Rich dont pay enough but poor people dont pay any and people fine with that

[quote name='camoor']I think we all 'understand' your main point slidecage.[/QUOTE]



my other point is

DID anyone else see that LADY IN OHIO Screaming that OBAMA IS GREAT cause he gave her a free phone and mITT sucks cause he did not give her anything free


Who the hell does that lady sound like .. cousin said a muppet on sesame street but i dont think so someone in hollywood but cant put m finger on it
 
[quote name='camoor']Not entirely.

It reduces crime. If we all buy a hungry man a loaf of bread, he doesn't have to break a window or door to steal one from the baker.

It improves health. Malnutrition causes disease, and the more disease in the general population, the more we all suffer. Keeping poor people somewhat healthy helps keep all of society healthy.

It really doesn't cost that much extra - heck if you factor in all of the displaced costs it probably saves us money. Simple example: I'd rather have society buy a loaf of bread for a dude then have him faint out of hunger and have to spend a few hours at the emergency room with an glucose IV up his arm.

It doesn't hurt that it's also the right thing to do, but the fact that it's the most pragmatic choice makes it a no-brainer.

What I was getting at was that guys like yourlefthand stand on principle because it's the only card they have left, they feel that it is their unassailable trump card, much like "it's in the bible" or "it's the law". These are not arguments born out of a well-reasoned moral philosophy, they are dogmatic mantras to be retreated to when all else is lost and they have no hope of winning the argument.

I wasn't kidding when I said I knew his type :D[/QUOTE]

Still about principles though. If you really didn't want to help others, get some guns and build yourself a nice little fort with your money and really say "**** you, I got mine."

Reducing crime, the health of the general public, etc. It's all about principles.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Still about principles though. If you really didn't want to help others, get some guns and build yourself a nice little fort with your money and really say "**** you, I got mine."

Reducing crime, the health of the general public, etc. It's all about principles.[/QUOTE]
:rofl: I'll let someone else handle this one.

I also think it's hilarious that your post got modded.:lol:
 
[quote name='slidecage']my other point is

DID anyone else see that LADY IN OHIO Screaming that OBAMA IS GREAT cause he gave her a free phone and mITT sucks cause he did not give her anything free


Who the hell does that lady sound like .. cousin said a muppet on sesame street but i dont think so someone in hollywood but cant put m finger on it[/QUOTE]
Obama didn't give anyone anything. You both have it confused. Subsidized phones are paid for by people that have any phone connection in the form of Universal Usage Fees. The companies then receive a reimbursement fee of less than $10 per line from the government. This is also an extension of the program that allows for free/subsidized landlines that was implemented long before Obama came into office. The program was actually enacted during the Reagan administration.
 
[quote name='cancerman1120']I am not sure what a "slanted" study would be. If you cannot designed a double blind placebo control study looking at the effects of your compound (vitamin, herb, supplement) on said disease, ailment or condition then your compound does not work. This is where holistic medicine likes to wallow. Well "some" people feel they get better or their joints don not hurt or whatever vague response they are trying to elicit. I am not going to say do not take herbs or other supplements if you think they are helping you but the placebo effect is pretty dang strong and a lot of the holistic/herbal claims rely on this.

I have worked at both the National Cancer Institute and Pharma and I can tell you this. The FDA and Pharma DO work hand in hand but not for the reason you may think. They are trying to develop ways to bring more drugs to market in faster, safer and more reliable ways. The FDA has shut down many drugs in Phase 3. Way more than they approve. The amount of research and money spent to get one drug to market is crazy expensive. If they were just in it together you would see far more "bad" drugs out there. Do some make it through? Yes, but usually that is because the sample size for the clinical trial was not large enough to predict adverse outcomes once it hits a population of millions or billions. My biggest issue now is that some cancer drugs are being approved based solely on the fact they increase disease free progression yet have no effect on overall survival. This is a slippery slope. They are expensive drug that may improve your quality of life for 6 months but do not extend it. There are also drugs for cancer with no previous known therapy that are being approved because it extends survival for 3 months but at the cost of 10s of thousands of dollars. These are real issues that play a role in the rising costs of health care. I do not want to be callous but at some point we have to really ask the tough questions about these types of drugs. Anyway, war off topic but it is something I actually feel passionate about.[/QUOTE]

