PDA

View Full Version : Why I hate the GOP and the US press.



Qtec
11-12-2012, 05:31 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">BOB SCHIEFFER: All right. We have just a very short time here. I want to ask you about the fiscal cliff. Can the Republicans find a way to get some kind of a compromise with Democrats, so we can avoid this horrendous situation that goes into effect if you don't act?

SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM: <span style='font-size: 17pt'><u>Fair</u> is not an option</span> <span style="color: #3333FF">[who mentioned fair?]</span> for the country when it comes to the fiscal cliff. Say yes to Simpson-Bowles, Mister President.<span style="color: #3333FF">[ That idea has already been rejected by BOTH the Dems and the electorate!]</span> I'm willing to say yes to Simpson-Bowels. <span style="color: #990000">We need more revenue in Washington.</span> We need more private sector jobs. <u>We don't need to raise tax rates. We need to limit loopholes and deductions for the wealthy.</u></div></div>

See, if the interviewer was a REAL journalist doing his job he would ask, "What loopholes and deductions?

He doesn't! He just lets him carry on with his verbal vomit.



<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Mister President, if you'll say yes to Simpson-Bowles when it comes to revenue, so will I and so will most Republicans. We can get revenue without destroying jobs and both of us need to control spending and fix entitlements. No Republican will vote for higher tax rates. We will generate revenue from eliminating deductions and loopholes. But we will insist our Democratic friends reform entitlements something we've never done and that's where the big money is at. Say yes to Simpson-Bowels. We'll get this behind us.

BOB SCHIEFFER: All right. Senator, thank you so much. And now we're going to get the other side of this picture. </div></div>


Was there not an election?
Did the GOP and their ideas just get spanked?
Are they living in the real world?

What SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM is suggesting as a way forward is the exact same tax plan that Mittens proposed and was soundly rejected.

When you have a democracy where the people vote for what they want, and then one party decides to ignore that plebiscite, then that party is against the American way and they should be called for what they are, enemies of the state.


Watch the video. The treason starts around the 9.30 mark. link (http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50134939n&tag=re1.channel)


Q

Qtec
11-12-2012, 05:49 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 17pt'>Mitch McConnell: 'We Have a Voter Mandate Not to Raise Taxes'</span>
The Senate minority leader on Obama's victory, the fiscal cliff and the folly of 'Thelma and Louise economics.' </div></div>

As opposed to Voodoo economics!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"Let me put it very clearly," says the five-term Republican senator from Kentucky. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>"I am not willing to raise taxes to turn off the sequester. Period."</span> On Jan. 1, Washington faces both a huge tax increase and an automatic spending cut known as the "sequester," which could tip the economy back into recession. A newly emboldened President Obama is likely to take his soak-the-rich case straight to the people, I remind the senator. The political pressure to capitulate could become intense.

"Look, he may think it would be helpful to his presidency to continue to divide and demonize us," says Mr. McConnell. "But my answer will still be short and firm: No. We won't agree to any tax increases that will hurt the economy." </div></div>

Translation.

"We will bring the country to economic ruin to protect tax cuts for the top 2%. F--K the other 98%!"


Q

Qtec
11-12-2012, 06:15 AM
Its been funny to watch the RW reaction to their defeat. Half think they are still right and do everything to ignore the election results. The other half think the problem is rhetoric!

Then again, there is the lone voice speaking the truth and WHO would have thought it would be Bill Kristol?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Bill Kristol: 'It Won't Kill The Country If We Raise Taxes' On Millionaires (VIDEO) </div></div>

link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/11/bill-kristol-taxes-millionaires_n_2113671.html?utm_hp_ref=politics)

Q

LWW
11-12-2012, 06:16 AM
You hate them because you are told to hate them.

Qtec
11-12-2012, 06:38 AM
I hate them because every one of them lies through their teeth every time they open their mouths.

<span style='font-size: 23pt'>CLEAR?</span>


Q

Gayle in MD
11-12-2012, 07:16 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 17pt'>Mitch McConnell: 'We Have a Voter Mandate Not to Raise Taxes'</span>
The Senate minority leader on Obama's victory, the fiscal cliff and the folly of 'Thelma and Louise economics.' </div></div>

As opposed to Voodoo economics!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"Let me put it very clearly," says the five-term Republican senator from Kentucky. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>"I am not willing to raise taxes to turn off the sequester. Period."</span> On Jan. 1, Washington faces both a huge tax increase and an automatic spending cut known as the "sequester," which could tip the economy back into recession. A newly emboldened President Obama is likely to take his soak-the-rich case straight to the people, I remind the senator. The political pressure to capitulate could become intense.

"Look, he may think it would be helpful to his presidency to continue to divide and demonize us," says Mr. McConnell. "But my answer will still be short and firm: No. We won't agree to any tax increases that will hurt the economy." </div></div>

Translation.

"We will bring the country to economic ruin to protect tax cuts for the top 2%. F--K the other 98%!"


Q </div></div>

Yep, saw that, and thought the same thing about it.

If I could have five minutes alone in a room with Mitch McConnell, or Eric Cantor, or Lindsey Graham, it would look like a fight scene from The Girl With The Dragon Tatoo... /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif ;)... that's how mad those SOB's make me.

And now that he faces mid-term election, and knows that a very viable candidate has plans to run against him, he's going to be worse about pandering to the ignorant who vote against their own best interests. Idiots like Norquist, continue their blustering denials about what is a clear mandate by Americans to raise taxes on the wealthy, and leave SS and Medicare alone, and what is a clear rejection of their policies, economic, and social.

I'm so disgusted with Republicans and the press for continually calling SS and MC, entitlements.

That's not what they are.

G.

Qtec
11-12-2012, 07:42 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If I could have five minutes alone in a room with Mitch McConnell, or Eric Cantor, or Lindsey Graham, it would look like a fight scene from The Girl With The Dragon Tatoo... ;)... that's how mad those SOB's make me. </div></div>

LOL

I have the same feeling. Both of them need a good slap.

Two parasites of the first order.

Q.

Gayle in MD
11-12-2012, 09:03 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Both of them need a good slap.

</div></div>

I had something else in mind. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

eg8r
11-12-2012, 09:29 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">See, if the interviewer was a REAL journalist doing his job he would ask, "What loopholes and deductions?</div></div>Why you wouldn't have the balls to accept the answer. All of them. Fair tax is fair. Taxing one group higher than another is not fair.

eg8r

eg8r
11-12-2012, 09:31 AM
Basically what we have is the Dems obstructing progress and the Reps obstructing progress equally. Dems will accept nothing short of raising taxes on the rich and the Reps will accept nothing short leaving the rates where they are for the rich.


eg8r

Soflasnapper
11-12-2012, 10:05 AM
Taxing one group higher than another is not fair.

