[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Obama in large part hasn’t gotten anything done because:
A. He doesn’t know how to reach across party lines and make baby steps towards an end like Clinton and
B. Congress is Obstructionist
Also keep in the mind that countries in Europe promoting austerity are being hit the hardest by the world wide depression. I don’t think America following the same path will lead to a different outcome.
I think we would be a lot worse off with higher unemployment if McCain had been elected, but Obama leaves a lot to be begged for.
I would vote for Romney the governor for president, but not Romney the candidate. They’re like completely different men. Heck in Texas, Romney the governor would be democrat.[/quote]
Keep in mind a leader reflects the wishes of his constituents. If he were Governor of Texas he would obviously be more conservative. Not enough is spoken about this. It’s much easier to paint Romney as a flip flopper that makes political hay. But I have no doubt as President that he would lead center right just as most voters would want. [/quote]
The first part is true to some degree. I’ll give you that. Granted, Romney has made some blatant lies that he never went back to correct even after the fact has been pointed out.
The second part… only time will tell. That’ll become a lot clearer after the debates I think.
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
It’s pretty easy to see that congress and the GOP has put electing Romney over the well being of the US and its people. Their refusal to pass any meaningful legislation, coupled with their constant attempts to undermine the president has made it very clear that they lack even the vaguest sense of patriotism or duty to their country. However since Obama will be re-elected in the fall, they can continue to not do their jobs for four more years.[/quote]
You’re assessment usual is wrong, but at least you’re consistent. The GOP was against most of Obama’s idiotic spending plans from the beginning. In other words long, long before the election. And judging by most of Obama’s idea’s they are in fact doing the right thing. More legislation is not necessarily good. Obama can’t spend his way out of this mess and the GOP recognizes this. One more point, after the GOP took over Congress (contract with America) Bill Clinton was a good enough politician to meet the GOP half way. From that we got some good welfare reform and because of this Clinton was reelected. Obama being a left wing ideologue will not compromise hence nothing is happening.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Obama in large part hasn’t gotten anything done because:
A. He doesn’t know how to reach across party lines and make baby steps towards an end like Clinton and
B. Congress is Obstructionist
Also keep in the mind that countries in Europe promoting austerity are being hit the hardest by the world wide depression. I don’t think America following the same path will lead to a different outcome.
I think we would be a lot worse off with higher unemployment if McCain had been elected, but Obama leaves a lot to be begged for.
I would vote for Romney the governor for president, but not Romney the candidate. They’re like completely different men. Heck in Texas, Romney the governor would be democrat.[/quote]
Keep in mind a leader reflects the wishes of his constituents. If he were Governor of Texas he would obviously be more conservative. Not enough is spoken about this. It’s much easier to paint Romney as a flip flopper that makes political hay. But I have no doubt as President that he would lead center right just as most voters would want. [/quote]
The first part is true to some degree. I’ll give you that. Granted, Romney has made some blatant lies that he never went back to correct even after the fact has been pointed out.
The second part… only time will tell. That’ll become a lot clearer after the debates I think.[/quote]
Blatant lies that he never corrected? Sorry you lost me here.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
Hey ZEB. When I brought up investments I was talking about his blind investment portfolio which obviously wasn’t blind at all. If you have any knowledge about blind investment portfolio’s and Romney’s words, you will see what I’m talking about. If you invest, you know its a scam, Romney called it a scam himself in the past/oldest trick in the book.[/quote]
Why don’t you tell us all about that, every detail as you know it. Then we can all be as informed as you think you are.
You can also tell us all exactly how Mitt Romney dodged the draft? And then you can tell us how Bill Clinton did it. And while you’re at it tell us all about Obama’s past because no one seems to know very much about it. And I think that’s rather odd don’t you?
I am not claiming that the health care in Mass was something that I would prefer. But then I don’t live in that liberal of a state. The people in Mass wanted it and Romney gave it to them. He’s a politician and he was leading a group of more liberal voters. And as I’ve already told you there was no penalty if you didn’t sign up. Obama’s version is far, far worse with fines and jail time if you don’t participate. And as I’ve already told you about 67% of America is against Obamacare. There are other differences as well.
