Which guy is campaigning on the platform to abolish social security and medicare? Those come out of my paycheck and I'll vote for whoever puts a stop to that

SoCalSurfer: Which guy is campaigning on the platform to abolish social security and medicare? Those come out of my paycheck and I'll vote for whoever puts a stop to that

And until then, you're just going to say that exact same thing in every thread you post in?

Bloody William: SoCalSurfer: Which guy is campaigning on the platform to abolish social security and medicare? Those come out of my paycheck and I'll vote for whoever puts a stop to that

And until then, you're just going to say that exact same thing in every thread you post in?

yes. wheres the old outrage? This is politics. Now i'm bored

Well, did Coburn say that was a bad thing?

He needs to leave the job creators alone and go yell at the White House. He's a dirty diseased murdering raping hippie who should go get a job instead of sh*tting on cop cars. What the hell does he want,, anyway? Why won't he say?

Um, gambling losses can only be set off to the extent of gambling gains, which are taxed at the individual level. What's more, the gambling "losses" of an individual are concommitantly taxable as income to the casinos, which renders this argument absurd. Someone needs to read the tax code.

Nice, but he's wrong on one thing. Gambling losses are not deductible (though they can be used to cancel gambling gains).

This is total BS. Sure Coburn wants to hit the wealthy by eliminating some tax breaks. But he also wants to maintain the Bush tax cuts, cut corporate tax rates, cut capital gains tax rates, and end the estate tax. So when the dust settles the wealthy come out way ahead. Meanwhile he want to cut spending on programs that help the poor and middle class. Only an idiot, the wealthy, or perhaps even a wealthy idiot, would buy into his crap.

SoCalSurfer: Which guy is campaigning on the platform to abolish social security and medicare? Those come out of my paycheck and I'll vote for whoever puts a stop to that

You clearly have your priorities in order.

SoCalSurfer: Bloody William: SoCalSurfer: Which guy is campaigning on the platform to abolish social security and medicare? Those come out of my paycheck and I'll vote for whoever puts a stop to that

And until then, you're just going to say that exact same thing in every thread you post in?

yes. wheres the old outrage? This is politics. Now i'm bored


But we haven't heard from you in, like, 10 posts. Will you still support the candidate who will abolish SS/Medicare, or did you change your mind?

Please give us an update ASAP!

CheetahOlivetti: He'll be backpedaling and apologizing by this time tomorrow.

I don't think so. This isn't the Weeners like this he has made. He's like Lindsay Graham to me. One minute making complete sense, the next sounding like a wackadoodle.

He is absolutely correct. There is too much welfare for the corporations and for the rich right now. Subsidies (welfare) for Amtrak, oil, energy, farm, airlines, and more needs to end. Tax loopholes need to disappear as Reagan said and we need to raise taxes on the rich as Reagan did.

RINO

TheOther: Well, did Coburn say that was a bad thing?

my post exactly except i was going to use "wait" instead of "well."

Looks like somebodies alien anal slug fell out.

Blues_X: He does have his moments.

His Back in Black budget plan had some very rational plans for defense spending cuts.

DannyJunior: Um, gambling losses can only be set off to the extent of gambling gains, which are taxed at the individual level. What's more, the gambling "losses" of an individual are concomitantly taxable as income to the casinos, which renders this argument absurd. Someone needs to read the tax code.

The biggest gamblers are hedge funds, and they get taxed at the much lower "carried interest" tax rate.

Flat cap on deduction amount.
Flat income tax.

Make whatever you can, but you can't deduce more than some arbitrary number, say $50,000 total off your income. Everything else gets taxed at the same %.

Blues_X: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Could it be...one of the only times Coburn has said something that's correct??

He does have his moments. And then, when you think he's sane, he goes back to bat-shiattery.

Coburn is essentially the Ron Paul of the Senate. Unlike most GOP politicians who are slimy hypocrites, he is actually one of the "true believers" and is well-known for voting no on almost all bills that advocate spending. He voted against funding the Iraq War and has even co-written legislation with Obama on federal funding accountability Link (new window)

On the other hand, he is also an extremely batshiat crazy social conservative who is against abortion even in cases of rape and incest, believes that "rampant lesbianism" goes on in Oklahoma high schools, and protested against the showing of Schindler's List on network TV due to brief nudity scenes.

That being said, he is still by default the least douchey senator from Oklahoma.

Kuta: Flat cap on deduction amount.
Flat income tax.

Make whatever you can, but you can't deduce more than some arbitrary number, say $50,000 total off your income. Everything else gets taxed at the same %.

Because it totally makes sense to tax, someone who makes 2mil a year 200k, and someone who makes 20k/year 2k. That's an equivalent burden and isn't insanely regressive at all!

Weaver95

And remember - the OWS crowd are the dangerous ones who threaten to bring down the US government

strawman

with their crazy economic schemes and socialist ways....pay no attention to what the 1% are actually doing.

this is a perfect example of the sort of government favoritism and cronyism that the Tea Party has been protesting for long before the OWS came on the scene, but you and other FarKosers have had no problem vilifying that movement.

Weaver95: And remember - the OWS crowd are the dangerous ones who threaten to bring down the US government with their crazy economic schemes and socialist ways....pay no attention to what the 1% are actually doing.

Elimination of deductions is the correct course of action. Hmm... which side is looking to remove deductions instead of just straight percentage increases as the means to increase revenue... hmm.............. that's a tough one. OH wait, you mean reducing ways to lower taxable income has a better affect than just changing percentages?!? Say it isn't so.

A Dark Evil Omen: Because it totally makes sense to tax, someone who makes 2mil a year 200k, and someone who makes 20k/year 2k. That's an equivalent burden and isn't insanely regressive at all!