A position indicating that preferred tax rates for investment income, interest, dividends, capital gains, and carried interest, all of which carry a lower rate than earned income receives, isn't fair.

Surprisingly, that was the position Reagan took (somewhat), in his '86 tax simplification reform-- cap gains taxed at regular income tax rates.

A complete heresy to the party that worships Reagan as a saint and a prophet.

I suppose you will say you approve of this implication I mention, however, under the FAIR tax, all of income from investments has its tax rate reduced. I should say, entirely eliminated. A zero rate.

Obviously, as a lower to middle income family will spend all of what it receives, all of their income will be subject to whatever this FAIR tax rate is (as consumption is what is taxed).

However much the top income people spend, they do not spend it all, and thus receive a zero tax on what isn't spent, making their unspent income off-limits to such a consumption tax.

Somehow you think that is a fair system, even if it requires average people to pay over 30% on top of the retail cost of things. More, if we are to run a surplus as is necessary to pay down the debt.

eg8r
11-12-2012, 11:22 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I suppose you will say you approve of this implication I mention, however, under the FAIR tax, all of income from investments has its tax rate reduced. I should say, entirely eliminated. A zero rate.</div></div>Which is the same rate income tax will be taxed at, zero. Fair to all that work.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Somehow you think that is a fair system</div></div>Yes it is absolutely fair that everyone pay the exact same rate. Your reference to the 30% is wrong but I know how you like to perpetuate lies. If a rich man and a poor man go into a store to buy a Toyota Corolla the percentage of income on the poor man will be much higher than the rich man so do you think the poor man should pay less for the same car?

Also due to the prebate there will be no taxes on necessities up to the poverty level. So for those low and middle income families that will be hit with that 23% rate much of it will be given to them in advance. So first off instead of buying necessities with after-tax income they will now be purchasing it with before-tax income(read they have more money now) and then receiving the prebate to cover the taxes on those necessities.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
11-12-2012, 02:22 PM
Because of the very fairness issue you think the FAIR tax embodies (everyone should pay the same rate), the FAIR tax makes the tax rate that everybody pays unequal, through the prebate.

The prebate is a huge entitlement that dwarfs any other in existence. That such an add-on to the FAIR tax retail tax concept is required even according to the creators of it tell you how much 'paying the same' rates is unequal and unfair.

It's taking away a median of 5% FIT rate (great!) and replacing it with a double digit tax on everything you buy (what???), and because that is very unfair to the average person, it needs to be fixed with a huge new entitlement? Rube Goldberg much?

The notion that a graduated income tax is a horrible injustice and totally unfair goes against 100 years or more of societal agreement and arrangements, and it's no part of the complexity of the tax code (which complexity is in the tax breaks).

cushioncrawler
11-12-2012, 03:58 PM
A 1% of 1% tax on all investment etc money moovments would do the trick.
mac.

In the meantime we will watch congress.
http://i1035.photobucket.com/albums/a432/cushioncrawler/51bNMldhavL_SL500_AA300_1.jpg

eg8r
11-12-2012, 04:31 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The notion that a graduated income tax is a horrible injustice and totally unfair goes against 100 years or more of societal agreement and arrangements</div></div>LOL, 100 years. Big freaking deal. Taxation has been going on for centuries and I dare you to find an example of a point in time when people did not start complaining about the taxes that had to be paid. You refuse to define what you think fair is so we are unable to see where our differences are to discuss.

If you were to walk into a car dealership with me, would you be willing to pay 20% more for the same car I am buying simply because you make more money?

eg8r

Soflasnapper
11-12-2012, 06:31 PM
Richer people paying cash for an automobile pay considerably less over time than people needing to finance over 3 to 5 years. So that's the opposite of what your question asks. Is it 'fair' that a far richer person pays far less in that case? Actually, yes, it is fair, because the person financing is paying for the cost of the car, and the cost of the money to buy the car.

I've just pointed it out but you didn't get it. YOU are fine with lower income people paying less for goods and services as well, as the prebate takes all of the extra cost from the FAIR tax off their cost of whatever the stated 'essentials' or living costs are. The prebate is a way to make richer people pay more for things just as the graduated income tax does.

Why is THAT fair? Well, those poorer people have a lot less, and the richer, a lot more, so... Oh, wait!

The difference between that arrangement and the graduated income tax (with exclusions, so some people pay nothing toward FIT) is...?

Qtec
11-13-2012, 04:47 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">See, if the interviewer was a REAL journalist doing his job he would ask, "What loopholes and deductions?</div></div>Why you wouldn't have the balls to accept the answer. All of them. Fair tax is fair. Taxing one group higher than another is not fair.

eg8r </div></div>

I bet you still believe in Santa Claus! How about we get back to reality?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why, <span style="color: #990000">[ my comma /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/cool.gif] </span>, you wouldn't have the balls to accept the answer. </div></div>

WHAT ANSWER???????????????????
Romney <span style='font-size: 14pt'>couldn't come up with an answer </span>and the GOP think they can pull the same BS!

Again.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Was there not an election?
Did the GOP and their ideas just get spanked?
Are they living in the real world?

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>What SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM is suggesting as a way forward is the exact same tax plan that Mittens proposed and was soundly rejected.</span> </div></div>

THIS is their compromise???

The difference between the Dem plan and the GOP plan is that the Dems can justify raising taxes on the top 2%. The GOP can't justify giving the 2% another tax break. Especially when the country can't afford it and would need to BORROW money to finance it.


Q.

Qtec
11-13-2012, 05:04 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Basically what we have is the Dems obstructing progress and the Reps obstructing progress equally. </div></div>

That's the kind of BS that the echoes around the RW media BS Bubble and you believe it!
There is nothing equal about it.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">the Reps will accept nothing short leaving the rates where they are for the rich. </div></div>

So, at the same time they are crying about the deficit and crying about the Nat Debt and screaming for more cuts in spending, they want to borrow money from China to give the top 2% another tax cut.

In this shared sacrifice, what has the the top 2% given up? What do they not have now that they did have before all the cuts?

The Dems have a good argument, the GOP have BS.