[quote]The deficit inheritance, man that’s just amazing how you feel no blame should be put on G Dubya.
[/quote]
I’m surprised that you would bring this up because the debt has increased more under Obama in 3 1/2 years than during Bush’s 8 years in office.
Obama is a disaster. Him self said that the Bush debt was “unpatriotic.” If that’s the case Obama should be tried for treason!
You mean the war that John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi and top democrats on the armed services committee signed off on? That war?
And why are you bothering to mention Bush? He’s not running for President? Obama is running for President I have not seen one word of defense for his horrible 3 1/2 years in office. Why are you not bragging about how he’s lowered unemployment? It’s higher now than when your favorite punching bag, Bush was in office. Why are you not bragging about he’s lowered the debt? It’s higher now than when Bush was in office. Why are you not bragging about how he’s closed Gitmo as promised? Because he’s not done any of these things. I gave you a nice long list of his broken promises how come no comment on them? Are you proud of his record? Doesn’t sound like it. When someone starts slamming Bush who has been out of office since 08’ I know that they cannot defend Obama. Very transparent!
I thought it odd that you would attack Bush, but sure I’d much rather have him as President than the failure that currently holds down the job. As for Romney, I’ve talked about his resume many times on T Nation, double major at Harvard, business and law advanced degrees (By the way did you figure out how Obama could afford Harvard yet? Or why Harvard has hidden his grades? Let me know when you crack those two). Romney saved the Olympics which was under water, he made a pile of money in business (A good thing for those of us who admire success). And he was a governor. I don’t see a problem in giving him a chance at the White House. He’s well qualified and has vast executive experience. And that’s something lacking in the three worst Presidents of the modern era, LBJ, Jimmy Carter and now Obama, none had executive experience.
Simple, Obama has failed let’s give someone else a chance. If he can’t do it then we can boot him out as well. Why stick with a proven failure?
Why because Obama has made the dollar strong? LOL PULEEEEZE![/quote]
Nice little trick there trying to turn the stock manipulation into a good thing, you play like a politician yourself
You will see I don’t like your source buddy, and I’m quick to see how you like to spin, that’s cool if you need to do such to convince yourself. The chart has manipulated statistics by the way, fails to mention anything that Obama put forth that increased spending and failed to account for the two wars and the prescription drug plan already in place belong to Bush and not Obama. How about this? I’ll sign up for a phone plan that costs a trillion dollars a year for ten years, only I’ll only have the phone for 2 years after which point you get to take it over, and then I can turn around and say that you are responsible for 8 trillion dollars of debt. Right.
You go round and round with the draft stuff, but a coward is a coward. You conveniently don’t make the co-relation in terms of age of past president and what war they could have, or should have participated in, or what sort of ailments they may have had which prevented them from taking part.
But really, enough with the sophistry charade. If people actually buy what you have to say, they deserve the consequences.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Obama’s continued blaming Bush for the state of the economy is an admission of failure on his part. He’s had over three years to fix it and says he can’t do it. It’s time to bring in someone who will do something different.[/quote]
Question, what is your response to Obama saying over and over and over again while he was running 4 years ago that the time it would take to fix the economy would be longer than his 2 possible terms?
Also, is Bush NOT to blame for our economy going to shit while he was in office?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
the top 1% pay 37% of all taxes (those evil rich sure do pay a lot huh?).[/quote]
But shouldn’t they pay a lot? Aren’t they in possession of more than 37% of this countries wealth?[/quote]
You have the typical liberal take on it. They’re in “possession” of wealth so therefore the top 10% should pay 70% of all income taxes? If a good fairy flew down and dropped bags of mony on their heads perhaps you’d have a point. But most of the top 10% worked their asses off to start a business (which helps the economy by creating jobs) and their reward is paying over 60% in Federal state, property (and many other) taxes? How does that reward success? It punishes success and that’s what’s wrong!
One quick example of why a progressive tax system harms the economy.