You misse the other part where there's a cap on deductions so its more like 150K for the millionaire, 2 k for the other guy.

Thats the regressive part.

CanonicalNerd: A Dark Evil Omen: Because it totally makes sense to tax, someone who makes 2mil a year 200k, and someone who makes 20k/year 2k. That's an equivalent burden and isn't insanely regressive at all!

You misse the other part where there's a cap on deductions so its more like 150K for the millionaire, 2 k for the other guy.

Thats the regressive part.

It's already crap without the deduction thing. A "deduction cap" that's well above the median family income is just the crowning turd on the crap cake.

grotto_man: this is a perfect example of the sort of government favoritism and cronyism that the Tea Party has been protesting for long before the OWS came on the scene, but you and other FarKosers have had no problem vilifying that movement.

Probably because the Tea Party's "solution" sound an awful lot like 3rd world country "reality." If you want to go live in some shiathole with no public education, no social safety net, and a crumbling infrastructure by all means please do; just leave America alone. We'd rather live in a great country.

cameroncrazy1984: MyRandomName: Weaver95: And remember - the OWS crowd are the dangerous ones who threaten to bring down the US government with their crazy economic schemes and socialist ways....pay no attention to what the 1% are actually doing.

Elimination of deductions is the correct course of action. Hmm... which side is looking to remove deductions instead of just straight percentage increases as the means to increase revenue... hmm.............. that's a tough one. OH wait, you mean reducing ways to lower taxable income has a better affect than just changing percentages?!? Say it isn't so.

Uh...the Dems are advocating both, which would have a greater EFFECT than one or the other.

Yeah, Dems are advocating both and Republicans want to... cut taxes for the rich. But I'm sure Generic Republican has a better plan than either!

DannyJunior: Um, gambling losses can only be set off to the extent of gambling gains, which are taxed at the individual level. What's more, the gambling "losses" of an individual are concommitantly taxable as income to the casinos, which renders this argument absurd. Someone needs to read the tax code.

Came here to say this. Not allowing gambling losses to be deducted would be ridiculous for several reasons.

Bag of Hammers: Looks like somebodies alien anal slug fell out.

Are you sure that wasn't just a fetus?

I say vote republican. It is time to let this country burn. Let them light that match. They seem too stupid to understand they will get burned beyond anything they can contemplate. Give them the reigns, our population refuses to completely discard that false ideal, which only prolongs our pain and ensures the longer we wait the worse it will be. Get it over with now, and maybe we can actually save what little of an ideal about what we are to be before it is so blackened and dead that nothing good will grow from the chaos that is coming.

We have too many problems, to much corrupted, to many washed away by propaganda, to many apathetic to everything that does not directly affect them in the here and now. Let them all burn.

Now, that ain't workin' that's the way you do it

DannyJunior: Um, gambling losses can only be set off to the extent of gambling gains, which are taxed at the individual level. What's more, the gambling "losses" of an individual are concommitantly taxable as income to the casinos, which renders this argument absurd. Someone needs to read the tax code.

So if I gamble a million dollars lose 1/2 a mil but win 1/2 a mil, I have no tax, but my room has been comped and i have lived a luxurious lifestyle in Vegas for free? now all I need to do is have a million dollars

MrEricSir

grotto_man: this is a perfect example of the sort of government favoritism and cronyism that the Tea Party has been protesting for long before the OWS came on the scene, but you and other FarKosers have had no problem vilifying that movement.

Probably because the Tea Party's "solution" sound an awful lot like 3rd world country "reality."

Plenty of other criticism has not just about their solutions, but claiming that they didn't even see a problem with payouts to the wealthy.

If you want to go live in some shiathole with no public education, no social safety net, and a crumbling infrastructure by all means please do; just leave America alone. We'd rather live in a great country.

With the caveat that the Tea Party isn't a single monolithic movement (any more than OWS is) in the main:

1. The Tea Party isn't opposed to public education, mainly to Federal involvement - and since the Dept of Education was founded the costs of education have gone up and the quality at the local level has gone down. And that would get rid of No Child Left Behind, for that matter. Furthermore, many back vouchers, but that's still public education - it's provided to everyone and paid for out of tax revenues - just without the government/teacher's union monopoly.

2. They don't want to eliminate any and all social safety nets. They generally want less than the Democrats do, but that's not necessarily a bad thing - look at what's happened in Greece and indeed much of Europe.

3. They don't oppose spending on infrastructure. They oppose waste and tax and spend boondoggles, which plenty of the proposed infrastructure is. They would rather more of it was carried out by state and local govt rather than the Feds, and I think that would be a good thing.

grotto_man: With the caveat that the Tea Party isn't a single monolithic movement (any more than OWS is) in the main:

1. The Tea Party isn't opposed to public education, mainly to Federal involvement - and since the Dept of Education was founded the costs of education have gone up and the quality at the local level has gone down. And that would get rid of No Child Left Behind, for that matter. Furthermore, many back vouchers, but that's still public education - it's provided to everyone and paid for out of tax revenues - just without the government/teacher's union monopoly.

2. They don't want to eliminate any and all social safety nets. They generally want less than the Democrats do, but that's not necessarily a bad thing - look at what's happened in Greece and indeed much of Europe.

3. They don't oppose spending on infrastructure. They oppose waste and tax and spend boondoggles, which plenty of the proposed infrastructure is. They would rather more of it was carried out by state and local govt rather than the Feds, and I think that would be a good thing.

What you're describing sounds exactly like the current Republican platform.

I knew his daughter in college. She scared me.