If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Reuters)   Obama aims to halve deficit by end of first term. Just like Bush's goal, but with an extra "l"   (reuters.com) divider line 347
    More: Cool  
•       •       •

1342 clicks; posted to Politics » on 22 Feb 2009 at 10:35 AM (5 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



347 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-02-22 12:53:41 PM
bartink: globalwarmingpraiser: That is one of the reasons that I support expanding drilling. If you knew how Labor intensive the industry is you would too.

They are choosing not to drill. They have many, many places that they already have the rights to that they could drill right now and don't. They aren't fighting to drill. They are fighting to lock down the rights to drill at their convenience.

So unless you are suggesting that the government get into the business of drilling, I don't think it will happen anytime soon.


Tell me when was the last new drilling project you were on?

Jun of 2008 for me. Right now it is not feasable to drill more economically. We need the price of oil to get into the 50-80 dollar range. Then drilling will pick up. The areas that show the most promise are the Shale areas of Colorado et all, and Deep Water offshore drilling. These companies are not going to invest in areas that lose money, that would be like buying a car that doesn't run. Stupid.
 
2009-02-22 12:55:53 PM
Smackledorfer: I couldn't even make it past page 1 of this thread.


You should put is all on one page then. [Single page, reversed] is easy.
 
2009-02-22 12:56:10 PM
globalwarmingpraiser: There are ways to encourage keeping money here. Investigate them.

Let me guess: CUT TAXES! Cut taxes and they'll invest it here! Or, use tax money to make resort towns for them. Or, cut wages and turn us into the third-world countries we're having to compete with!

Every solution -- other than increased taxation on the very wealthy -- screws the people who actually do the work to make them very wealthy.
 
2009-02-22 12:57:08 PM
globalwarmingpraiser: There are ways to encourage keeping money here. Investigate them.

and that is something that has been absent for the last... oh 8 years. there are plenty of instances where the SEC should have enforced their regulations and didnt. we can say this and that about whichever administration, but the fact is that the SEC is under the companies best interests. also, if you factor in the political climate, then we get to see who gets audited and who doesn't.

it's all a crock of shiat and has nothing to do with doing the right thing. anyone who doesn't believe me i will cite one example, and that was the house finance committee hearings in 2004 when the accounting practices of fannie and freddie were called into question. you had liberals like maxine waters going off about how the whole concern was a joke, then three years later biatching about how lending institutions dropped the ball on consumers. they are all inter-related, and the partisanship is blinding.

we need a farking revolution in this country where every incumbent is ousted.
 
2009-02-22 12:57:47 PM
Step 1) Bush and Congress pass budgets in the $200-500 billion deficit range.
Step 2) Obama racks up a 1.5 trillion dollar deficit for 2009
Step 3) Obama promises a 1 trillion dollar deficit for 2010 year.
Step 4) Obama promises to slowly reduce the deficit...back down to $500 billion in 2013.

Sorry, submitter, Obama is shaping up as the most fiscally irresponsible president ever.
 
2009-02-22 12:59:23 PM
Lenny_da_Hog: Let me guess: CUT TAXES! Cut taxes and they'll invest it here! Or, use tax money to make resort towns for them. Or, cut wages and turn us into the third-world countries we're having to compete with!

Every solution -- other than increased taxation on the very wealthy -- screws the people who actually do the work to make them very wealthy.


Investigation != cutting taxes.

unless globalwarmingpraiser was talking about "finding new ways to make companies spend money in the US", which is possible.

seriously, wtf?

and i appreciate your class warfare tactic.
 
2009-02-22 12:59:28 PM
globalwarmingpraiser: Tell me when was the last new drilling project you were on?

I'm from Texas. I have people in the oil industry on both sides of my family, literally more than I can count on both hands. Hell, my uncle died in an oil rig accident.

globalwarmingpraiser: Right now it is not feasable to drill more economically. We need the price of oil to get into the 50-80 dollar range. Then drilling will pick up. The areas that show the most promise are the Shale areas of Colorado et all, and Deep Water offshore drilling. These companies are not going to invest in areas that lose money, that would be like buying a car that doesn't run. Stupid.

This is correct. This is part of why they are choosing not to drill. Its also part of why its not an employment solution right now.
 
2009-02-22 12:59:43 PM
Lenny_da_Hog: globalwarmingpraiser: There are ways to encourage keeping money here. Investigate them.