If you owned a business and you implemented a plan where the top 10 sales people got a lower commission than the bottom 10 sales people what would be their incentive?
Don’t feel too bad though Obama doesn’t get it either - That’s why we need someone who actually functioned in the real world as our next President.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
Hey ZEB. When I brought up investments I was talking about his blind investment portfolio which obviously wasn’t blind at all. If you have any knowledge about blind investment portfolio’s and Romney’s words, you will see what I’m talking about. If you invest, you know its a scam, Romney called it a scam himself in the past/oldest trick in the book.[/quote]
Why don’t you tell us all about that, every detail as you know it. Then we can all be as informed as you think you are.
You can also tell us all exactly how Mitt Romney dodged the draft? And then you can tell us how Bill Clinton did it. And while you’re at it tell us all about Obama’s past because no one seems to know very much about it. And I think that’s rather odd don’t you?
I am not claiming that the health care in Mass was something that I would prefer. But then I don’t live in that liberal of a state. The people in Mass wanted it and Romney gave it to them. He’s a politician and he was leading a group of more liberal voters. And as I’ve already told you there was no penalty if you didn’t sign up. Obama’s version is far, far worse with fines and jail time if you don’t participate. And as I’ve already told you about 67% of America is against Obamacare. There are other differences as well.
[quote]The deficit inheritance, man that’s just amazing how you feel no blame should be put on G Dubya.
[/quote]
I’m surprised that you would bring this up because the debt has increased more under Obama in 3 1/2 years than during Bush’s 8 years in office.
Obama is a disaster. Him self said that the Bush debt was “unpatriotic.” If that’s the case Obama should be tried for treason!
You mean the war that John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi and top democrats on the armed services committee signed off on? That war?
And why are you bothering to mention Bush? He’s not running for President? Obama is running for President I have not seen one word of defense for his horrible 3 1/2 years in office. Why are you not bragging about how he’s lowered unemployment? It’s higher now than when your favorite punching bag, Bush was in office. Why are you not bragging about he’s lowered the debt? It’s higher now than when Bush was in office. Why are you not bragging about how he’s closed Gitmo as promised? Because he’s not done any of these things. I gave you a nice long list of his broken promises how come no comment on them? Are you proud of his record? Doesn’t sound like it. When someone starts slamming Bush who has been out of office since 08’ I know that they cannot defend Obama. Very transparent!
I thought it odd that you would attack Bush, but sure I’d much rather have him as President than the failure that currently holds down the job. As for Romney, I’ve talked about his resume many times on T Nation, double major at Harvard, business and law advanced degrees (By the way did you figure out how Obama could afford Harvard yet? Or why Harvard has hidden his grades? Let me know when you crack those two). Romney saved the Olympics which was under water, he made a pile of money in business (A good thing for those of us who admire success). And he was a governor. I don’t see a problem in giving him a chance at the White House. He’s well qualified and has vast executive experience. And that’s something lacking in the three worst Presidents of the modern era, LBJ, Jimmy Carter and now Obama, none had executive experience.
Simple, Obama has failed let’s give someone else a chance. If he can’t do it then we can boot him out as well. Why stick with a proven failure?
Why because Obama has made the dollar strong? LOL PULEEEEZE![/quote]
Nice little trick there trying to turn the stock manipulation into a good thing, you play like a politician yourself :)[/quote]
You said that he was against that rule but plays it anyway. Isn’t that his repsonibility to follow the rules? How am I trying to trick you?
Y[quote]ou will see I don’t like your source buddy, and I’m quick to see how you like to spin, that’s cool if you need to do such to convince yourself. The chart has manipulated statistics by the way, fails to mention anything that Obama put forth that increased spending and failed to account for the two wars and the prescription drug plan already in place belong to Bush and not Obama. How about this? I’ll sign up for a phone plan that costs a trillion dollars a year for ten years, only I’ll only have the phone for 2 years after which point you get to take it over, and then I can turn around and say that you are responsible for 8 trillion dollars of debt. Right.[/quote]
Why do you think everything is a trick that doesn’t line up with your hero Obama? You can go to any web site you like Obama has raised the debt 5 Trillion in 3 1/2 years which is double what Bush did in 8 years. That is a fact. You don’t like it? Neither do I!
