Backspin

POSTED BY: AnthonyT
UPDATED: Friday, August 29, 2008 16:47
VIEWED: 4827
PAGE 1 of 1

ANTHONYT

Thursday, August 28, 2008 4:15 PM

Hello,

I was reading some guy on CNN called Beck, who seems to have a definite agenda. However, he occasionally points out something revealing.

Like this:

Quote:

Joe Biden: "Even today, as oil companies post the biggest profits in history ... John wants to give them another $4 billion in tax breaks."

Here is the justification behind this talking point:

1.) John McCain wants to cut corporate income taxes for all companies.

2.) Oil companies are companies.

That's it.

Democrats believe that you think oil companies are mean, so they single them out, hoping you think McCain has cut a special deal just for them. He hasn't.

I guess it's really hard to drum up anger against your opponent when you say, "John McCain wants to cut taxes for companies that make delicious ice cream sundaes, feed the puppies of toddlers and fix veterans' wheelchairs," but that's just as truthful as what Biden said.

I've often heard about Mccain wanting to give tax breaks to 'oil companies' but that does indeed seem a very different stance than wanting to cut taxes for all companies.

Another reminder that everyone has their spin.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

JONGSSTRAW

Thursday, August 28, 2008 4:34 PM

It's hard to tell what McCain's position on oil is from day to day. I do think that Oil Companies DO NOT need any more "BREAKS" of any kind. The quarterly profits they are making are so disgustingly obscene that one cannot wonder why they can't give something back to their customers....ya know...some sort of patriotic gesture for once in their greedy lives. $40 Billion -vs- $20 Billion...what's the difference to them? Most corporations in America would be PROUD to make ONE DOLLAR profit these days.

ANTHONYT

Thursday, August 28, 2008 5:01 PM

Hello,

I guess it really is impossible to point out the spin once it's been implemented.

"Look, that statement about oil company tax breaks is misleading."

"Yeah... but Mccain's plan to give oil companies tax breaks is wrong."

What's funny is, in the same article that blasts spin, Beck uses it himself.

The headline? "Don't believe all that Dems say."

As if, you know, the Dems had invented truthiness.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

KWICKO

Thursday, August 28, 2008 5:07 PM

How about we don't give ANY breaks to any company that we don't give to ALL companies? How about we do the same with people, to?

I get sick and damned tired of the big-box conglomerates demanding - and getting - special treatment to put their stores in. And don't tell me that Wal-Mart creates jobs in small towns - it CONCENTRATES jobs, and low-paying ones at that, while driving small businesses out of business and costing people those jobs.

Not everything Wal-Mart does is evil, but not everything they do is beneficial, either.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

HERO

Thursday, August 28, 2008 5:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
feed the puppies of toddlers

Why does McCain want to feed puppies to toddlers?

He's a war hero so he probably has a good reason...

H

ERIC

Thursday, August 28, 2008 5:52 PM

Two thirds of companies paid no income tax whatsoever over the last ten years. I don't give a flying fuck about them. Obama will cut taxes for 95% of households.

RIGHTEOUS9

Thursday, August 28, 2008 6:12 PM

Yeah, the funny thing about that is to my mind, his broader stance on these tax breaks is worse than them singling out the oil companies...

it makes perfect sense that they focused on the oil companies though, because the American people FEEL that one, they haven't entirely caught up to what all the others mean.

No lie here, the full truth is even worse...so where's the problem?

who do you think the oil companies are backing in this election?

CHRISISALL

Thursday, August 28, 2008 6:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:

who do you think the oil companies are backing in this election?

isall

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, August 28, 2008 6:18 PM

Why are we all talk on this?

Dammit, give me something to believe in and lets stand and fight!

Im so sick of all the stupid talk about how things SHOULD be!

Lets make them!

(Sorry, I tend to get frustrated easy)

KWICKO

Thursday, August 28, 2008 6:22 PM

Quote:

Why does McCain want to feed puppies to toddlers?