Let me guess: CUT TAXES! Cut taxes and they'll invest it here! Or, use tax money to make resort towns for them. Or, cut wages and turn us into the third-world countries we're having to compete with!

Every solution -- other than increased taxation on the very wealthy -- screws the people who actually do the work to make them very wealthy.


Lets see, Fairtax, Value Added Tax, Land Value Tax, there are 3 forms of taxation that do not screw everyone. Hell under the FairTax the poorest don't pay any net taxes. If you make it easier to keep money here and create new jobs it will happen. Republicans and Democrats have to cater to their real constituency though, that would be the various Lobbying groups.
 
2009-02-22 01:00:52 PM
Bob Dolemite: how is obamas current trickery any different?

and what i mean by trickery is federal revenue increases due to expirations in the tax code and obama gets to use that extra 4% to offset deficit expendatures and call it victory


Well, Obama could continue keeping the Iraq and Afghanistan wars among other things off the books.

As for the tickery related to increased revenue...yeah, that stuff IS tricky.
 
2009-02-22 01:01:04 PM
helix400: Step 1) Bush and Congress pass budgets in the $200-500 billion deficit range.
Step 2) Obama racks up a 1.5 trillion dollar deficit for 2009
Step 3) Obama promises a 1 trillion dollar deficit for 2010 year.
Step 4) Obama promises to slowly reduce the deficit...back down to $500 billion in 2013.

Sorry, submitter, Obama is shaping up as the most fiscally irresponsible president ever.


you forgot step 5:

set standards for expectations for re-election campaign where we can take credit for putting us back to the way we were and profit!!
 
2009-02-22 01:02:04 PM
Bob Dolemite: and what i mean by trickery is federal revenue increases due to expirations in the tax code and obama gets to use that extra 4% to offset deficit expendatures and call it victory

How is that trickery. There is a tax law with a sunset code. He ran on the fact that he would do what he is doing.
 
2009-02-22 01:02:12 PM
Bob Dolemite: Lenny_da_Hog: Let me guess: CUT TAXES! Cut taxes and they'll invest it here! Or, use tax money to make resort towns for them. Or, cut wages and turn us into the third-world countries we're having to compete with!

Every solution -- other than increased taxation on the very wealthy -- screws the people who actually do the work to make them very wealthy.

Investigation != cutting taxes.

unless globalwarmingpraiser was talking about "finding new ways to make companies spend money in the US", which is possible.

seriously, wtf?

and i appreciate your class warfare tactic.


I am open to any solution that helps employment without making the engines of our economy suffer.

bartink: globalwarmingpraiser: Tell me when was the last new drilling project you were on?

I'm from Texas. I have people in the oil industry on both sides of my family, literally more than I can count on both hands. Hell, my uncle died in an oil rig accident.

globalwarmingpraiser: Right now it is not feasable to drill more economically. We need the price of oil to get into the 50-80 dollar range. Then drilling will pick up. The areas that show the most promise are the Shale areas of Colorado et all, and Deep Water offshore drilling. These companies are not going to invest in areas that lose money, that would be like buying a car that doesn't run. Stupid.

This is correct. This is part of why they are choosing not to drill. Its also part of why its not an employment solution right now.


I am thinking long term bartink. Time for our country to stop looking past next quarter.
 
2009-02-22 01:02:25 PM
globalwarmingpraiser: Lets see, Fairtax, Value Added Tax, Land Value Tax, there are 3 forms of taxation that do not screw everyone. Hell under the FairTax the poorest don't pay any net taxes. If you make it easier to keep money here and create new jobs it will happen. Republicans and Democrats have to cater to their real constituency though, that would be the various Lobbying groups.

Yes, a FairTax debate. Those are always great to see just where everybody gets their information on what is fair.
 
2009-02-22 01:04:36 PM
bulldg4life: Well, Obama could continue keeping the Iraq and Afghanistan wars among other things off the books.

As for the tickery related to increased revenue...yeah, that stuff IS tricky.


you think he's going to advertise it as "increased money from tax cuts expiring"? I'm sorry, i don't have that kind of faith. I think he'll sell the difference between revenue and spending while talking about his tax cuts and stimulus package, attributing the reduced difference to his policies, with no breakdown for how much federal revenue increases, and how much spending is going on.
 
