|
|
Post by goGopherBill on Jun 5, 2009 10:52:38 GMT -5
What an energy policy OBAMA has
OIL HAS DOUBLED IN THE LAST $ 4 MONTHS.
Gas will soar although unemployment is at a 25 year high at 9.4%
This is stimulus?
Prices will have to go up or wages go down..
or both..
The Carter years are baaaaaack..
Kids under 40 will now discover what DEMOCRATS are all about.
RAISING Taxes.., although they don't pay.
Taxing the sins..smoking..gas..booze...air...more rich people if they can find any more.
Every promise they made during the election cycle is toast.
NO New taxes...
TAX only those making 150,000 per year.
create all those new jobs..
apply at GM..
|
|
|
|
Post by soothsayer on Jun 5, 2009 11:01:12 GMT -5
It's coming, Bill:
Repeal of Reagan and Bush tax cuts for the wealthy
Restructuring of the Estate Tax
Return of a truly PROGRESSIVE income tax
Tax on wealth, rather than just a tax on labor
I'm going to enjoy watching you implode. That's my name, after all.
|
|
|
|
Post by hammer on Jun 5, 2009 12:51:37 GMT -5
It's coming, Bill: Repeal of Reagan and Bush tax cuts for the wealthy Restructuring of the Estate Tax Return of a truly PROGRESSIVE income tax Tax on wealth, rather than just a tax on labor I'm going to enjoy watching you implode. That's my name, after all. It is already happening to some degree in States like New York, California, and Maryland. Maryland, for example, imposed a surcharge on all 2008 millionaires raising the top marginal income-tax rate to 6.25% versus (I think) 4.25%. The Maryland legislature had predicted an increase of $106M in revenue from its millionaires. What they got was approx. $100M less in revenue, or a net loss of $206M from their prediction. Of course, there were less millionaires in Maryland due to the economy, but what also happened is that some of those millionaires moved out of state where taxes are lower. I have a feeling that before Bill implodes, he'll move somewhere else, even out of the country (he loves) if necessary. |
|
|
|
Post by TheSantaBarbarian on Jun 5, 2009 21:42:23 GMT -5
"I have a feeling that before Bill implodes, he'll move somewhere else, even out of the country (he loves) if necessary. "
Promises, promices...
|
|
|
|
Post by lonewolf on Jun 6, 2009 0:54:48 GMT -5
Yeah...Booo Democrats...if they can't fix the world in under 200 days they are all evil..what were we thinking. If they were really smart they would start a war somewhere so that would be the headlines instead of what was happening here....hmmm, I wonder if that's been done before.
|
|
|
|
Post by bunnywailer on Jun 6, 2009 10:22:24 GMT -5
It's coming, Bill: Repeal of Reagan and Bush tax cuts for the wealthy Restructuring of the Estate Tax Return of a truly PROGRESSIVE income tax Tax on wealth, rather than just a tax on labor I'm going to enjoy watching you implode. That's my name, after all. Waaah....waaaah....waaaah..... Before 9/11, the biggest issue of Bush's Presidency was his attempt to convince the country that the flat tax was the way to go. That woulda benefitted all of you middle-class whiney schmucks and hit the wealthy alot harder than Obama's PROGRESSIVE tax structure. And what happened? EVERYBODY from both parties in Congress shot it down. GWB tried to help you, and the politicians that you elected to represent you blocked it. Yet you blame GWB for everything bad with the economy, and you put all your eggs in everything Obama is gonna do to rescue you. Boy, I knew you were all dumb but I didn't think you were that stupid. |
|
|
|
Post by bunnywailer on Jun 6, 2009 10:23:20 GMT -5
I agree with Bill. Welcome to Jimmy Carter and 1979, Version 2. I hope you are all prepared for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by soothsayer on Jun 6, 2009 11:26:15 GMT -5
I agree with Bill. Welcome to Jimmy Carter and 1979, Version 2. I hope you are all prepared for it. Seeing as how the worst president ever (until W) immediately followed Carter, 1979 won't be so bad. It's coming, Bill: Repeal of Reagan and Bush tax cuts for the wealthy Restructuring of the Estate Tax Return of a truly PROGRESSIVE income tax Tax on wealth, rather than just a tax on labor I'm going to enjoy watching you implode. That's my name, after all. Waaah....waaaah....waaaah..... Before 9/11, the biggest issue of Bush's Presidency was his attempt to convince the country that the flat tax was the way to go. That woulda benefitted all of you middle-class whiney schmucks and hit the wealthy alot harder than Obama's PROGRESSIVE tax structure. The flat tax? You mean the tax that places the burden squarely on low- to middle-income workers and results in a massive tax BREAK for the wealthy (assuming they were paying their taxes in the first place? That one? How the HECK would a flat tax hit the wealthy? Obama doesn't have a progressive tax structure. So far, we still have W's. But we can hope. Tax income progressively. Tax corporations (including the ones hiding their profits offshore). Tax wealth. It's not a spending problem. It's a revenue problem. I don't blame GWB for everything. Reagan started it. Clinton did NOTHING to improve it (free trade, my ass!). Bush II made it even worse. I also don't know if Obama's "gonna" rescue us. We can hope. Hey, don't call everybody dumb just because you think I am. That's what we call a hasty generalization. Besides, take a look at your quote at the very top here. Now, who's stupid, stupid? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2009 13:54:46 GMT -5
What the crap? There's no way Reagan was a horrible president--asserting that is no less partisan than the people who claim Obama is destroying this country and the economic mess is his fault.