I accurately pointed out that many fine and even great Presidents never served in the military. And that Romney not serving is not a disqualification for the office. Simple.
[quote]But really, enough with the sophistry charade. If people actually buy what you have to say, they deserve the consequences.
[/quote]
That is actually funny coming from a liberal. You are the guys that had tears in your eyes and a chill up your leg when Obama spoke. four years later after your guy made things worse you are trying to blame Bush for Obama’s failure. I’d say that pretty much sums up the miserable four years that Obama has given you.
Where is the hope and change that you fell for?
What happened?
I WANT YOU TO DEFEND OBAMA’S RECORD AND STOP THE CHICANERY!
But…you can’t do it as it is indefensible.
Now post back something about George Bush…(eye roll)
Also, is Bush NOT to blame for our economy going to shit while he was in office?[/quote]
No, you cannot place the blame for our current situation on any one person.
There is a documentary on Starz right now called Inside Job, has a very liberal slant to it, but all in all, not a bad piece. It shows how all this shit started with our government getting in bed with Wall St with Reagan. Bush Sr. towed the line, Clinton pushed it further, W sealed it with a kiss, and Obama, a liar and a snake about the subject, is status quo in his appointments.
So, no, Bush is just as much to blame as any individual that signed a mortgage for a home they couldn’t afford, IMO.
Also, is Bush NOT to blame for our economy going to shit while he was in office?[/quote]
No, you cannot place the blame for our current situation on any one person.
There is a documentary on Starz right now called Inside Job, has a very liberal slant to it, but all in all, not a bad piece. It shows how all this shit started with our government getting in bed with Wall St with Reagan. Bush Sr. towed the line, Clinton pushed it further, W sealed it with a kiss, and Obama, a liar and a snake about the subject, is status quo in his appointments.
So, no, Bush is just as much to blame as any individual that signed a mortgage for a home they couldn’t afford, IMO.[/quote]
So Bush was just the unlucky one who was in office when the downward spiral began then?
Also, is Bush NOT to blame for our economy going to shit while he was in office?[/quote]
No, you cannot place the blame for our current situation on any one person.
There is a documentary on Starz right now called Inside Job, has a very liberal slant to it, but all in all, not a bad piece. It shows how all this shit started with our government getting in bed with Wall St with Reagan. Bush Sr. towed the line, Clinton pushed it further, W sealed it with a kiss, and Obama, a liar and a snake about the subject, is status quo in his appointments.
So, no, Bush is just as much to blame as any individual that signed a mortgage for a home they couldn’t afford, IMO.[/quote]
So Bush was just the unlucky one who was in office when the downward spiral began then?[/quote]
In the most simple of terms? Sure.
Look the problem goes beyond the government and Wall St. There are a lot of “Main St’ers” who are to blame as well. Both parties have their hand in this cookie jar.
We litterally should impeach EVERYONE in washington, and start over. Everyone. Then get rid of lobby and tax campaign contributions over 10k at 50%. (As in, if GE gives 1 million, they pay a 500k tax)
Telling you, watch that documentary. HBO also did a movie Too Big to Fail I believe the name was. Paulson is a fucking self serving cunt, but the movie explains some basics of what happened as well. The movie has a left-ward slant as well though.
Also, is Bush NOT to blame for our economy going to shit while he was in office?[/quote]
No, you cannot place the blame for our current situation on any one person.
There is a documentary on Starz right now called Inside Job, has a very liberal slant to it, but all in all, not a bad piece. It shows how all this shit started with our government getting in bed with Wall St with Reagan. Bush Sr. towed the line, Clinton pushed it further, W sealed it with a kiss, and Obama, a liar and a snake about the subject, is status quo in his appointments.
So, no, Bush is just as much to blame as any individual that signed a mortgage for a home they couldn’t afford, IMO.[/quote]
So Bush was just the unlucky one who was in office when the downward spiral began then?[/quote]
Both parties have their hand in this cookie jar.