I'm not disagreeing with you that the Placebo Effect does truly happen and am not opposed to Double Blind studies. That being said, look at the people who are hired for the FDA and where they end up working.
As far as slanting studies you can slant something any number of ways so where it might appear at an outward glance agreeable one can argue the conditions in one way or another invariably favored the negative result. Some of these may be very subtle and one's the layman which I admit is more of what I am. Where this comes in is an FDA head or scientist wants a cushy job at a Pharmaceutical company so he cooks it that way accordingly and presents to the public who notice nothing wrong.
It's not like a journalist without a medical background will necessarily figure this out. Even then Pharmaceutical ads make up a nice chunk of change on television.
Getting into the cost issue you reminded me of that Chris Rock bit on "Cure Vs. Treatment".
Edit: Where did they find that woman on the cell phone bit?! Jeez.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Obama didn't give anyone anything. You both have it confused. Subsidized phones are paid for by people that have any phone connection in the form of Universal Usage Fees. The companies then receive a reimbursement fee of less than $10 per line from the government. This is also an extension of the program that allows for free/subsidized landlines that was implemented long before Obama came into office. The program was actually enacted during the Reagan administration.[/QUOTE]

she is the one who is screaming it in the video ...


OBAMA gave me this phone.. they even have a website they said

Obama Phone —
The Obama Phone Program. What exactly is the free Obama phone? The free Obama phone is a program that is meant to help the financially unstable who cannot afford ...

www.obamaphone.net


so it looks like they are giving these people the phones himself ....


still who the hell does she sound like.. everyone time i heard it i have to bust out laughing it seems like it would be out of saturday night live skit

LOL YOu have to watch the video

http://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?p=obama+phone
 
[quote name='dohdough']:rofl: I'll let someone else handle this one.

I also think it's hilarious that your post got modded.:lol:[/QUOTE]

Smart. Can't take this one, I'm watching Bikini Spring Break and I think it's a much better use of my time :lol:
 
[quote name='slidecage']she is the one who is screaming it in the video ...


OBAMA gave me this phone.. they even have a website they said

Obama Phone —
The Obama Phone Program. What exactly is the free Obama phone? The free Obama phone is a program that is meant to help the financially unstable who cannot afford ...

www.obamaphone.net


so it looks like they are giving these people the phones himself ....


still who the hell does she sound like.. everyone time i heard it i have to bust out laughing it seems like it would be out of saturday night live skit

LOL YOu have to watch the video

http://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?p=obama+phone[/QUOTE]
Oh Jeebus...did you even read your own goddamn link?
 
[quote name='dohdough']I also think it's hilarious that your post got modded.:lol:[/QUOTE]

Notice how I'm not posting thirty different times crying about it?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Notice how I'm not posting thirty different times crying about it?[/QUOTE]
At least I don't use passive aggressive insults and pretend like I'm some kind of objective mod while only targeting certain people. You're an ideologue and a bit of a pussy. That's fine because lots of people are and it isn't really a big deal to me to get reported and modded, but at least own up to being an ideologue and a pussy instead of hiding behind the coattails of "the rules" or any other thinly veiled nonsense. You've been pulling this kind of shit for years before I even knew CAG existed. You can say I'm a little cry-baby all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that you don't play by your own rules and I'm going to point that out every time you let comments like the one you got deleted from your post fly.

You can take #31 and do something Eastwood said you can't do to yourself.
 
That's great, actually - I could use someone to help keep me in check when I cross the line. I appreciate the time that you're putting in to helping me be a better person, DD.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Oh Jeebus...did you even read your own goddamn link?[/QUOTE]

who cares hes allowing his name to be using and not coming out and saying a damn thing about it...

like i said before this entire election is joke ..

They are pushing obama higher and higher in the polls so he wins no matter what .. It was cbs or nbc news last night that even said

NO PRESIDENT IN HISTORY HAS EVER LOST WITH THIS LEAD

meaning if he does lose in november they will come screaming voter fraud there is no way something with this big of a lead could of lost .... wait and see
 
slidecage, instead of watching fox news all day and crying about poor people with their hands out, have you ever thought about trying to make something better of yourself?

just asking.
 
