosive government growth under Bush.
Forgive us for sneering at the lack of "freedom" consistency.
There's no entity with which to negotiate or figurehead (except maybe Palin) to speak for the issues or a platform to debate. It's a bunch of people with signs that are pissy that they aren't being taken seriously that just happen to have been the same people that talked shit and minimized the people that had signs and were pissy about Bush's policies. Bush's spending like a crack addict didn't phase any of you more than a tacit "meh" (certainly not enough to change voting patterns), but now ya'll want the rest of us to legitimize your pathetic attempts to rewrite history and pretend you always cared. This from the group that's supposedly about taking responsibility.
Again, forgive us for not pretending along with you. Any libertarian sympathizers have already long jumped ship. Partisans are all that's left. I'd say go back to voting for Republicans, but they never stopped doing that anyway. Enjoy Scott Brown.
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='speedracer']I think it's reasonable to split legislative agendas into two parts: social and economic. Tea partiers love to trumpet freedom and puppies and smaller government when talking economic, but let's be real here. This isn't a libertarian revolution. This is a kill government movement that's also ultra authoritarian on social issues. They aren't pro-legalization of any drugs or for the right of a woman to decide on abortion.
Meet the new conservative boss. Same as the old conservative boss. Only difference is ya'll can pretend to have nothing to do with the 8 years of explosive government growth under Bush.
Forgive us for sneering at the lack of "freedom" consistency.
There's no entity with which to negotiate or figurehead (except maybe Palin) to speak for the issues or a platform to debate. It's a bunch of people with signs that are pissy that they aren't being taken seriously that just happen to have been the same people that talked shit and minimized the people that had signs and were pissy about Bush's policies. Bush's spending like a crack addict didn't phase any of you more than a tacit "meh" (certainly not enough to change voting patterns), but now ya'll want the rest of us to legitimize your pathetic attempts to rewrite history. This from the group that's supposedly about taking responsibility.
Again, forgive us for not pretending along with you.[/QUOTE]
So to sum up your post? Bush did something wrong so Obama can do it too? Did I get it?
Meet the new conservative boss. Same as the old conservative boss. Only difference is ya'll can pretend to have nothing to do with the 8 years of explosive government growth under Bush.
Forgive us for sneering at the lack of "freedom" consistency.
There's no entity with which to negotiate or figurehead (except maybe Palin) to speak for the issues or a platform to debate. It's a bunch of people with signs that are pissy that they aren't being taken seriously that just happen to have been the same people that talked shit and minimized the people that had signs and were pissy about Bush's policies. Bush's spending like a crack addict didn't phase any of you more than a tacit "meh" (certainly not enough to change voting patterns), but now ya'll want the rest of us to legitimize your pathetic attempts to rewrite history. This from the group that's supposedly about taking responsibility.
Again, forgive us for not pretending along with you.[/QUOTE]
So to sum up your post? Bush did something wrong so Obama can do it too? Did I get it?
speedracer
Banned
[quote name='Knoell']So to sum up your post? Bush did something wrong so Obama can do it too? Did I get it?[/QUOTE]
I edited out from under you but since you didn't substantively address the post, it doesn't matter anyway.
Liberals are in favor of strong centralized social nets and government regulation. Perhaps internalizing that will lead you to enlightenment on why Obama's not "wrong" to 50% of the population. Our politicians actually do what we want.
Or as I saw on a T-shirt, I voted for Obama and all I got was massive health care reform.
I edited out from under you but since you didn't substantively address the post, it doesn't matter anyway.
Liberals are in favor of strong centralized social nets and government regulation. Perhaps internalizing that will lead you to enlightenment on why Obama's not "wrong" to 50% of the population. Our politicians actually do what we want.
Or as I saw on a T-shirt, I voted for Obama and all I got was massive health care reform.
I think speed is saying that the tea tantrum crowd is all riled up about government spending when it happens under a Democrat and they were suspiciously nonplussed when it happened under W.
They are either partisans under a pretty pathetic disguise or just don't get upset about anything until FOX tells them to.
They are either partisans under a pretty pathetic disguise or just don't get upset about anything until FOX tells them to.
speedracer
Banned
[quote name='Msut77']I think speed is saying that the tea tantrum crowd is all riled up about government spending when it happens under a Democrat and they were suspiciously nonplussed when it happened under W.
They are either partisans under a pretty pathetic disguise or just don't get upset about anything until FOX tells them to.[/QUOTE]
They complain that "both parties" are hosing us and man we need to create a new movement! and then punch Republican tickets. Gimme a break.
Good link btw.
They are either partisans under a pretty pathetic disguise or just don't get upset about anything until FOX tells them to.[/QUOTE]
They complain that "both parties" are hosing us and man we need to create a new movement! and then punch Republican tickets. Gimme a break.
Good link btw.
[quote name='speedracer']I edited out from under you but since you didn't substantively address the post, it doesn't matter anyway.
Liberals are in favor of strong centralized social nets and government regulation. Perhaps internalizing that will lead you to enlightenment on why Obama's not "wrong" to 50% of the population. Our politicians actually do what we want.
Or as I saw on a T-shirt, I voted for Obama and all I got was massive health care reform.[/QUOTE]
Your politicians actually do what you want? So when the majority of americans vote for Obama they are smart and right. However when the majority of Americans poll as not wanting this particular health care bill, they are being mislead, and to dumb to know what they are getting? Am I sensing a double standard?
How about I flip it around. The majority of Americans voted for Obama, not realizing what they were going to get. (change can mean alot of different things), and they were against the health care bill because they knew what it included, and realized this isnt what they want.
Liberals are in favor of strong centralized social nets and government regulation. Perhaps internalizing that will lead you to enlightenment on why Obama's not "wrong" to 50% of the population. Our politicians actually do what we want.
Or as I saw on a T-shirt, I voted for Obama and all I got was massive health care reform.[/QUOTE]
Your politicians actually do what you want? So when the majority of americans vote for Obama they are smart and right. However when the majority of Americans poll as not wanting this particular health care bill, they are being mislead, and to dumb to know what they are getting? Am I sensing a double standard?
How about I flip it around. The majority of Americans voted for Obama, not realizing what they were going to get. (change can mean alot of different things), and they were against the health care bill because they knew what it included, and realized this isnt what they want.
[quote name='speedracer']They complain that "both parties" are hosing us and man we need to create a new movement! and then punch Republican tickets. Gimme a break.
Good link btw.[/QUOTE]
well when you squelch movements such as the tea party by calling them racist, and not worth the trouble what do you expect? if we stick with two parties of course we have to vote republican, they carry alot more of our beliefs than the other side does. You have to realize that the majority is not democrat or republican it is moderate. They do not want the government to run everything in our lives, and they do not want the government to disappear.
The tea party realizes the need for government, but also notices the excessive spending and waste of the government.
Why don't you read up on it a little bit before you dismiss it next time?
http://docs.google.com/View?id=dhsxmzm7_19fcdzskg5
Good link btw.[/QUOTE]
well when you squelch movements such as the tea party by calling them racist, and not worth the trouble what do you expect? if we stick with two parties of course we have to vote republican, they carry alot more of our beliefs than the other side does. You have to realize that the majority is not democrat or republican it is moderate. They do not want the government to run everything in our lives, and they do not want the government to disappear.
The tea party realizes the need for government, but also notices the excessive spending and waste of the government.
Why don't you read up on it a little bit before you dismiss it next time?
http://docs.google.com/View?id=dhsxmzm7_19fcdzskg5
bread's done