The movie has a left-ward slant as well though.
[/quote]
Both of these points are very much the status quo.
Obama takes more in contributions from big business than any other president in history…but it’s always the GOP that is on the take.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
the top 1% pay 37% of all taxes (those evil rich sure do pay a lot huh?).[/quote]
But shouldn’t they pay a lot? Aren’t they in possession of more than 37% of this countries wealth?[/quote]
You have the typical liberal take on it. They’re in “possession” of wealth so therefore the top 10% should pay 70% of all income taxes? If a good fairy flew down and dropped bags of mony on their heads perhaps you’d have a point. But most of the top 10% worked their asses off to start a business (which helps the economy by creating jobs) and their reward is paying over 60% in Federal state, property (and many other) taxes? How does that reward success? It punishes success and that’s what’s wrong!
One quick example of why a progressive tax system harms the economy.
If you owned a business and you implemented a plan where the top 10 sales people got a lower commission than the bottom 10 sales people what would be their incentive?
Don’t feel too bad though Obama doesn’t get it either - That’s why we need someone who actually functioned in the real world as our next President.
[/quote]
I feel like if the top whatever percent has 70% of the income, then they should pay 70% of the taxes. I don’t care if it’s a single person who makes 70%, that guy is rich as fuck and got that way by taking advantage of the way this country is set up. Giving up a specific percentage of his income, like everyone else, is a good way to give back to that country. But since he has more income, his percentage is higher.
I kind of see your point, but I don’t think comparing commission to taxes is a good example. Commission is an income for an individual. Taxes are more complicated because they involve the livelihood of an entire country of people. Taxes (in theory) benefit everyone, including the people who pay them. They improve (again, in theory) the quality of life for the citizens of that country. Wouldn’t that in turn, help business potential for that wealthy business owner? If everyone is broke, except the rich business owner and his few peers, who is going to buy his product?
Also, if the people who have most of the money don’t pay most of the taxes, then who is the burden of getting everything the nation needs payed for going to fall on? I know your answer will be to cut spending, but I feel like you may be underestimating how many cuts would need to happen to make that math add up. Are we sure we’re not just trying to look out for the one group in this country that needs the least looking out for at the cost of hurting the rest of the groups in the country?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
the top 1% pay 37% of all taxes (those evil rich sure do pay a lot huh?).[/quote]
But shouldn’t they pay a lot? Aren’t they in possession of more than 37% of this countries wealth?[/quote]
You have the typical liberal take on it. They’re in “possession” of wealth so therefore the top 10% should pay 70% of all income taxes? If a good fairy flew down and dropped bags of mony on their heads perhaps you’d have a point. But most of the top 10% worked their asses off to start a business (which helps the economy by creating jobs) and their reward is paying over 60% in Federal state, property (and many other) taxes? How does that reward success? It punishes success and that’s what’s wrong!
One quick example of why a progressive tax system harms the economy.
If you owned a business and you implemented a plan where the top 10 sales people got a lower commission than the bottom 10 sales people what would be their incentive?
Don’t feel too bad though Obama doesn’t get it either - That’s why we need someone who actually functioned in the real world as our next President.
[/quote]
I feel like if the top whatever percent has 70% of the income, then they should pay 70% of the taxes. I don’t care if it’s a single person who makes 70%, that guy is rich as fuck and got that way by taking advantage of the way this country is set up. Giving up a specific percentage of his income, like everyone else, is a good way to give back to that country. But since he has more income, his percentage is higher.
[/quote]
Well then there is much less motivation for anybody to start a business.
Why work your ass off your whole life, employee many, many people…just so the government can take most of your shit and give it to people to lazy to work?
Also, is Bush NOT to blame for our economy going to shit while he was in office?[/quote]
No, you cannot place the blame for our current situation on any one person.