The problem with the whole "rich" needing to pay more is that it is a factually false argument. Most rich people wittle down their tax burden with deductions just like the rest of America does, and they still pay 10-15% more than the middle class. Buffett and his secretary are the exception, not the rule.

So I will say it again like I said it before, not only do they pay a higher percentage (which is higher than what everyone else pays already, because they make more) but they pay a higher percentage.

I am tired of both sides of this, but the whole "if the government doesn't take care of you, who will?" crap gets to me sometimes. As if we don't have the brain capacity to do it ourselves, and we are too stupid to understand that the government wants to help us.

That is the government for you, taking away rights one at a time in the name of saving every single person from every possible situation that could possibly do anyone harm.

Not to mention the constant "Romney doesn't care about poor people" out of one side of their mouth and then out of the other side of their mouth "Romney did Romneycare which is just like Obamacare" out of the other. Put together they don't make much sense. The whole political scheme is shock and awe, if you can shock the voter base into thinking you are worse off by electing "that" guy then you win. No plans, facts, or anything simply shock and awe.

Maybe if there was a plan to raise taxes on the rich for a period of time to achieve some goal, more people would be for it. But all I hear is "they have to pay this little bit more because they should". No plan for the money, because the monstrosity that is budget will simply absorb it, and ask for more.
 
[quote name='Knoell']The problem with the whole "rich" needing to pay more is that it is a factually false argument. Most rich people wittle down their tax burden with deductions just like the rest of America does, and they still pay 10-15% more than the middle class. Buffett and his secretary are the exception, not the rule.[/QUOTE]

That's false and noone believes it. There is absolutely no proof for this.
 
Well, while not exactly what Knoell claims - if 47% of Americans don't pay an income tax (i.e.: 0%) and someone like Mittens pays roughly 13%, that would fit into the 10-15% more tax range...
 
[quote name='Knoell']
Not to mention the constant "Romney doesn't care about poor people" out of one side of their mouth and then out of the other side of their mouth "Romney did Romneycare which is just like Obamacare" out of the other. Put together they don't make much sense.[/QUOTE]

wow it's almost like Mitt Romney actually resembled some sort of human being when he wasn't beholden to the lunatic fringe of the national republican party machine
 
[quote name='camoor']That's false and noone believes it. There is absolutely no proof for this.[/QUOTE]
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-04-12/buffett-rule-or-not-most-rich-people-already-pay

Of course I don't know why I bother, you will just criticize the source while providing zero proof that "most rich people pay less in taxes than the middle class." And no, providing the exception (Buffett) is not legitimate proof.

Yet Romney—and Buffett, for that matter—are the exception. According to government tax data, the median effective tax rate for the middle 20 percent of U.S. taxpayers is 13.3 percent, including income, payroll, and corporate taxes. The top 1 percent of taxpayers pay a median rate of 29.6 percent, according to the 2012 Economic Report of the President. Just one-tenth of these highest-income households have tax rates of 8.7 percent or less.
Click to expand...

But you were never about proof were you Camoor? Shock and Awe! The rich pay less taxes than me?!!?!?! how can that be? That is outrageous!!! ( even if they were paying the same exact percentage they are still paying more......math, it can be complicated but I believe in you.)
 
[quote name='confoosious']slidecage, instead of watching fox news all day and crying about poor people with their hands out, have you ever thought about trying to make something better of yourself?

just asking.[/QUOTE]

why the fuck should i when they get hand outs .. like i said if they win come jan Im quitting my job and going on the handout wagon ..
 
[quote name='confoosious']slidecage, instead of watching fox news all day and crying about poor people with their hands out, have you ever thought about trying to make something better of yourself?

just asking.[/QUOTE]

why the fuck should i when they get hand outs .. like i said if they win come jan Im quitting my job and going on the handout wagon ..
 
[quote name='slidecage']why the fuck should i when they get hand outs .. like i said if they win come jan Im quitting my job and going on the handout wagon ..[/QUOTE]

of course you are.
 