Q

Gayle in MD
11-13-2012, 06:26 AM
And, let us never forget, that after Repiglicans yapped over and over, "Where are the jobs, Mr. President?" they followed up through their Repiglican Governors by throwing out over three million public sector jobs, in their states, even though they had gotten Federal Money, part of the stimulus, that they were supposed to use to keep their constituents in their jobs.

It is heartening that the Republicans couldn't throw this election, as hard as they all (Republican Governors) tried to throw it, they failed!

Only four presidents in the last century have won a second term with the majority vote, and Repigs are trying to deny this mandate for what the president has promised since he agreed to extend the idiot Bush's tax cuts, upon which time, he promised he would never extend them again, for the wealthy top, and wouldn't have agreeed to do it then, if not to prevent tax hikes on the Middle Calss.

Making the wealthy pay more has clearly been one of the pillars of his campaign throughout!

Americans by majority, voted for it, and even William Krystol, is making fun of the Republicans for continuing to try to suggest that they won any mandate, they did not, AND CRITICAL OF THEIR REFUSL TO RAISE TAXES ON THE WEALTHY TOP!

Now we get to enjoy watching obstructionists Boehner and McConnell do the Moon Walk, when they finally understand they did not win any mandate for their stupid policies.

We can have the pleasure of watching Norquist, Rove, Limpballs, and the rest, get the cold shoulder from the Republican obstructionists.

One Republilcan I have gained some respect for through all of this, is, believe it or not, Steve Schmidt, McCain's former campaign chief. I've seen him interviewed quite a bit over the last two years, and he should be the one at the top of the party, not Rove, and surely not Norquist, who uses his own skewed math, unrecognizable to anyone else, to justify his BS.

Schmidt is the ONLY Republican on the National Scene, who answers questions honestly.

No wonder he couldn't stand Palin, LOL.


G.

LWW
11-13-2012, 06:47 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Richer people paying cash for an automobile pay considerably less over time than people needing to finance over 3 to 5 years. So that's the opposite of what your question asks. Is it 'fair' that a far richer person pays far less in that case? Actually, yes, it is fair, because the person financing is paying for the cost of the car, and the cost of the money to buy the car.

I've just pointed it out but you didn't get it. YOU are fine with lower income people paying less for goods and services as well, as the prebate takes all of the extra cost from the FAIR tax off their cost of whatever the stated 'essentials' or living costs are. The prebate is a way to make richer people pay more for things just as the graduated income tax does.

Why is THAT fair? Well, those poorer people have a lot less, and the richer, a lot more, so... Oh, wait!

The difference between that arrangement and the graduated income tax (with exclusions, so some people pay nothing toward FIT) is...? </div></div>

Because the prebate applies to everyone.

Anything else I can help you with?

Qtec
11-13-2012, 07:31 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And, let us never forget, that after Repiglicans yapped over and over, "Where are the jobs, Mr. President?" they followed up throught their REpiglican Governors by throwing out over three million public sector jobs, </div></div>

Good point. The mistake many seem to make is that they take whatever Boehner, Rush, Fox News etc as to be true.

Frum, who is a true conservative, explained it well.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The problem with the Republican leaders is that they’re cowards, not that they’re fundamentally mistaken. The real locus of the problem is the Republican activist base and the Republican donor base. They went apocalyptic over the past four years, <u>and that was exploited by a lot of people in the conservative world.</u> I won’t soon forget the lupine smile that played over the head of one major conservative institution <u>when he told me that our donors think the apocalypse has arrived</u>, <span style='font-size: 23pt'>that Republicans have been fleeced and exploited and lied to by <u>a conservative entertainment complex</u>.</span> </div></div>

Jon Stewart calls it BS Mountain.

This election has showed that those who supported Romney and believed the BS about how Mittens was going to win when it was clear that he wasn't, live in the bubble of RW lies.
The GOP are starting to believe their on BS nonsense but they can't see it.

BTW, not everyone on the Left is pleased with Obama.


link (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cornel-west-obama-a-republican-in-blackface-black-msnbc-hosts-are-selling-their-souls/)


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Cornel West: Obama A ‘Republican In Blackface,’ Black MSNBC Hosts Are ‘Selling Their Souls’ </div></div>



..and the GOP have a new tax plan......the Romney tax plan with no details?

Q

eg8r
11-13-2012, 09:03 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Richer people paying cash for an automobile pay considerably less over time than people needing to finance over 3 to 5 years.</div></div>LOL, were you going to answer the question? This is also not true along with the fake idea that rich people pay off their houses with that abundance of cash.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">YOU are fine with lower income people paying less for goods and services as well, as the prebate takes all of the extra cost from the FAIR tax off their cost of whatever the stated 'essentials' or living costs are.</div></div>You might need to read up on it again. I did not say lower income people paying less for goods and services. What I said was no one will pay taxes on necessities. Don't you get what fair means...It means everyone treated equally. Prebate is for everyone.

Before you jump the gun and respond again without thinking take a moment and breath. You don't understand what the prebate is and it shows in your response.

eg8r

eg8r
11-13-2012, 09:05 AM
He speaks before he thinks when he is in full defense mode. The only time it costs one person more than the other is when the one person decides to go beyond "necessity". I doubt there is a chance in hell he can wrap his brain around what that really means.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
11-13-2012, 09:14 AM
The prebate is designed to make the FAIR tax progressive, where people with more income pay at a higher effective rate.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Although everyone pays the same tax rate at the cash register, the chart below shows that the effect of the prebate is to increase the actual tax rate (annual taxes paid as a percentage of annual spending) as the level of spending increases, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>a progressive tax rate structure</span>. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>For example, a person spending at the poverty level ($30,260 for a family of four) has a 0% effective tax rate </span>because the annual prebate of $6,960 refunds all of the taxes they paid. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Whereas someone spending at twice the poverty level has an effective tax rate of 11.5%</span>, and so on. Annual spending would have to be in excess of $14 million per year to reach the statutory rate of 23%.</div></div>

The chart is here. (http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/PrebateExplained2012.pdf)

The chart shows varying effective tax rates ranging from -23%, 0%, 7.7%, 11.5%, etc., etc., which are lower for the lowest income households, and upwards for the higher income (spending) group.

This is a feature, not a bug, and its purpose is precisely to make the FAIR tax progressive, which concept you otherwise condemn as unfair.

Gayle in MD
11-13-2012, 10:49 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And, let us never forget, that after Repiglicans yapped over and over, "Where are the jobs, Mr. President?" they followed up throught their REpiglican Governors by throwing out over three million public sector jobs, </div></div>

Good point. The mistake many seem to make is that they take whatever Boehner, Rush, Fox News etc as to be true.