2009-02-22 01:05:25 PM
bulldg4life: globalwarmingpraiser: Lets see, Fairtax, Value Added Tax, Land Value Tax, there are 3 forms of taxation that do not screw everyone. Hell under the FairTax the poorest don't pay any net taxes. If you make it easier to keep money here and create new jobs it will happen. Republicans and Democrats have to cater to their real constituency though, that would be the various Lobbying groups.

Yes, a FairTax debate. Those are always great to see just where everybody gets their information on what is fair.


I hate the name FairTax because then you start getting into the idea of what is fair. I would prefer the National Inclusive Retail Sales Tax. That isn't as catchy though. I was throwing ideas out there. I mainly like the FairTax because of its transparency and difficulty of avoidance.
 
2009-02-22 01:05:58 PM
Bob Dolemite: you think he's going to advertise it as "increased money from tax cuts expiring"?

He's been talking about things like that for two years. That was part of his freaking campaign platform was talking about ending those tax cuts and using the money. Where in the blue hell have you been for the last 2 years?
 
2009-02-22 01:06:07 PM
Bob Dolemite: thats entirely different than the principles of economics, which you first talked about. so if you want to change the subject and start talking about where we gonna get the money, fine.

You're saying the Federal debt has nothing to do with our economy? News to me.

If corporations are having a hard time paying taxes, then they need to cut back on some expenses. And by that, I don't mean thousands of worker's salaries or their benefits packages. I mean the heads of the company need to be paid much much less than what they're getting. There is no reason at all why a top-level executive needs to be paid 700 times what his lowest-paid worker does, since that executive does not do 700x the work that the lowest paid worker does. His job is not 700x the value of that worker either.

If the rich are complaining about a 50% tax rate, then they can put their heads in the guillotine and we'll put them out of their damn misery.

This is our country we're talking about here, and if these rich assholes aren't willing to make some sacrifices, then we're all going to go down the damn tubes.
 
2009-02-22 01:06:43 PM
Phil Herup:

Fact check it all you want pal. My stance is based on principle, not some demographic statistic that permits people use justify the "fleecing" a minority.

If you need people to back you up here there is no shortage of liberal socialistic freaks on FARK to do that. I take the stance that we should all be treated equally under the law at all times. That includes taxation.


that has nothing to do with what i said. you contended that 250K is middle class.

i provided evidence that showed less than 2% of americans make that much money. so your "principle" says that being in the top 2% of income in america is middle class? you have an interesting perspective of what "middle" means.

i made no comment on taxation, or what constitutes being treated equally. i don't pretend to begin to know how to legislate taxation in such a way as to be truly fair.

the thing is, you don't get to just make up your own definition of what "middle class" means. words have accepted meanings that you don't get to change to serve your own interests. sorry, but language is more or less mob rule
 
2009-02-22 01:07:58 PM
Lando Lincoln: Bob Dolemite: thats entirely different than the principles of economics, which you first talked about. so if you want to change the subject and start talking about where we gonna get the money, fine.

You're saying the Federal debt has nothing to do with our economy? News to me.

If corporations are having a hard time paying taxes, then they need to cut back on some expenses. And by that, I don't mean thousands of worker's salaries or their benefits packages. I mean the heads of the company need to be paid much much less than what they're getting. There is no reason at all why a top-level executive needs to be paid 700 times what his lowest-paid worker does, since that executive does not do 700x the work that the lowest paid worker does. His job is not 700x the value of that worker either.

If the rich are complaining about a 50% tax rate, then they can put their heads in the guillotine and we'll put them out of their damn misery.

This is our country we're talking about here, and if these rich assholes aren't willing to make some sacrifices, then we're all going to go down the damn tubes.


What sacrifices are you making Lando? Cut back much? How much do you pay in taxes at the end of the year? These things are important in figuring out the validity of your arguement.
 
2009-02-22 01:08:09 PM
You're only as good as you aim to be. Aim high, do the best work you can, live with the result.
 
2009-02-22 01:13:40 PM
globalwarmingpraiser: That isn't as catchy though. I was throwing ideas out there. I mainly like the FairTax because of its transparency and difficulty of avoidance.

Odd, I don't like it because it is ridiculously regressive and, the people that argue against progressive taxation and tax rebates also say that the FairTax will introduce a pre-bate to make the FairTax progressive. It's an inherently stupid argument.
 