[quote name='slidecage']why the fuck should i when they get hand outs .. like i said if they win come jan Im quitting my job and going on the handout wagon ..[/QUOTE]

GROW THE fuck UP YOU WHINY LITTLE SHIT.

You know, the vast majority of the "other side" of VS. I can at least respect in some way because they have the intellect to support their beliefs. I may vehemently disagree with them but at least most of them are articulate and intelligent enough to have support for their belief.

You, on the other hand, are a flaming fucking idiot. Quite possibly the most idiotic person on all of Cheapassgamer. At this point I'm not entirely convinced that you don't have some type of mental deficiency, whether that's mild mental retardation or low IQ, something's off. Normally, this would be reason enough for me to not interact in this way with you but since you've seen fit to completely throw your fellow citizens under the bus while blindly parroting conservative talk radio and Fox news you've made yourself fair game.

The fact that even the people on your "side" of the VS. forum distance themselves from you should tell you everything you need to know about how little respect everyone has for you. In the Off-topic forum your posts were a mild annoyance bordering on humor; in the VS. forum you're a whiny, annoying shit that adds absolutely zero intelligent thoughts to the discussions.
 
[quote name='slidecage']wait and see[/QUOTE]

I fully believe you will put your handout when Obama gets re-elected. It's so much easier to whine and bitch than it is to dust yourself off and actually do something with your life.

Nobody is doubting you.
 
I think the funniest thing is that a lot of us here wouldn't even give a shit if he did.:lol:

But hey, if he wants to live below the poverty line, survive on about $200 in food a month, and IF he qualifies for that much after quiting his job because he needs to be worth under a certain net worth, I hope that he can get some of that sweet Obamacare cause only a mentally ill person would do it to prove a political point...on a video game forum for cheap deals nonetheless.:rofl:
 
[quote name='dohdough']I think the funniest thing is that a lot of us here wouldn't even give a shit if he did.:lol:

But hey, if he wants to live below the poverty line, survive on about $200 in food a month, and IF he qualifies for that much after quiting his job because he needs to be worth under a certain net worth, I hope that he can get some of that sweet Obamacare cause only a mentally ill person would do it to prove a political point...on a video game forum for cheap deals nonetheless.:rofl:[/QUOTE]

crap forgot they count your cds and bank account against you :) guess the 150k in cds will kick me out .


dont even get me started on the Obamacare cause i cant wait for it to kick in and when everyone loses their jobs and healthcare i will laugh in their faces .. already got a notice from my health insurance saying my bill is going from 1800 a year to 2580 this year DUE to obamacare (right on the paper) ya , Obamacare isnt going to push up the health insurance rates just another lie...


you want to know job... like i said for now deliver newspapers for around 27 K per year and around 18k a year after all the stuff i can take off....

but i think i go back into what made the 100K what is day trading. help some friends make very nice money (got some but not much thanks to most of my cash tied up in 5.21% cds ) doing the corn and soybean crops this summer around 20% uptick


hell maybe i even file for another business licence and redo a ebay business and then write off my internet connection as a business loss :)


but like i said why the hell should i have to pay taxes everyone has the same chance to buy the same stocks im going to buy.. so when i turn my 1,000 into 10,000 or more why the fuck should i give any of it to the lazy fucks who sit on their asses all day.
 
[quote name='slidecage']crap forgot they count your cds and bank account against you :) guess the 150k in cds will kick me out .[/quote]
Oh I see, so you weren't going to actually just live off of any assistance, but pad it with $150k of savings that "welfare queens" don't even come close to having.

dont even get me started on the Obamacare cause i cant wait for it to kick in and when everyone loses their jobs and healthcare i will laugh in their faces .. already got a notice from my health insurance saying my bill is going from 1800 a year to 2580 this year DUE to obamacare (right on the paper) ya , Obamacare isnt going to push up the health insurance rates just another lie...
Click to expand...
A 50% rise in costs? I'm guessing it has more to do with your employer dicking you on their contributions then the insurance provider doing it because of Obamacare.

you want to know job... like i said for now deliver newspapers for around 27 K per year and around 18k a year after all the stuff i can take off....