Frum, who is a true conservative, explained it well.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The problem with the Republican leaders is that they’re cowards, not that they’re fundamentally mistaken. The real locus of the problem is the Republican activist base and the Republican donor base. They went apocalyptic over the past four years, <u>and that was exploited by a lot of people in the conservative world.</u> I won’t soon forget the lupine smile that played over the head of one major conservative institution <u>when he told me that our donors think the apocalypse has arrived</u>, <span style='font-size: 23pt'>that Republicans have been fleeced and exploited and lied to by <u>a conservative entertainment complex</u>.</span> </div></div>

Jon Stewart calls it BS Mountain.

This election has showed that those who supported Romney and believed the BS about how Mittens was going to win when it was clear that he wasn't, live in the bubble of RW lies.
The GOP are starting to believe their on BS nonsense but they can't see it.

BTW, not everyone on the Left is pleased with Obama.


link (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cornel-west-obama-a-republican-in-blackface-black-msnbc-hosts-are-selling-their-souls/)


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Cornel West: Obama A ‘Republican In Blackface,’ Black MSNBC Hosts Are ‘Selling Their Souls’ </div></div>



..and the GOP have a new tax plan......the Romney tax plan with no details?

Q







</div></div>

It will be a riot, watching the Repubs, throwing Rove and Norquist off the so called cliff, instead of throwing the whole country off the cliff, the way they did last time!

Hope they are practing Michael Jackson's Moon walk!

Keren Huges is threatening to cut their tongues out!

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

William Krostol, is blowing their "no job killing tax hikes" lie to smitherines.

Dems just won another seat.

McConnell looks like he hasn't had a good BM for a week! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

Boehner looks like he's been on a drunk for over a week!

Rove looks like he's gained twenty pounds, guess his Food addiction is what he turns to when he's desperate.

LMAO!

Repigs are going to be eating plenty of CROW!

Gayle is reading, watching and lovin' it!

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

eg8r
11-13-2012, 10:59 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The prebate is designed to make the FAIR tax progressive, where people with more income pay at a higher effective rate.</div></div>It is only progressive if and only if you choose to purchase something beyond NECESSITY. You are the one that misrepresented the prebate not me.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This is a feature, not a bug, and its purpose is precisely to make the FAIR tax progressive, which concept you otherwise condemn as unfair.</div></div>Your desire to be "right" keeps you from seeing reality as it is. Fair tax taxes everyone exactly the same. 23% on all purchases other than necessities. This applies to everyone. If you choose something more than necessity then you pay the tax. There is nothing more fair than that. Offer every single American their necessities tax free. Anything else make EVERYONE pay 23% tax.

There is nothing more fair than the treating every single person the same way at the same rate. The "progressive" side you refer to is up to the individual NOT the government which is what is in place now. How is it that such common sense just blows over your head all the time?

eg8r

Gayle in MD
11-13-2012, 11:26 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">He speaks before he thinks when he is in full defense mode. The only time it costs one person more than the other is when the one person decides to go beyond "necessity". I doubt there is a chance in hell he can wrap his brain around what that really means.

eg8r </div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Do you feel like a big boy now that you get to use those "grown up words"? It looks juvenile. Besides that, customers do not create, that is the reason why they are called consumers. I am well aware of the role each group plays in the economy but the fact is customers do not create anything other than demand and demand cannot be there if the product was not there in the first place, which it cannot be there unless someone with some money fronted a business and hired people to perform the job to create that good or service to be sold.

eg8r


</div></div>


Yeah, right, your economic "Theory" is bassackwards, but you're so much smarter than Sofla about economics! LMAO!

You get the boobie prize for the dumbest post on economics ever written on the forum.


ONLY comsumers create demand.

Not enough customers with money to spend in their pockets? Not a good economy.

You can produce all of the products you want, if there is no one there with enough money to buy them, what happens, Sherlock?

That's the crux of the absurdity of all of the Republican economic baloney!

There is no such thing as trickle down!

When all of the money is going to the top one percent, there isn't enough comsumer spending. Capitalism depends on <span style='font-size: 17pt'>consumer demand</span> to keep businesses going, not more products.

Sooooooooo brilliant.

Give us another lesson, professor Corey! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

Soflasnapper
11-13-2012, 04:29 PM
Why should people who have saved their post-tax dollars after paying the tax be taxed again on expenditures from saved after-tax income, whether for 'necessities' or 'non-essentials'?

Talk about unfair! And any 'fix' for this problem would be grossly complicated.

Does everyone pay the same for necessities, for that matter, when some live in low cost states, and others in high cost states? Obviously the going rent rates or mortgage payment rates for the necessity of housing will vary considerably.

There's nothing wrong with my thinking on this-- we simply disagree on what constitutes fairness.

Most people think that the progressive nature of income tax is entirely fair. It's been the case since Abraham Lincoln put in the first income tax to help pay for the costs of the Civil War, some 160 years ago. In fact, it comports with Biblical principles shown in multiple Bible verses, all of which are fit for instruction and edification (per other Biblical verses).

eg8r
11-13-2012, 09:53 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why should people who have saved their post-tax dollars after paying the tax be taxed again on expenditures from saved after-tax income, whether for 'necessities' or 'non-essentials'?</div></div>This is completely unrelated but interesting. You are referring to any money that has been saved prior to the Fair Tax? Not sure what to do but at this point we are double taxed anyways and if you saved enough you would be double taxed and forced to give half to Uncle Sam anyways so I am not sure what you beef is. Also, if you saved it before you will probably continue to save it. If you choose to pull it out and spend it then you are right, that would be taxed again. What about all those investments that you are taxed when you pull them out? Those would now be tax free so maybe the trade off is even.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Does everyone pay the same for necessities, for that matter, when some live in low cost states, and others in high cost states? Obviously the going rent rates or mortgage payment rates for the necessity of housing will vary considerably. </div></div>I would ask you to do more research on the Fair Tax to see how they came up with the values they currently recommend but at this point I don't think you will.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There's nothing wrong with my thinking on this-- we simply disagree on what constitutes fairness. </div></div>How can we disagree if you refuse to define what you think fair really is? Why is it fair to you to take more income money and give to others but if we are in a car dealership you would demand to pay the same sale price as I get?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Most people think that the progressive nature of income tax is entirely fair.</div></div>Hello McFly that is because most people are at the bottom end. Not too hard to figure that out. What makes the Fair tax fair is that the progressive side of it is purely up to the individual NOT the government. Right now the government decides who pays more taxes. With Fair Tax the individual makes that decision. Their belief is that rich people will not change their ways and go frugal so the tax revenue will stay the same. The big difference is that it is up to the individual to pay higher taxes NOT the government. To take this a step further it is not just the government forcing those higher rates but rather it is the people who make considerably less that are forcing those higher rates by electing officials they believe will pass law in their favor.