2009-02-22 01:14:12 PM
bulldg4life: He's been talking about things like that for two years. That was part of his freaking campaign platform was talking about ending those tax cuts and using the money. Where in the blue hell have you been for the last 2 years?

he went from a platform of "repealing the bush tax cuts" to a platform of "letting bush tax cuts expire"

Lando Lincoln: You're saying the Federal debt has nothing to do with our economy? News to me.

no, I just want you to learn about taxes and their effect on the economy, and rate increases and their effect on the economy.

The federal debt has plenty to do with the economy, because it taxes the earnings from free enterprise. that's its revenue stream. then again, the government also controls the currency, so they can tweak a lot of things with that currency

If corporations are having a hard time paying taxes, then they need to cut back on some expenses. And by that, I don't mean thousands of worker's salaries or their benefits packages. I mean the heads of the company need to be paid much much less than what they're getting. There is no reason at all why a top-level executive needs to be paid 700 times what his lowest-paid worker does, since that executive does not do 700x the work that the lowest paid worker does. His job is not 700x the value of that worker either.


while i agree that executive pay has outpaced average worker salaries, i liken this to the congress. they give themselves pay increases, which is what these executives did. theres a new phrase out there, and that is "million dollar salaries are required to create billion dollar losses".

If the rich are complaining about a 50% tax rate, then they can put their heads in the guillotine and we'll put them out of their damn misery.

This is our country we're talking about here, and if these rich assholes aren't willing to make some sacrifices, then we're all going to go down the damn tubes.


i do not favor redistribution of wealth. i also do not favor the growing difference between worker and executive pay. i have no idea how to fix it other than by voting at a shareholder's meeting.

i certainly don't believe a federal law would be beneficial.

i really really think a lot of our current situation could have been avoided simply by enforcing rules that are already on the books.
 
2009-02-22 01:15:27 PM
globalwarmingpraiser: I mainly like the FairTax because of its transparency and difficulty of avoidance.

Its easier to avoid a sales tax than an income tax, IMO. When there was rationing during WWII, the black market was unbelievable in size. If you want to have a sales tax rate that would actually pay for the current size of the government + make up for the black market, it would be crushing.

Can you point to another modern country that funds their government like this?
 
2009-02-22 01:16:36 PM
globalwarmingpraiser: What sacrifices are you making Lando? Cut back much? How much do you pay in taxes at the end of the year? These things are important in figuring out the validity of your arguement.

I'm not sending my kids to college. Mostly because I can't afford it anyway. How's that for a farking cut back?
 
2009-02-22 01:16:50 PM
bulldg4life: globalwarmingpraiser: That isn't as catchy though. I was throwing ideas out there. I mainly like the FairTax because of its transparency and difficulty of avoidance.

Odd, I don't like it because it is ridiculously regressive and, the people that argue against progressive taxation and tax rebates also say that the FairTax will introduce a pre-bate to make the FairTax progressive. It's an inherently stupid argument.


No matter what you do the Uber Wealthy will try and get out of taxes. The fact is they will always pay a larger percentage of teh total taxes than anyone else. But I really wasn't trying to start a FairTax debate, I was just pointing out there are ways to promote Fiscal Growth and Corporate spending in this country. I would rather do whatever we can to increase this countries long term stability and growth. This is not ever a bad thing.
 
2009-02-22 01:17:05 PM
Bob Dolemite: he went from a platform of "repealing the bush tax cuts" to a platform of "letting bush tax cuts expire"

When Obama originally made his pledge, do you feel the economy was the better/same/worse than when he was elected?

Given your answer to the first question, do you feel it was important for him to change his mind based on the opinions of advisors?

Both yes or no questions.
 
2009-02-22 01:18:25 PM
Actually, I guess they both aren't yes or no questions. I went and changed how I wrote the first question without changing that statement.

globalwarmingpraiser: The fact is they will always pay a larger percentage of teh total taxes than anyone else.

That's because they earn more and control more wealth than everybody else.

I was just pointing out there are ways to promote Fiscal Growth and Corporate spending in this country. I would rather do whatever we can to increase this countries long term stability and growth. This is not ever a bad thing.

Again, there are more than a few ways to do that.
 
2009-02-22 01:19:18 PM
Lando Lincoln: globalwarmingpraiser: What sacrifices are you making Lando? Cut back much? How much do you pay in taxes at the end of the year? These things are important in figuring out the validity of your arguement.