but i think i go back into what made the 100K what is day trading. help some friends make very nice money (got some but not much thanks to most of my cash tied up in 5.21% cds ) doing the corn and soybean crops this summer around 20% uptick


hell maybe i even file for another business licence and redo a ebay business and then write off my internet connection as a business loss :)
Click to expand...
Sounds like neither were sustainable, hence the reason why you're delivering newspapers. Also, there are more than a few members here that can disseminate those numbers and I'm one of them. Capital gains that large can only be gotten with a very substantial investment...either that or you're fudging the numbers. Either way, it's highly unlikely that the amount is pure profit or else you wouldn't bother wasting your time delivering newspapers.

but like i said why the hell should i have to pay taxes everyone has the same chance to buy the same stocks im going to buy.. so when i turn my 1,000 into 10,000 or more why the fuck should i give any of it to the lazy fucks who sit on their asses all day.
Click to expand...
1000% returns! So if I give you a cool million, you'll turn it into 10? Sign me up! :roll:

If you're pulling those types of returns, you're either a fucking moron for giving it up or completely full of shit. Considering we're talking about you, it's highly likely that it's both.

And btw, people that pick stocks usually sit on their asses all day too while reading shit on the internet. Funny ain't it!
 
[quote name='dohdough']Oh I see, so you weren't going to actually just live off of any assistance, but pad it with $150k of savings that "welfare queens" don't even come close to having.


A 50% rise in costs? I'm guessing it has more to do with your employer dicking you on their contributions then the insurance provider doing it because of Obamacare.


Sounds like neither were sustainable, hence the reason why you're delivering newspapers. Also, there are more than a few members here that can disseminate those numbers and I'm one of them. Capital gains that large can only be gotten with a very substantial investment...either that or you're fudging the numbers. Either way, it's highly unlikely that the amount is pure profit or else you wouldn't bother wasting your time delivering newspapers.


1000% returns! So if I give you a cool million, you'll turn it into 10? Sign me up! :roll:

If you're pulling those types of returns, you're either a fucking moron for giving it up or completely full of shit. Considering we're talking about you, it's highly likely that it's both.

And btw, people that pick stocks usually sit on their asses all day too while reading shit on the internet. Funny ain't it![/QUOTE]

the queens had the same chance i had to buy those same stocks 15 years ago but they didnt so why should i gave them any of my cash

I pay for my own healthcare been doing it since 1993


i was making that much but the risk got to high and got too old to be taking those sort of risks. . 80% of it was playing penny stocks where you can see a stock at 88 cents one minute and 40 cents a few minutes later. Newspaper paid very good money back in the late 90s and 2000's .. profit is really drying up now though that is why im thinking about getting back in the market.

back in the last 90s i could of turn your 10k into 100k very easy if you wanted to take the major risk of losing it all overnight .

you could say i sat on my ass all day on the internet BUT at least i paid Taxes on my cash and supported myself .


im starting to think i cashed in too soon on the sliver market rode it from 27 to 33 for a nice 20% gain about was thinking 33 to 34 was tops but dont see it coming down until what happens in November 40 would not shock me just depends what happens in november.


how i made most of that cash (kicking self) Road Amazon from 11 per share up before cashing out way below where it is now

DOH!!!!
 
[quote name='slidecage']the queens had the same chance i had to buy those same stocks 15 years ago but they didnt so why should i gave them any of my cash

I pay for my own healthcare been doing it since 1993


i was making that much but the risk got to high and got too old to be taking those sort of risks. . 80% of it was playing penny stocks where you can see a stock at 88 cents one minute and 40 cents a few minutes later. Newspaper paid very good money back in the late 90s and 2000's .. profit is really drying up now though that is why im thinking about getting back in the market.

back in the last 90s i could of turn your 10k into 100k very easy if you wanted to take the major risk of losing it all overnight .

you could say i sat on my ass all day on the internet BUT at least i paid Taxes on my cash and supported myself .


im starting to think i cashed in too soon on the sliver market rode it from 27 to 33 for a nice 20% gain about was thinking 33 to 34 was tops but dont see it coming down until what happens in November 40 would not shock me just depends what happens in november.


how i made most of that cash (kicking self) Road Amazon from 11 per share up before cashing out way below where it is now

DOH!!!![/QUOTE]
Yeah, that's all well and good, but you seem to have missed the part about having the capital to invest to begin with. It's kind of a important when investing, don't you think?