Since you think most people favor progressive tax rate what if you were buying a Toyota Camry. This is/was (not sure anymore) the number one selling car. What if every single Camry owner was polled and they decided that rich people (or those in your tax bracket) should pay 20-35% more for the car than they do? Better yet, since you think times were better when the rich were paying 90% taxes (or whatever you say they were) what if all those Camry owners decide you should pay 90% more than them and the extra you are paying will be split up between them? That would be pretty fair right?

eg8r

Qtec
11-14-2012, 04:56 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Why is it fair to you to take more income money and give to others... </div></div>

link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcCXnXDiKoQ)

Apt, don't you think?

With you its all "me, me, me and mine, mine, mine. All tax is theft, etc etc".

The reason you don't know what Sofla is talking about and that you don't know what fairness is, is because you are incapable of seeing an issue from someone else's point of view!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How can we disagree if you refuse to define what you think fair really is? </div></div>

He has. A progressive tax code where those who can afford to pay more do so.



How do you change a loser moocher into a hero?

Give him a uniform and a gun.


Q

Gayle in MD
11-14-2012, 07:31 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why should people who have saved their post-tax dollars after paying the tax be taxed again on expenditures from saved after-tax income, whether for 'necessities' or 'non-essentials'?</div></div>This is completely unrelated but interesting. You are referring to any money that has been saved prior to the Fair Tax? Not sure what to do but at this point we are double taxed anyways and if you saved enough you would be double taxed and forced to give half to Uncle Sam anyways so I am not sure what you beef is. Also, if you saved it before you will probably continue to save it. If you choose to pull it out and spend it then you are right, that would be taxed again. What about all those investments that you are taxed when you pull them out? Those would now be tax free so maybe the trade off is even.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Does everyone pay the same for necessities, for that matter, when some live in low cost states, and others in high cost states? Obviously the going rent rates or mortgage payment rates for the necessity of housing will vary considerably. </div></div>I would ask you to do more research on the Fair Tax to see how they came up with the values they currently recommend but at this point I don't think you will.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There's nothing wrong with my thinking on this-- we simply disagree on what constitutes fairness. </div></div>How can we disagree if you refuse to define what you think fair really is? Why is it fair to you to take more income money and give to others but if we are in a car dealership you would demand to pay the same sale price as I get?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Most people think that the progressive nature of income tax is entirely fair.</div></div>Hello McFly that is because most people are at the bottom end. Not too hard to figure that out. What makes the Fair tax fair is that the progressive side of it is purely up to the individual NOT the government. Right now the government decides who pays more taxes. With Fair Tax the individual makes that decision. Their belief is that rich people will not change their ways and go frugal so the tax revenue will stay the same. The big difference is that it is up to the individual to pay higher taxes NOT the government. To take this a step further it is not just the government forcing those higher rates but rather it is the people who make considerably less that are forcing those higher rates by electing officials they believe will pass law in their favor.

Since you think most people favor progressive tax rate what if you were buying a Toyota Camry. This is/was (not sure anymore) the number one selling car. What if every single Camry owner was polled and they decided that rich people (or those in your tax bracket) should pay 20-35% more for the car than they do? Better yet, since you think times were better when the rich were paying 90% taxes (or whatever you say they were) what if all those Camry owners decide you should pay 90% more than them and the extra you are paying will be split up between them? That would be pretty fair right?

eg8r </div></div>



Diagnosis Dictionary
Narcissistic Personality Disorder
Individuals with narcissistic personality disorder generally believe that the world revolves around them. This condition is characterized by a lack of ability to empathize with others and a desire to keep the focus on themselves at all times.
Definition
Symptoms
Causes
Treatments
Narcissistic Personality Disorder involves arrogant behavior, a lack of empathy for other people, and a need for admiration-all of which must be consistently evident at work and in relationships. People who are narcissistic are frequently described as cocky, self-centered, manipulative, and demanding. Narcissists may concentrate on unlikely personal outcomes (e.g., fame) and may be convinced that they deserve special treatment. Related Personality Disorders: Antisocial, Borderline, Histrionic. Narcissism is a less extreme version of Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Narcissism involves cockiness, manipulativeness, selfishness, power motives, and vanity-a love of mirrors. Related personality traits include: Psychopathy, Machiavellianism.


Narcissists tend to have high self-esteem. However, narcissism is not the same thing as self-esteem; people who have high self-esteem are often humble, whereas narcissists rarely are. It was once thought that narcissists have high self-esteem on the surface, but deep down they are insecure. However, the latest evidence indicates that narcissists are actually secure or grandiose at both levels. Onlookers may infer that insecurity is there because narcissists tend to be defensive when their self-esteem is threatened (e.g., being ridiculed); narcissists can be aggressive. The sometimes dangerous lifestyle may more generally reflect sensation-seeking or impulsivity (e.g., risky sex, bold financial decisions).

http://www.psychologytoday.com/conditions/narcissistic-personality-disorder







A.D.A.M. Medical Encyclopedia.

Narcissistic personality disorder
Last reviewed: November 14, 2010.

Narcissistic personality disorder is a condition in which people have an inflated sense of self-importance and an extreme preoccupation with themselves.

Causes, incidence, and risk factors
The causes of this disorder are unknown. An overly sensitive personality and parenting problems may affect the development of this disorder.

Symptoms
A person with narcissistic personality disorder may:

React to criticism with rage, shame, or humiliation

Take advantage of other people to achieve his or her own goals

Have excessive feelings of self-importance

Exaggerate achievements and talents

Be preoccupied with fantasies of success, power, beauty, intelligence, or ideal love

Have unreasonable expectations of favorable treatment

Need constant attention and admiration

Disregard the feelings of others, and have little ability to feel empathy

Have obsessive self-interest

Pursue mainly selfish goals

Signs and tests
Like other personality disorders, narcissistic personality disorder is diagnosed based on a psychological evaluation and the history and severity of the symptoms.

Treatment
Psychotherapy (for example, talk therapy) may help the affected person relate to other people in a more positive and compassionate way.