Blaming presidents 20 years or more past for current problems is silly. Reagan caused none of this. He brought the end of the Cold War, he didn't increase government size, he returned spending to the states.
Blame belongs with the presidents of the Vietnam generation--Clinton and Bush. We've had 16 years of irresponsibility. The US will be paying for the greed and self-indulgence of the Vietnam generation for a century. Put the blame where it belongs, not on Reagan.
|
|
|
|
Post by soothsayer on Jun 6, 2009 14:18:33 GMT -5
Hell, yes, the blame starts with Mr. "The Government is not the solution, it's the problem". He gutted regulation, rolled back taxes on the wealthy and corporations. He blamed the poor for all the country's economic woes, when he wasn't blaming the government.
There is no man *more* responsible for the mess we are in than RWR.
|
|
|
|
Post by soothsayer on Jun 6, 2009 14:24:53 GMT -5
Here's Reagan in a nutshell: He's the one who started taxing unemployment benefits.
Yep, that makes lots of sense.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2009 0:02:19 GMT -5
Absolutely government regulation should have been rolled back. Absolutely taxes on the wealthy should have been rolled back--along with taxes on the middle class and everyone else. Money is a drug to government--give it more and it consumes more.
Less government is almost ALWAYS better for people than a larger government.
I can't always translate what GopherBill writes (so I could be wrong with this...) but his assertion that people are far too willing to be sheep and give control of things to the government is dead on.
Government NEVER gives back power. Frankly, the government shouldn't provide unemployment or social security--that's YOUR responsibility to worry about, at least it should be. Those programs were meant as temporary safety nets and now--they are entitlements constantly expanding.
So if you want to blame Reagan--fine. But then don't complain about anything when your taxes go up and your rights go away. You won't--because you won't notice. Few will.
|
|
|
|
Post by bunnywailer on Jun 7, 2009 2:12:12 GMT -5
I agree with Bill. Welcome to Jimmy Carter and 1979, Version 2. I hope you are all prepared for it. Seeing as how the worst president ever (until W) immediately followed Carter, 1979 won't be so bad. The flat tax? You mean the tax that places the burden squarely on low- to middle-income workers and results in a massive tax BREAK for the wealthy (assuming they were paying their taxes in the first place? That one? How the HECK would a flat tax hit the wealthy? Obama doesn't have a progressive tax structure. So far, we still have W's. But we can hope. Tax income progressively. Tax corporations (including the ones hiding their profits offshore). Tax wealth. It's not a spending problem. It's a revenue problem. I don't blame GWB for everything. Reagan started it. Clinton did NOTHING to improve it (free trade, my ass!). Bush II made it even worse. I also don't know if Obama's "gonna" rescue us. We can hope. Hey, don't call everybody dumb just because you think I am. That's what we call a hasty generalization. Besides, take a look at your quote at the very top here. Now, who's stupid, stupid? Yup, typical doofus right here. Let's see. Flat tax. Your tax form would be a 3x5 index card that has 3 lines on it: Line 1 - Enter how much income you made last year Line 2 - multiply by <flat tax rate> Line 3 - This is what you owe How hard is that for your dumbass to figure out? Oh...let's complicate things because you want the poor, starving low income people to pay NO TAXES and you want the fat, wealthy, snobbish rich people to pay DOUBLE TAXES. See, people like you who like to complicate things are why the tax code is one gazillion pages long and changes every year. Taxes are everyone's burden. The savings in administrative costs and bureaucracy alone would be enough to lower EVERYONE's overall tax rate from what it is presently. But nooooo....because you have such a tax hardon for the wealthy, you want EVERYONE to pay more overall taxes and derive LESS benefit from the revenue collected due to adminstrative costs. Yes, you are truly stupid. |
|
|
|
Post by soothsayer on Jun 7, 2009 10:48:02 GMT -5