And while you were going on your spiel about deducting business expenses, you sure do love the government giving you a handout by subsidizing your for-profit business.
 
[quote name='cochesecochese']the fuck? how old are you?[/QUOTE]
He's at least 37 after doing the math from the voting history thread. Frankly, it makes his threads in OT all the more ridiculous. I figured he was just a petulant child or a crotchety old man. Turns out he's just an idiot.:rofl:
 
[quote name='Knoell']http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-04-12/buffett-rule-or-not-most-rich-people-already-pay

Of course I don't know why I bother, you will just criticize the source while providing zero proof that "most rich people pay less in taxes than the middle class." And no, providing the exception (Buffett) is not legitimate proof.



But you were never about proof were you Camoor? Shock and Awe! The rich pay less taxes than me?!!?!?! how can that be? That is outrageous!!! ( even if they were paying the same exact percentage they are still paying more......math, it can be complicated but I believe in you.)[/QUOTE]

Easy with the exclamation points.

First, 47 billion is not chump change. As a country we can't afford to let the govt throw away 47 billion in uncollected taxes when we have such a huge debt over our heads.

Secondly a good portion of the rich are not paying more - they are paying less. I'm talking about the top of the top - like the superrich investment bankers of NYC. Then you have the rich that are using all sorts of dirty tricks to hide their money from the govt (those Cayman tax shelters don't show up in govt reports dontchaknow). So what we're seeing is what the rich decided to disclose and it's still scandalous what they are paying.

I'm talking about going back to the tax rates of the good ol' 50s, but I'd even settle for the tax rates of the 80s. The rich didn't just pay more - they paid ALOT more (like 20-40 percent more) and things worked great. What's in place now is a total shame. This is a pretty good breakdown of why:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-r-talbott/rich-pay-taxes_b_1873392.html
 
[quote name='dohdough']He's at least 37 after doing the math from the voting history thread. Frankly, it makes his threads in OT all the more ridiculous. I figured he was just a petulant child or a crotchety old man. Turns out he's just an idiot.:rofl:[/QUOTE]

Jesus. The CAG conservatives gallery is a veritable who's who of middle aged guys who are bitter about not making it.
 
Actually yeah, it pretty much is assuming a lifespan of around 75 years.

Anyway, I have to say that based on slide's posts I feel safe in saying that the American education system is shit, and apparently has been for quite some time.

fucking hell man, aren't you the least bit ashamed of how completely stupid you seem? I'm not even talking about your opinions either, just how you express them.
 
[quote name='camoor']Easy with the exclamation points.

First, 47 billion is not chump change. As a country we can't afford to let the govt throw away 47 billion in uncollected taxes when we have such a huge debt over our heads.

Secondly a good portion of the rich are not paying more - they are paying less. I'm talking about the top of the top - like the superrich investment bankers of NYC. Then you have the rich that are using all sorts of dirty tricks to hide their money from the govt (those Cayman tax shelters don't show up in govt reports dontchaknow). So what we're seeing is what the rich decided to disclose and it's still scandalous what they are paying.

I'm talking about going back to the tax rates of the good ol' 50s, but I'd even settle for the tax rates of the 80s. The rich didn't just pay more - they paid ALOT more (like 20-40 percent more) and things worked great. What's in place now is a total shame. This is a pretty good breakdown of why:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-r-talbott/rich-pay-taxes_b_1873392.html[/QUOTE]

God damn it, somehow my post didn't post and I lost it. So you get the short version.

1. 47 billion over ten years. In comparison it is less than 1% of the national budget, and 0.25% of the national deficit. Speaking of the deficit, it will outpace that 10 year 47 billion dollar increase in revenue in about 12 days. What's the plan for this? Is there a plan? I haven't heard one. From what I understand, if the Federal government just gets their hands on this 47 billion, rainbows and puppies will fill the streets and skies! For a solution to the countries problems, I would think there would be a plan for this!