I'm not sending my kids to college. Mostly because I can't afford it anyway. How's that for a farking cut back?


Man, that is rough, I would recommend the Il. Guard but not at the moment. They do have an excellent college program if they have too. But you definitely have a reasonable gripe at this point.
 
2009-02-22 01:19:52 PM
liquid duane-o: the thing is, you don't get to just make up your own definition of what "middle class" means.


Someone has to do it. The gov't is clearly wrong when they have decided to call people who make $250K/year "rich". No matter how many charts you present, it does not make it so. $250K income earners lead a middle class lifestyle. I is a nice lifestyle, but it is not one that any one with any brains would call upper class.
 
2009-02-22 01:20:16 PM
bulldg4life: When Obama originally made his pledge, do you feel the economy was the better/same/worse than when he was elected?

umm, yes. it was better/same/worse

Given your answer to the first question, do you feel it was important for him to change his mind based on the opinions of advisors?


no.

Both yes or no questions.


just because... I think the economic climate was the same.
 
2009-02-22 01:20:40 PM
bulldg4life: Actually, I guess they both aren't yes or no questions. I went and changed how I wrote the first question without changing that statement.

globalwarmingpraiser: The fact is they will always pay a larger percentage of teh total taxes than anyone else.

That's because they earn more and control more wealth than everybody else.

I was just pointing out there are ways to promote Fiscal Growth and Corporate spending in this country. I would rather do whatever we can to increase this countries long term stability and growth. This is not ever a bad thing.

Again, there are more than a few ways to do that.


I agree, but raising taxes isn't going to do it. That will drive more money away. But i do agree that there needs to be major tax reform.
 
2009-02-22 01:20:59 PM
Bob Dolemite: no, I just want you to learn about taxes and their effect on the economy,

That's easy.

Lower taxes = huge bonus for corporate execs, nothing for the workers.

Raise taxes = huge bonus for corporate execs, workers get fired.

I have examples if you need them.
 
2009-02-22 01:21:24 PM
Bob Dolemite: no, I just want you to learn about taxes and their effect on the economy, and rate increases and their effect on the economy.

I'm sorry, but these tired arguments don't work when you look back at the fifties. The tax rate on the wealthy bordered on the confiscatory (91% marginal rate) and the economy seemed to be hardly affected at all. To the extent that a tax cut stimulates the economy, it does so when it occurs at the lowest possible level. Giving some tax cut lopsided to the wealthy does little to the economy and does much to the deficit.
 
2009-02-22 01:24:06 PM
Bob Dolemite: just because... I think the economic climate was the same.

let me expand on that... i think the writing has been on the wall for years. it's easy to say that the economy is worse now than it was during the campaign by looking at some numbers.

difference is, TARP was a joke and I was against it. the stimulus package was a joke and I was against it. but both of them passed, and we are now in a situation where we have to accept the decisions made and i believe they have been reflected in the current market. we can debate about whether or not those spending programs helped or hurt, but we dont have a crystal ball to see the difference. we only have opinions, and i don't think these things provide a long term benefit. its like getting a shot at the doctor. we're just delaying the inevitable.
 
2009-02-22 01:25:34 PM
Bob Dolemite: Bob Dolemite: just because... I think the economic climate was the same.

let me expand on that... i think the writing has been on the wall for years. it's easy to say that the economy is worse now than it was during the campaign by looking at some numbers.

difference is, TARP was a joke and I was against it. the stimulus package was a joke and I was against it. but both of them passed, and we are now in a situation where we have to accept the decisions made and i believe they have been reflected in the current market. we can debate about whether or not those spending programs helped or hurt, but we dont have a crystal ball to see the difference. we only have opinions, and i don't think these things provide a long term benefit. its like getting a shot at the doctor. we're just delaying the inevitable.


Can we exchange newsletters?
 
2009-02-22 01:26:31 PM
Phil Herup: Someone has to do it. The gov't is clearly wrong when they have decided to call people who make $250K/year "rich". No matter how many charts you present, it does not make it so. $250K income earners lead a middle class lifestyle. I is a nice lifestyle, but it is not one that any one with any brains would call upper class.

Its the top of the income ladder. Its the top few percent of income. For comparison, the top 3% of IQ test takers are genius. The top 3% of body weight are morbidly obese and candidates for gastric bypass surgery. Its like you are trying to say that geniuses are regular joes and the morbidly obese are simply a bit plump.