Expectations (prognosis)
The outcome depends on the severity of the disorder.

Complications
Alcohol or other drug dependence

Relationship, work, and family problems

References
Blais MA, Smallwood P, Groves JE, Rivas-Vazquez RA. Personality and personality disorders. In: Stern TA, Rosenbaum JF, Fava M, Biederman J, Rauch SL, eds. Massachusetts General Hospital Clinical Psychiatry. 1st ed. Philadellphia, Pa: Mosby Elsevier;2008:chap 39.
Review Date: 11/14/2010.

Reviewed by: Linda Vorvick, MD, Medical Director, MEDEX Northwest Division of Physician Assistant Studies, University of Washington School of Medicine; and David B. Merrill, MD, Assistant Clinical Professor of Psychiatry, Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY. Also reviewed by David Zieve, MD, MHA, Medical Director, A.D.A.M., Inc.

eg8r
11-14-2012, 08:42 AM
So this is what your shrink says is your problem?

eg8r

eg8r
11-14-2012, 08:44 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The reason you don't know what Sofla is talking about and that you don't know what fairness is, is because you are incapable of seeing an issue from someone else's point of view!</div></div>I do know what fairness is. I have been asking the left to give us their definition. You have never been man enough to state your definition so I was wondering if sofla was.

eg8r

eg8r
11-14-2012, 08:44 AM
LOL, to even think you have the mental capacity to join this conversation is hilarious indeed. Go back to bed.

eg8r

Stretch
11-14-2012, 08:47 AM
Right, Who's war is it? Is the Country all in with a war? Who pays for it? EVERONE of course. So "fair" to me is this, if 20% of the Country control 80% of the wealth then they should pay 80% of the war cost. If the ruling elite upper class do not want to step up having reaped (raped) the profits of the society they profess to defend then they can bloody well be placed right on the front line to do their duty. St.

eg8r
11-14-2012, 09:00 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So "fair" to me is this, if 20% of the Country control 80% of the wealth then they should pay 80% of the war cost.</div></div>Thanks for your honesty. Based on what you are saying you think the top 20% in this country deserve a tax cut since they are currently paying much more than 80%.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
11-14-2012, 10:02 AM
Luke 12:48

From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.

Matthew 25: 31-46

31“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

34“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40“The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’

41“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

44“They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

45“He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

46“Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

I apply Christian morality to the public sphere, beyond the individual. The Bible explains what fairness is, and what our moral obligations are.

Under various flat rate regimes, as in the mil rate for property taxes, or sales taxes, those with more expensive properties pay more, and those who buy more pay more, already.

You apparently think that part is fair enough, as it is based on a flat rate for everybody, even though the same rate yields different results (these taxes aren't capped at the same level for everyone).

You also think it's fair that low-consuming people pay a 0% rate, or even a negative net effective rate, under the FAIR tax idea.

I don't see the big difference you do between these things you think are fine, and the additional amount we have the higher income people pay as to rates as well. There is already a disparity in your preferred system as to effective rates paid relative to income. Same with my preferred system, but with slightly different sliding scales.

Gayle in MD
11-14-2012, 10:31 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Stretch</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Right, Who's war is it? Is the Country all in with a war? Who pays for it? EVERONE of course. So "fair" to me is this, if 20% of the Country control 80% of the wealth then they should pay 80% of the war cost. If the ruling elite upper class do not want to step up having reaped (raped) the profits of the society they profess to defend then they can bloody well be placed right on the front line to do their duty. St. </div></div>

Good post my friend.

When the system is rigged so that the wealthy continue to expand their take, their opportunities to bilk others, through propaganda, lies, pollitical bribes and fixed exemptions from having to answer for what they are doing to hurt everyone else, pollute, destroy, steal, and exploit the middle class, and poor workers over a period of decades, as their slice of the pie continues to shrink, and the wealthy steal more and more, our economy fails. WE've seen it before, and we're seeing it again.

This BS about the big bad Government, is just a distraction used by the pigs who protect the pigs, as they give them the fixed free for all, vulture capitalism, which destroys our economy.

The greedy rich take more and more of the pie, thinks to their political cronies, who aid them in rigging the system in their favor, more and more, over these decades, since Nixon, and now we are in a situation where ONLY the wealthy can afford the best health care, the best education for their kids, or to afford them any opportunities through education, while the best opportunities for moving up the economic ladder, are only there for the very wealthy.

So regardless of how hard the M.C. and the poor, work to have a better future for their kids, and be able to live decently, Republican Fascist policies have caused our society to fail.

As I often write, no society without a thriving middle class, and equal opportunities for all hard working citizens has ever survived.

We Americans have been bilked by the greed and narcissistic views of the have and the have mores, who control government, and have no conscience about others. Their supporters are either too young and dumb, or too stupid to understand where all of this will leave them, since they are under the illusion that this situation won't impact THEM, or THEIR KIDS.

Typical Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

We have fine examples of the ugliness and mean spirited results of that kind of thinking, right here, on a daily basis.

G.

eg8r
11-14-2012, 11:30 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Bible explains what fairness is, and what our moral obligations are.
</div></div>Would you mind quoting any examples? Neither of these passages speaks of fair but rather expectations of God on his people. The passage from Matthew speaks of man's actions upon their own will. Definitely nothing about being forced to do anything.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't see the big difference you do between these things you think are fine, and the additional amount we have the higher income people pay as to rates as well. There is already a disparity in your preferred system as to effective rates paid relative to income. Same with my preferred system, but with slightly different sliding scales.</div></div>What is your preferred system? The current one? You haven't said so we don't know. Maybe you are taking lessons from your buddy Myth Robme. If you are referring to the current system then that is government forced instead of leaving it up to the individual which is what the Fair Tax does.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
11-14-2012, 12:22 PM
I have a schizophrenic view.

I believe the income tax on personal income is actually still not allowed under the COTUS and under the law. (Only actual residents of federal territories, such as DC and offshore territories, are under that lawful power.) Besides those few, CORPORATIONS are also included.

This is my view because the amendment for allowing personal income tax was not properly ratified (and therefore is null and void), but also, according to SCOTUS holdings even after its 'passage,' it does not provide the federal government a way past the prior SCOTUS language that no direct tax may be assessed on the people unless it is apportioned among the states.

So in reality, as I understand the analysis, the federal government ought to be funded from duties and tariffs, taxes on citizens not residing in states, taxes on corporations, and excise taxes. These will hit individuals as increased prices on what they buy, but it's indirect taxation, not direct.