2. Oh wait, there is a plan. We don't want to raise it to a minimum of 30% we want to raise it to fifties levels. 90%! (Pardon the opposition not believing that it will stop at 30%). Despite government revenue increasing exponentially as the tax went down. Impossible if we go by your views anyway......but here it is: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/historicals/

3. Noone paid 90% as the tax code was so complicated back then. You could deduct and write off anything. The top bracket was also much higher as well. Again you are going by shock and awe: "they paid 90% back then, 90% is more than 35% today so its settled! They should pay more". Same goes for the 80's. Try to develop your view beyond that sentence. It is impossible.

4.
Secondly a good portion of the rich are not paying more - they are paying less. I'm talking about the top of the top - like the superrich investment bankers of NYC.
Click to expand...

"The majority of the rich aren't paying more than the middle class, they are playing less! I am talking about a vastly smaller portion of the rich! The top of the top!"

:wall:

5. Your link is a very skewed way of looking at tax policy. Poor people pay more in taxes as a percentage of disposable income? Of course they do, they make less money. It is a ridiculous way to attempt to prove your point. This would mean that the middle class also pays much less than the poor, so they should probably get a tax increase as well, by that logic.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Knoell']God damn it, somehow my post didn't post and I lost it. So you get the short version.

1. 47 billion over ten years. In comparison it is less than 1% of the national budget, and 0.25% of the national deficit. Speaking of the deficit, it will outpace that 10 year 47 billion dollar increase in revenue in about 12 days. What's the plan for this? Is there a plan? I haven't heard one. From what I understand, if the Federal government just gets their hands on this 47 billion, rainbows and puppies will fill the streets and skies! For a solution to the countries problems, I would think there would be a plan for this!

2. Oh wait, there is a plan. We don't want to raise it to a minimum of 30% we want to raise it to fifties levels. 90%! (Pardon the opposition not believing that it will stop at 30%). Despite government revenue increasing exponentially as the tax went down. Impossible if we go by your views anyway......but here it is: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/historicals/

3. Noone paid 90% as the tax code was so complicated back then. You could deduct and write off anything. The top bracket was also much higher as well. Again you are going by shock and awe: "they paid 90% back then, 90% is more than 35% today so its settled! They should pay more". Same goes for the 80's. Try to develop your view beyond that sentence. It is impossible.

4.

"The majority of the rich aren't paying more than the middle class, they are playing less! I am talking about a vastly smaller portion of the rich! The top of the top!"

:wall:

5. Your link is a very skewed way of looking at tax policy. Poor people pay more in taxes as a percentage of disposable income? Of course they do, they make less money. It is a ridiculous way to attempt to prove your point. This would mean that the middle class also pays much less than the poor, so they should probably get a tax increase as well, by that logic.[/QUOTE]
Sounds like another person that doesn't understand something called MARGINAL UTILITY.
 
[quote name='Knoell']God damn it, somehow my post didn't post and I lost it. So you get the short version.

1. 47 billion over ten years. In comparison it is less than 1% of the national budget, and 0.25% of the national deficit. Speaking of the deficit, it will outpace that 10 year 47 billion dollar increase in revenue in about 12 days. What's the plan for this? Is there a plan? I haven't heard one. From what I understand, if the Federal government just gets their hands on this 47 billion, rainbows and puppies will fill the streets and skies! For a solution to the countries problems, I would think there would be a plan for this!

2. Oh wait, there is a plan. We don't want to raise it to a minimum of 30% we want to raise it to fifties levels. 90%! (Pardon the opposition not believing that it will stop at 30%). Despite government revenue increasing exponentially as the tax went down. Impossible if we go by your views anyway......but here it is: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/historicals/

3. Noone paid 90% as the tax code was so complicated back then. You could deduct and write off anything. The top bracket was also much higher as well. Again you are going by shock and awe: "they paid 90% back then, 90% is more than 35% today so its settled! They should pay more". Same goes for the 80's. Try to develop your view beyond that sentence. It is impossible.

4.

"The majority of the rich aren't paying more than the middle class, they are playing less! I am talking about a vastly smaller portion of the rich! The top of the top!"