Absolutely government regulation should have been rolled back. Absolutely taxes on the wealthy should have been rolled back--along with taxes on the middle class and everyone else. Money is a drug to government--give it more and it consumes more. Less government is almost ALWAYS better for people than a larger government. I can't always translate what GopherBill writes (so I could be wrong with this...) but his assertion that people are far too willing to be sheep and give control of things to the government is dead on. Government NEVER gives back power. Frankly, the government shouldn't provide unemployment or social security--that's YOUR responsibility to worry about, at least it should be. Those programs were meant as temporary safety nets and now--they are entitlements constantly expanding. So if you want to blame Reagan--fine. But then don't complain about anything when your taxes go up and your rights go away. You won't--because you won't notice. Few will. I understand your position and I strongly disagree with it. It's the position -- Reagan's -- that got us where we are today. You think Corporate America will take care of us? Do what's right? You think the wealthy will? Trickle down, right? You say unemployment and social security are my responsibility. Fine. But if they are my responsibility, then I want Corporate America to live up to theirs -- pay people living wages and don't send their workers off into unemployment at the drop of a hat. They have not lived up to their end of the deal, especially considering all the concessions given to them by Reagan and his ilk. Reagan got everybody so fired up against government that they can't see the forest for the trees. Wages plummet. Taxes go up on the lower- and middle-income. Meanwhile the top 1% live the high life, with their taxes cut year after year. Corporate America is given more and more ways to avoid paying taxes, all the while they are allowed to ship more and more shops out of the US. Guess what? The geniuses are now finding out that the Economy doesn't function if there's no one out there to buy the crap Corporate America produces. As for my taxes going up and my rights going away -- what the heck do you think's been happening for the previous two decades?? |
|
|
|
Post by soothsayer on Jun 7, 2009 10:58:26 GMT -5
Seeing as how the worst president ever (until W) immediately followed Carter, 1979 won't be so bad. The flat tax? You mean the tax that places the burden squarely on low- to middle-income workers and results in a massive tax BREAK for the wealthy (assuming they were paying their taxes in the first place? That one? How the HECK would a flat tax hit the wealthy? Obama doesn't have a progressive tax structure. So far, we still have W's. But we can hope. Tax income progressively. Tax corporations (including the ones hiding their profits offshore). Tax wealth. It's not a spending problem. It's a revenue problem. I don't blame GWB for everything. Reagan started it. Clinton did NOTHING to improve it (free trade, my ass!). Bush II made it even worse. I also don't know if Obama's "gonna" rescue us. We can hope. Hey, don't call everybody dumb just because you think I am. That's what we call a hasty generalization. Besides, take a look at your quote at the very top here. Now, who's stupid, stupid? Yup, typical doofus right here. Let's see. Flat tax. Your tax form would be a 3x5 index card that has 3 lines on it: Line 1 - Enter how much income you made last year Line 2 - multiply by <flat tax rate> Line 3 - This is what you owe Great. So if you're multi-billions were previously taxed (in theory) at 38%, they are now taxed at 20%. Yep, that works. The tax code is a gadzillion pages long because elected officials, in the pocket of the wealthy, are constantly coming up with loopholes to get around them paying their share. It has nothing to do with benefitting the poor. No one gives a rat's ass about the poor, that much is obvious. Hell, they don't even care about the middle class. The whole point of the progressive income tax is for those who can afford it to pay more. It's the only system that works. What do they get in return? Not much, just an entire political system working to safeguard their property and wealth. Nope. I want a progressive income tax and a tax on wealth, rather than a tax on consumption and labor. The flat tax is a joke. Here's what Reagan's own Treasury Dept said about it: "Any [flat tax plan] would involve a significant redistribution of tax liability" away from the wealthy and onto average taxpayers. An analysis "shows that the typical family would pay close to $2,000 a year in additional taxes" under the proposal, while "very rich people would get tax cuts averaging more than $50,000 each." [Robert McIntyre, congressional testimony] Whatever. |
|