It doesn't make sense.

But I would consider doing less to those making 250k if you would consider raising the tax on incomes over a million to well above 50%. I could live with that.
 
2009-02-22 01:27:17 PM
bartink: I'm sorry, but these tired arguments don't work when you look back at the fifties. The tax rate on the wealthy bordered on the confiscatory (91% marginal rate) and the economy seemed to be hardly affected at all. To the extent that a tax cut stimulates the economy, it does so when it occurs at the lowest possible level. Giving some tax cut lopsided to the wealthy does little to the economy and does much to the deficit.

then why in the fark are we so concerned with increasing taxes on the wealthy and not reducing taxes on the lower income level folks?

frankly, i'm tired of talking about how awful and evil the wealthiest are and how we can and should rob tax them because we make so much less than them. and because i'm not that person, i can say "hey, you don't need that much money pay more taxes".
 
2009-02-22 01:28:02 PM
Bob Dolemite: we're just delaying the inevitable.

So does a parachute.
 
2009-02-22 01:30:41 PM
bartink: Phil Herup: Someone has to do it. The gov't is clearly wrong when they have decided to call people who make $250K/year "rich". No matter how many charts you present, it does not make it so. $250K income earners lead a middle class lifestyle. I is a nice lifestyle, but it is not one that any one with any brains would call upper class.

Its the top of the income ladder. Its the top few percent of income. For comparison, the top 3% of IQ test takers are genius. The top 3% of body weight are morbidly obese and candidates for gastric bypass surgery. Its like you are trying to say that geniuses are regular joes and the morbidly obese are simply a bit plump.

It doesn't make sense.

But I would consider doing less to those making 250k if you would consider raising the tax on incomes over a million to well above 50%. I could live with that.


You do realize that our current globalized marketplace now makes it easier to leave a place with confiscatory tax rates right. The effects of your ideas will mean more long term unemployment.
 
2009-02-22 01:31:18 PM
Bob Dolemite: then why in the fark are we so concerned with increasing taxes on the wealthy and not reducing taxes on the lower income level folks?

frankly, i'm tired of talking about how awful and evil the wealthiest are and how we can and should rob tax them because we make so much less than them. and because i'm not that person, i can say "hey, you don't need that much money pay more taxes".


Thats a straw man. No one is making that argument that isn't in the fringe.

Call me an Eisenhower Republican. Was Eisenhower robbing people? Were the fifties really that bad for the country? Did the greatest generation hate the rich? You are making a ridiculous argument.

Look, you are long on platitudes, but when confronted with specifics you hide behind hyperbole.
 
2009-02-22 01:31:24 PM
bartink: Phil Herup: Someone has to do it. The gov't is clearly wrong when they have decided to call people who make $250K/year "rich". No matter how many charts you present, it does not make it so. $250K income earners lead a middle class lifestyle. I is a nice lifestyle, but it is not one that any one with any brains would call upper class.

Its the top of the income ladder. Its the top few percent of income. For comparison, the top 3% of IQ test takers are genius. The top 3% of body weight are morbidly obese and candidates for gastric bypass surgery. Its like you are trying to say that geniuses are regular joes and the morbidly obese are simply a bit plump.

It doesn't make sense.

But I would consider doing less to those making 250k if you would consider raising the tax on incomes over a million to well above 50%. I could live with that.


To expand on that, the top 20% in IQ are still smart. Not really omg smart, but smart so the top 20% in incomes must be rich. Again, not omg rich, but rich all the same.
 
2009-02-22 01:31:43 PM
bartink: I would consider doing less to those making 250k if you would consider raising the tax on incomes over a million to well above 50%. I could live with that.


You just want to spread your progressive socialist agenda, and you think demographics can back you up.


I could care less with what you can live with, apparently it is off the back of the successful and hard working, and you are happy with that.
 
2009-02-22 01:31:59 PM
bartink: Bob Dolemite: we're just delaying the inevitable.

So does a parachute.


hahaha

look man, the fundamental issue at play here is that I do not believe the government is a driving economic factor. i do not believe that the government holds assets because of minerals and other things.

oh yeah, i said it. if i go out in my back yard and find a huge oil plot, that motherfarker is MINE. not the government's. the government has no business acting like they can control what I do with MY oil plot. they can regulate it so that I don't harm the environment. they can tax me on the earnings i get from production and sales of it. they, however, DO NOT OWN IT. they CANNOT AND SHOULD NOT allocate that asset.

this is the fundamental argument at play here.
 