Then again, I favor the sovereign issue of currency without debt for whatever federal purposes are duly legislated, which might eliminate any need for additional revenue streams until some threshold of currency debasement is reached, when currency might then need to be taken from the system in taxation to lower the money supply and curb inflation from debasement.

It is far more radical a notion to say the whole income tax scheme is illegal than to complain about higher marginal rates for the better off. If, however, the people must be subjected to income taxation given the rigging of our system against its foundations, I think it preferable to have those with income well in excess of necessities pay a somewhat higher rate than those with income about at the level of their necessities.

Oddly, you agree with this last point, whether you know it or not. It's built into the prebate.

eg8r
11-14-2012, 02:22 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...I think it preferable to have those with income well in excess of necessities pay a somewhat higher rate than those with income about at the level of their necessities.

Oddly, you agree with this last point, whether you know it or not. It's built into the prebate.</div></div>It absolutely is not built into the prebate. The prebate sets everyone on an equal playing field as far as taxation is required. What you continue to ignore is that the Fair Tax gives the decision up to the individual to pay the extra taxes. Your version does not leave this decision up to the individual it allows the govenrment to make this decision. Your system makes it a requirement whereas the Fair Tax makes it a decision of the individual.

I believe everyone should be taxed exactly the same. If someone decides they need more than the necessity then I have no problem taxing them for the excess. As a proponent of Fair Tax that means I also have no problem paying a tax on things I want that go above and beyond necessity. At that point I am making my own decision to pay these taxes.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
11-14-2012, 05:45 PM
What is the point for most people earning money except to consume things? Either for oneself, now, or for oneself somewhat in the future, or for your loved ones to consume.

I do not think if I said no one needs to earn so much as to be taxed at higher rates, you'd be much impressed by that statement. Although that can be as voluntary as how much one spends above the necessities level.

Both are poor and unpersuasive arguments.

I could mirror another 'victim' argument of the anti-tax right, and say that your proposal 'punishes' people solely because they want to spend what they earned, and the more they spend what they earned, the more they are punished.

Lastly, it is actually bad in this consumer-spending led economy (70% of gdp is consumer spending) to disincentivize spending and incentivize saving. It will lead to lower levels of economic activity and growth.

eg8r
11-14-2012, 07:53 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What is the point for most people earning money except to consume things? Either for oneself, now, or for oneself somewhat in the future, or for your loved ones to consume.</div></div>This sure wasn't your problem with Romney? You had issue with him saving the money, stockpiling it.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Both are poor and unpersuasive arguments.</div></div>Again, no matter how many times it is said you refuse to hear...The difference is that the Fair tax leaves the decision to pay more taxes solely on the individual and the current system leaves that decision on Congress.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I could mirror another 'victim' argument of the anti-tax right, and say that your proposal 'punishes' people solely because they want to spend what they earned, and the more they spend what they earned, the more they are punished. </div></div>I don't argue this it is just looking at the same thing from another point fo view.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Lastly, it is actually bad in this consumer-spending led economy (70% of gdp is consumer spending) to disincentivize spending and incentivize saving. It will lead to lower levels of economic activity and growth.</div></div>LOL, then why on earth would you believe this BS when talking about Fair Tax but ignore the truth in it when referring to raising taxes on the rich in the current system? You don't get to just jump around whenever you want. You either believe raising taxes limits tax revenue or it doesn't.

eg8r

Qtec
11-15-2012, 02:42 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The reason you don't know what Sofla is talking about and that you don't know what fairness is, is because you are incapable of seeing an issue from someone else's point of view!</div></div>I do know what fairness is. <u>I have been asking the left to give us their definition. You have never been man enough to state your definition so I was wondering if sofla was.</u>

eg8r </div></div>

LOL


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How can we disagree <span style='font-size: 14pt'>if you refuse to define what you think fair really is? </span> </div></div>

..and I said..

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> He has. <span style='font-size: 20pt'>A progressive tax code <u>where those who can afford to pay more do so.</u></span></div></div>

You and the GOP want to shove the burden onto those who can LEAST afford it.
<u>Is that fair?</u>

All this talk about shared sacrifice...where is it?

For the last 4 years there have been massive cuts in spending that affect the majority but not the top 2%. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Where is their sacrifice. Name me one cut that has been detrimental to Mitt Romney?</span>



Q

eg8r
11-15-2012, 09:05 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You and the GOP want to shove the burden onto those who can LEAST afford it.</div></div>You like to think this burden gets "shifted" but that is the biggest lie the left has ever told other than telling the elderly they would lose their social security if a Rep went into office. It is a sham. The tax burden has never shifted "onto" a lower class. The upper class pay the absolute vast majority of the taxes.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">All this talk about shared sacrifice...where is it? </div></div>The left will not allow it when they continue to try and increase the taxes on the rich.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">For the last 4 years there have been massive cuts in spending </div></div>That is a massive lie.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
11-15-2012, 09:11 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You and the GOP want to shove the burden onto those who can LEAST afford it.
Is that fair?

All this talk about shared sacrifice...where is it?

For the last 4 years there have been massive cuts in spending that affect the majority but not the top 2%. Where is their sacrifice. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Name me one cut that has been detrimental to Mitt Romney?</span>
</div></div>

Trust me, you'll never get an answer on that.

Was it you, or Sofla that asked him if he voted for Romney?

Never answered that, either.

We can't expect someone who thinks that creating products is what drives the economy, instead of consumer spending, to have any clue about anything about economics.

G.

eg8r
11-15-2012, 09:21 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Was it you, or Sofla that asked him if he voted for Romney?

Never answered that, either.</div></div>You dillhole. That question was answered and he even responded politely. I love it when your stupidity is on full display.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
11-15-2012, 10:44 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Was it you, or Sofla that asked him if he voted for Romney?

Never answered that, either.</div></div>You dillhole. That question was answered and he even responded politely. I love it when your stupidity is on full display.

eg8r </div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Name me one cut that has been detrimental to Mitt Romney?


</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Trust me, you'll never get an answer on that.

</div></div>

eg8r
11-15-2012, 12:30 PM
So you don't want to admit your stupidity on full display. No problem we all know it and when you ignored it on this reply you proved I was correct.

The death tax is a good example of government overstepping their boundaries to impact Romney's wealth in a detrimental way.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
11-15-2012, 12:52 PM
If you can't post like an adult, don't post to me at all.

Romney doesn't usually pay any taxes, at all, hence, he had to hide his tax history, like he hides all the profits he doesn't pay anything on.