There is a documentary on Starz right now called Inside Job, has a very liberal slant to it, but all in all, not a bad piece. It shows how all this shit started with our government getting in bed with Wall St with Reagan. Bush Sr. towed the line, Clinton pushed it further, W sealed it with a kiss, and Obama, a liar and a snake about the subject, is status quo in his appointments.
So, no, Bush is just as much to blame as any individual that signed a mortgage for a home they couldn’t afford, IMO.[/quote]
So Bush was just the unlucky one who was in office when the downward spiral began then?[/quote]
In the most simple of terms? Sure.
Look the problem goes beyond the government and Wall St. There are a lot of “Main St’ers” who are to blame as well. Both parties have their hand in this cookie jar.
We litterally should impeach EVERYONE in washington, and start over. Everyone. Then get rid of lobby and tax campaign contributions over 10k at 50%. (As in, if GE gives 1 million, they pay a 500k tax)
Telling you, watch that documentary. HBO also did a movie Too Big to Fail I believe the name was. Paulson is a fucking self serving cunt, but the movie explains some basics of what happened as well. The movie has a left-ward slant as well though.
[/quote]
Alright, you put me onto the psyllium husks, so I’ll watch those HBO specials. Interesting how I mentioned that twice in one day. Go figure.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
just so the government can take most of your shit and give it [/quote]
I bolded the annoying part.
Look I don’t mind when my tax dollars pave a road so my car lasts longer because I’m not driving in potholes. I don’t have a problem paying teachers, firefighters and police. I don’t have a problem with things like the SEC, when they work.
I do have an issue with unlimited, non-drug tested welfare as a big example.
I don’t mind helping people, or employing people, but supporting people is a bit much.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
the top 1% pay 37% of all taxes (those evil rich sure do pay a lot huh?).[/quote]
But shouldn’t they pay a lot? Aren’t they in possession of more than 37% of this countries wealth?[/quote]
You have the typical liberal take on it. They’re in “possession” of wealth so therefore the top 10% should pay 70% of all income taxes? If a good fairy flew down and dropped bags of mony on their heads perhaps you’d have a point. But most of the top 10% worked their asses off to start a business (which helps the economy by creating jobs) and their reward is paying over 60% in Federal state, property (and many other) taxes? How does that reward success? It punishes success and that’s what’s wrong!
One quick example of why a progressive tax system harms the economy.
If you owned a business and you implemented a plan where the top 10 sales people got a lower commission than the bottom 10 sales people what would be their incentive?
Don’t feel too bad though Obama doesn’t get it either - That’s why we need someone who actually functioned in the real world as our next President.
[/quote]
I feel like if the top whatever percent has 70% of the income, then they should pay 70% of the taxes. I don’t care if it’s a single person who makes 70%, that guy is rich as fuck and got that way by taking advantage of the way this country is set up. Giving up a specific percentage of his income, like everyone else, is a good way to give back to that country. But since he has more income, his percentage is higher.
[/quote]
Well then there is much less motivation for anybody to start a business.
Why work your ass off your whole life, employee many, many people…just so the government can take most of your shit and give it to people to lazy to work?
Jesus man, are you serious?
[/quote]
You’re implying that if you’re not rich, you must be lazy. Which is very far from the truth. There are a lot of hard working people in every demographic. That’s not fair to put poor people in with lazy people just because they don’t make as much money.
And I wasn’t saying that most of anybody’s shit should be taken.
If everyone pays the same percentage of their income, the person who MAKES 70% of the income would pay 70% of the taxes, not get 70% of his income taken out to said taxes. You’re misreading what I’m saying. If everyone pays 10% of their income, the person who makes more than everyone else will pay more, but still only give up 10% of his income like everyone else. 10% is not most of your shit. It’s 10%. I’m just throwing that number out as an example to explain what I’m talking about, I’m not advocating that everyone pay 10% of their income to taxes.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
just so the government can take most of your shit and give it [/quote]
I bolded the annoying part.
Look I don’t mind when my tax dollars pave a road so my car lasts longer because I’m not driving in potholes. I don’t have a problem paying teachers, firefighters and police. I don’t have a problem with things like the SEC, when they work.