2009-02-22 01:34:57 PM
bartink: Call me an Eisenhower Republican.


No I think you are more of a left-wing, money grubbing, socialism supporter.


You are delusional, and Eisenhower would kick your ass BTW.
 
2009-02-22 01:35:19 PM
globalwarmingpraiser: You do realize that our current globalized marketplace now makes it easier to leave a place with confiscatory tax rates right. The effects of your ideas will mean more long term unemployment.

Bullshiat. Look at where the wealth is in this country by state and look at the tax rates. If your theory were correct, we should see it happening at the state level and we don't. We should see the wealthy fleeing states like California and Massachusetts. We don't. In fact, an argument could be made that higher taxes and the services they provide seem to be creating wealth.

If you think that the wealthy will leave the country when they can't be bothered to leave a state...
 
2009-02-22 01:36:12 PM
bartink: Bob Dolemite: then why in the fark are we so concerned with increasing taxes on the wealthy and not reducing taxes on the lower income level folks?

frankly, i'm tired of talking about how awful and evil the wealthiest are and how we can and should rob tax them because we make so much less than them. and because i'm not that person, i can say "hey, you don't need that much money pay more taxes".

Thats a straw man. No one is making that argument that isn't in the fringe.

Call me an Eisenhower Republican. Was Eisenhower robbing people? Were the fifties really that bad for the country? Did the greatest generation hate the rich? You are making a ridiculous argument.

Look, you are long on platitudes, but when confronted with specifics you hide behind hyperbole.


As most of the current Liberals say all of the time, it is a different world. More information, more integration, and more global involvement. If the US raises it's tax rates to a confiscatory level then these evil rich will move to a better climate to declare their income.
 
2009-02-22 01:37:06 PM
Phil Herup: No I think you are more of a left-wing, money grubbing, socialism supporter.


You are delusional, and Eisenhower would kick your ass BTW.


Nice comeback. Thoughtless and lacking in funny. Good job.

Fact: Eisenhower refused to consider lowering taxes on the wealthy.

So I guess the greatest generation and Eisenhower were left-wing, money grubbing, socialism supporters, right? Yeah, that makes sense, if you are retarded.
 
2009-02-22 01:37:41 PM
bartink: Thats a straw man. No one is making that argument that isn't in the fringe.

wanna bet? what about the "wealthiest 1%" straw man? what about half the comments in this thread? people who aren't making that kind of money are certainly calling for higher tax rates on the richie rich. some guy suggested a 50% level of taxation

Call me an Eisenhower Republican. Was Eisenhower robbing people? Were the fifties really that bad for the country? Did the greatest generation hate the rich? You are making a ridiculous argument.


im pretty certain that the disparity between the wealthy and poor hen was not the same as it is now. our tax code is so old and outdated it makes me sick. take a look at the alternative minimum tax. every year, congress bumps the threshold a little more, but never corrects the goddamn thing. make it 250 and be done with it.

Look, you are long on platitudes, but when confronted with specifics you hide behind hyperbole.


perhaps.

globalwarmingpraiser: Can we exchange newsletters?

haha. awesome. new leaf, man. new leaf.
 
2009-02-22 01:38:16 PM
MorrisBird: The_Ancient: John Adams

Sit down, John.


Someone better open up a window!
 
2009-02-22 01:39:23 PM
bartink: globalwarmingpraiser: You do realize that our current globalized marketplace now makes it easier to leave a place with confiscatory tax rates right. The effects of your ideas will mean more long term unemployment.

Bullshiat. Look at where the wealth is in this country by state and look at the tax rates. If your theory were correct, we should see it happening at the state level and we don't. We should see the wealthy fleeing states like California and Massachusetts. We don't. In fact, an argument could be made that higher taxes and the services they provide seem to be creating wealth.

If you think that the wealthy will leave the country when they can't be bothered to leave a state...


Yes because wealth tends to accumulate near the coasts. This is where most international shipping and the centers of power are. If you are going to live in an area, then you need to be near these things. If the shipping and industrial base moves they will move. If you get to the 91% level I garrantee they will leave.
 
Displayed 50 of 347 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report