The Bush tax cuts have not created jobs, and have been bad for the economy, bad for all but the very wealthy, who don't spend their money.

The economy depends on consumer spending, not firing Americans, outsourcing their jobs, and not hiding money offshore.

We have proof that cutting taxes on the wealthy, does not create jobs. Just as we have proof that deregulation leads to more corruption, not jobs.

That's why the Republicans deep sixed the findings of the impact of raising taxes on the wealthy, and got caught doing it..because the findings prove that cutting taxes on the wealthy, does not create jobs.

As none other than William Kristal, Alan Greenspan, even Reagan's former Budget Director, David Stockman and loads of other economists have already stated, the current tax policies are smothering the economy, and slanted to the advantage of the top wealthiest among us.

No nations economy survives when only a few at the top, are gaining more and more of the economic pie, while everyone else is losing income.

No economy survives when corporations, banks, and polluters go unregulated.

Corporations cannot be trusted to regulate themselves, as the Wall St. crash, proved, when corruption nearly destroyed the global economy, after Bush decided to send out the message that nobody was watching.


G.

eg8r
11-15-2012, 02:23 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you can't post like an adult, don't post to me at all.</div></div>Not my fault you looked stupid saying I did not do something. However, you can be rest assured I will post as I see fit and you will deal with it.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Romney doesn't usually pay any taxes, at all,</div></div>More proof your brain has been turned off for decades.

Funny to see you do what you do best, change the topic, even after I gave a specific answer, and then rant on and on.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
11-15-2012, 04:58 PM
You are too uninformed for me to care what you think.


The wealthy top one percent in this country, in any country, NEVER pay their fair share.


WASHINGTON -- Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said Thursday there isn't much point in raising tax rates on the wealthy, because they also have the money to hire people who will help them get out of paying taxes.

"The billionaires and millionaires that are going to be impacted by higher rates, they can afford to hire the best lawyers, lobbyists and accountants in America to figure out how not to pay those higher rates," Rubio told National Journal’s Major Garrett at The Atlantic Washington Ideas Forum.





http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/15/marco-rubio-tax-hikes_n_2136829.html?ref=topbar


"Only the little people pay taxes"

The queen of mean...

eg8r
11-15-2012, 05:50 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The wealthy top one percent in this country, in any country, NEVER pay their fair share.</div></div>Now you are changing what you said. Again, you say something stupid and now you are hoping your less than subtle change will go unnoticed. Here is what you said the first time around...<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: gaylio talking out her rearend</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Romney doesn't usually pay any taxes, at all,</div></div>So I call you out for your delusions and you come back and try again with some nitwit response about "fair share" BS that you never were willing to define.

In your quote Rubio tells the truth, there is little point in raising the taxes. The problem here is that your piss poor comprehension takes that to mean they will pay "zero" which is indicative of your quote of the queen of mean when we all know this is not really the case. The numbers have been quoted plenty of times. The top 10% of this country pay 50% of the taxes. Sure isn't the poor or middle class carrying this country it is the rich. Only idiots think they don't pay taxes.

eg8r

Qtec
11-16-2012, 01:25 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">For the last 4 years there have been massive cuts in spending </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 17pt'>Repeat After Me: Obama Cut the Deficit and Slowed Spending to Lowest Level in 50 Years</span> </div></div>

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2012-10-10-chart_spending_growth.jpg

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Once again, Mitt Romney's website still contains the words: "Since President Obama assumed office three years ago, federal spending has accelerated at a pace without precedent in recent history." Pants on fire times a thousand. </div></div>

To be fair /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif, I should have said,

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">For the last 4 years there have been massive cuts in [ the growth ] in spending. </div></div>

Q

Qtec
11-16-2012, 02:07 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The upper class pay the absolute vast majority of the taxes. </div></div>

That's either a massive lie or you meant only income taxes!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">All this talk about shared sacrifice...<span style='font-size: 14pt'>where is it? </span></div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><u>The left will not allow it</u> when they continue to try and increase the taxes on the rich. </div></div>

That doesn't make sense. The Left is stopping the rich from paying their fair share??????????????




On <u>day one</u> Obama imposed a wage freeze on all federal workers. That was four years ago.
600,000 Fed workers also lost their jobs.

Remember Scott Walker?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Wisconsin's Act 10 required public employees to contribute more to their pensions and health care premiums, and limited collective bargaining to wages for most employees. </div></div>

AGAIN.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 20pt'> Name me<u> one cut</u> that has been detrimental to Mitt Romney?</span> </div></div>

You can't do it.

Is it a burden,ie a hardship, for someone like Mittens making 20Million a year to pay his fair share?
On his 2nd tax return, he would have paid only 9.6% if he had taken all his deductions. There is good reason to believe Harry when he said Mittens didn't pay any tax for years.

All the sacrifice is one way.

Q

Qtec
11-16-2012, 10:57 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Is the Country all in with a war? </div></div>

No.

Most of the Armed Forces is made up of the 'takers'. You know, the Moochers, those with 'no skin in the game'!
When they get killed or lose their legs in Iraq, they are hero's.

When they get back to the USA and can't get a job, they are moochers again.

Next time the hawks want to go to war under false pretences, there should be a draft. Everyone should be in the pot.
Bush went AWOL, Cheney had 5 deferments and Mittens went to France!

Q

hondo
11-17-2012, 04:49 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Is the Country all in with a war? </div></div>

No.

Most of the Armed Forces is made up of the 'takers'. You know, the Moochers, those with 'no skin in the game'!
When they get killed or lose their legs in Iraq, they are hero's.

When they get back to the USA and can't get a job, they are moochers again.

Next time the hawks want to go to war under false pretences, there should be a draft. Everyone should be in the pot.
Bush went AWOL, Cheney had 5 deferments and Mittens went to France!

Q
</div></div>

A draft changes nothing. Poor white trash and middle class kids who can't get a college deferment go.
The rich stay home. "Everyone" is NEVER in the pot. Capeesh?

Qtec
11-18-2012, 04:16 AM
Then do it differently.

If there had been a vote on whether to invade Iraq or not, and all those who voted Yes would be the ones eligible for the draft, no exceptions, there would have never been an invasion.

Q

Soflasnapper
11-18-2012, 10:35 AM
It's impractical to send old people to war, and here's an idea that might serve the same purpose:

The CHILDREN or GRANDCHILDREN of those in Congress would be the ones drafted at highest priority for such conflicts.