I do have an issue with unlimited, non-drug tested welfare as a big example.
I don’t mind helping people, or employing people, but supporting people is a bit much.
[/quote]
I agree with that, that’s what I was trying to explain earlier.
And I agree that welfare should be more regulated, I work for social services and I meet people who are obviously taking advantage of the system. I don’t care for them and wish a system would be put into place to get them off their lazy asses and being productive members of society.
With that being said, there are many many success stories of people who fell on hard times and welfare helped them get back on their feet and productive again like it was designed to do. So to a certain extent, it does work, it just could be implimented better so we don’t have people living off the government. Doing away with it altogether wouldn’t be the best answer.
With that being said, there are many many success stories of people who fell on hard times and welfare helped them get back on their feet and productive again like it was designed to do. So to a certain extent, it does work, it just could be implimented better so we don’t have people living off the government. Doing away with it altogether wouldn’t be the best answer.[/quote]
Nothing wrong with helping people IMO. As long as it is help and not support.
I think you get what I’m saying.
[quote]TDub301 wrote:
Does that not make sense? Am I completely off?[/quote]
A flat tax? People have put forth that idea. Doesn’t tend to get much traction though.
I, for one, don’t like it, as not as many people would pay me as much as they do to file their taxes, lol.
The way I see it, the more people argue about taxes, the more complicated they become, the more job security I have for like 60% of my time and the higher my fees get.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
the top 1% pay 37% of all taxes (those evil rich sure do pay a lot huh?).[/quote]
But shouldn’t they pay a lot? Aren’t they in possession of more than 37% of this countries wealth?[/quote]
You have the typical liberal take on it. They’re in “possession” of wealth so therefore the top 10% should pay 70% of all income taxes? If a good fairy flew down and dropped bags of mony on their heads perhaps you’d have a point. But most of the top 10% worked their asses off to start a business (which helps the economy by creating jobs) and their reward is paying over 60% in Federal state, property (and many other) taxes? How does that reward success? It punishes success and that’s what’s wrong!
One quick example of why a progressive tax system harms the economy.
If you owned a business and you implemented a plan where the top 10 sales people got a lower commission than the bottom 10 sales people what would be their incentive?
Don’t feel too bad though Obama doesn’t get it either - That’s why we need someone who actually functioned in the real world as our next President.
[/quote]
I feel like if the top whatever percent has 70% of the income, then they should pay 70% of the taxes.[/quote]
Who said they have 70% of the income? I said they pay 70% of all income taxes.
There you go again. What “guy” has 70% of the income? Let me explain this so that you’ll understand, a person who makes 150-k per year should not have to pay around 60% (Fedral, state, property tax etc.) in taxes. And he along with the other top 10% of income earners pays 70% of all taxes paid. Now do you understand what I just wrote?
Yes indeed and I’ve heard that “fuck” is quite wealthy!
Yes, that evil rich guy took advantage of the country to the point where he started a business and hired 10 or 12 people who now have jobs. I think we should over tax him and teach him a good lesson for doing such a horrible, horrible deed. How dare he?
Really, like everyone else? What you don’t seem to realize (among many other things) is that the bottom 48% of income earners pay…ready for this? They pay…NOTHING!! Fair? Not hardly!
That is what is inherently unfair.
Nice straw man argument. The fact is everyone is not “broke” and the commission example is a good one as it shows the unfairness of our current tax system and how it discourages people from taking risks. If we had a better system we would have more business opening and more people working. 67% of all people work for small business does Obama encourage or discourage business in this country? I think we all know the answer to that. He’s proven time and again that he hates anyone who has actually succeeded. He wants a European style democracy for the US and given a second term with no electorate to answer to that’s what he’ll strive for.
Heaven’s not don’t do anything for the single most important group of people in the US. Without them there would be no defense budget, no social programs and basically no country. But if we can urge more people to start a small business then we will have more people employed and a larger tax base.
As for the rich paying more than their fair share it needs to end. The topo 10% should NOT shoulder 70% of all income taxes. And the bottom 48% should be paying something.