:wall:

5. Your link is a very skewed way of looking at tax policy. Poor people pay more in taxes as a percentage of disposable income? Of course they do, they make less money. It is a ridiculous way to attempt to prove your point. This would mean that the middle class also pays much less than the poor, so they should probably get a tax increase as well, by that logic.[/QUOTE]

If it's not a big deal, why are you so against having the rich pay their fair share?

It's not going to be puppies and unicorns after that - I never said it would be. For example we also need to put our military on a diet and stop fighting so many damn useless wars. But it's a start.

And you gotta start somewhere.

PS I hope CAG loses more of your posts. Cutting down on your posts focuses your bullshit into concentrated streams of diarrhea. They are a little easier to wade through.
 
[quote name='confoosious']Hold up.

I'm supposed to believe slidecage made 100k from daytrading? But now delivers newspaper for a living.

2+2=5[/QUOTE]
Maybe he's rain man? He better be a math genius, because his writing skills are at the level of a grade school child.
 
[quote name='Clak']Maybe

he's rain man?

He better be a math

genius,

because his

writing skills are

at the level of a grade school

child.[/QUOTE]
ftfy:lol:
 
[quote name='camoor']If it's not a big deal, why are you so against having the rich pay their fair share?

It's not going to be puppies and unicorns after that - I never said it would be. For example we also need to put our military on a diet and stop fighting so many damn useless wars. But it's a start.

And you gotta start somewhere.

PS I hope CAG loses more of your posts. Cutting down on your posts focuses your bullshit into concentrated streams of diarrhea. They are a little easier to wade through.[/QUOTE]

Because they already pay their share. I am not sure how many times I have to tell you this until you understand it or provide some evidence that they don't. At the very least provide some evidence that the current tax rate is decreasing government revenue.....

In fact it is just the opposite, as government revenue increased exponentially the past 5 decades, government spending has increased by a far wider margin. Low tax rates didn't put us in debt, spending did. Your solution: Raise taxes, and spend more!

My posts are garbage? At least I am not reiterating the ridiculous one liner everywhere I go. "The rich need to pay their fair share...", it really is a great slogan to get elected. Who doesn't think their neighbor doesn't deserve what they have!
 
[quote name='darkling23']The rich deserve nothing. Their fortunes are built off the subjugation of the poor. All they have is owed to society.[/QUOTE]

The poor and middle class don't "deserve" anything either. No one does but life isn't fair. Everyone makes the best with what they've got.
 
[quote name='Clak']Actually yeah, it pretty much is assuming a lifespan of around 75 years.

Anyway, I have to say that based on slide's posts I feel safe in saying that the American education system is shit, and apparently has been for quite some time.

fucking hell man, aren't you the least bit ashamed of how completely stupid you seem? I'm not even talking about your opinions either, just how you express them.[/QUOTE]
Damn you and your logic! This is not acceptable!
 
funny all people can do is name call i have yet to hear one reason

why these people should be able to sit at home all day and live off the wages of other instead of getting a job


no one force them to have a child

no one force them to have a 2nd child when they could not even support the first one

and then they have a 3rd and a 4th.




and still not one reason why they should be given free cash and on top of that a TAX REBATE check when they never paid a penny into the system in the first place.


we have one of these people living right next to us now. on section 8 and what pisses me off the most one of the children just tossed a football though the front window and busted it.. what did the mother said


I dont care its not our house ....

one of their kids stuck some kind of wood log into the washer and busted it flooding out the entire first floor and ruined the living room carpet again I dont care not my house

even the landlord is sick of it and can not wait until the 3 year lease is up cause he tired to kick her out after the carpet thing and she goes... You kick me out i sue your ass and i will win

house was probally priced at 60 to 70k after these people lived their for 2 years its more like 30k how they ruined it.


and i love how they have no money for rent or food or anything else YET they have a 70 inch flat screen in the living room. a 50 inch flat screen in 2 bedrooms and every single channel on direct tv .. All they do all day is sit on their asses on the front porch waiting for their government check to come


Im sorry but if you cant afford Rent or even basic food for your children you should not have 3 fucking tvs and have 250 direct tv channels


so give me one reason why she should be able to sit on her ass all day while the rest of the people have to work for a living ... what is that no reason I thought so
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top