Probably something he picked up in his POW days. But we'll never know, because he won't ever talk about that time of his life.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, August 28, 2008 6:26 PM

Would you talk about the worst time of your life?

I'd rather stand with someone who faced evil, than a "poor little rich boy" from Hawaii.

DEADLOCKVICTIM

Thursday, August 28, 2008 6:29 PM

...ok so follow the money.

During the primaries, John McCain had no fewer than 11 former or current lobbyist working in some capacity on his campaign staff.

Quote:
A Huffington Post examination of the campaigns of the top three presidential candidates in each party shows that lobbyists are playing key roles in both Democratic and Republican bids --although they are far more prevalent on the GOP side. But, all the campaigns pale in comparison to McCain's, whose rhetoric stands in sharp contrast to his conduct.

on the other hand...

Quote:
Of the leading Democratic candidates, Barack Obama is the least entangled with K Street. His campaign has no lobbyists on the payroll or serving as key advisers.

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/06/mccain_the_mav
erick_and_all_th.html

i think it's pretty plain to see which candidate will be shelling out the cash to big business

CITIZEN

Thursday, August 28, 2008 7:20 PM

Yep, that's what the Debt riddled American government needs right now, more tax breaks...

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Thursday, August 28, 2008 8:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Yep, that's what the Debt riddled American government needs right now, more tax breaks...

That's just like those crazies out there that actually think burning trees will help prevent forest fires. Bunch of nutter's if you ask me.

CITIZEN

Thursday, August 28, 2008 8:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
That's just like those crazies out there that actually think burning trees will help prevent forest fires. Bunch of nutter's if you ask me.

Not really. Lowering taxes, lowers Government income. Even if Regans Voodoo economics ideas were correct, the gain in increased production wouldn't come quick enough. Nice try though.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

KIRKULES

Thursday, August 28, 2008 9:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Eric:
Two thirds of companies paid no income tax whatsoever over the last ten years. I don't give a flying fuck about them. Obama will cut taxes for 95% of households.

Is this meant as a joke, it sure reads like one. If you're serious you really need to take an economics class. Obama isn't going to be able to cut any-one's taxes with the spending he proposes. It's just another campaign slogan he never intends to implement. The funniest thing is that Obama and you seem to believe 95% of Americans pay taxes in the first place, when in reality 5% actually pay the vast majority of all taxes. Obama just wants to give out welfare payments and call them tax cuts.

KWICKO

Thursday, August 28, 2008 9:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Would you talk about the worst time of your life?

I'd rather stand with someone who faced evil, than a "poor little rich boy" from Hawaii.

Went right over your head, didn't it, Wulfie? His POW days are the only thing McCane ever seems to want to talk about!

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

KWICKO

Thursday, August 28, 2008 9:14 PM

Quote:
The funniest thing is that Obama and you seem to believe 95% of Americans pay taxes in the first place, when in reality 5% actually pay the vast majority of all taxes.

No, the FUNNIEST thing is that you actually believe the shit you're shoveling. Time and again I hear all about the fifty percent of Americans who pay NO taxes. I gotta tell ya, I only made aroun $52k last year, and I sure as hell paid taxes. Last time I checked, you had to have an income of around $7,000 per year to pay ZERO income taxes. Are you saying that most of us make less than that? Holy shit! What have you assholes done to this country?!

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, August 28, 2008 9:17 PM

Ehhh, Im trapped in the North. The "news" only talks about 'Bama. I hardly hear anything about McCain.

Its almost like they are trying to influence the election or something....you know, not giving equal time to both candidates....sort of like propaganda...but I digress. Im sure its all in my head....(being sarcastic here)

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, August 28, 2008 9:20 PM

Hey, but if you were illegal and NOT paying taxes you could make 10-15 bucks an hour and that would amount to what you make now, Kwicky..

Id love to be able to afford a McMansion and all Id have to do is mow the lawn for it...

KIRKULES

Thursday, August 28, 2008 9:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
The funniest thing is that Obama and you seem to believe 95% of Americans pay taxes in the first place, when in reality 5% actually pay the vast majority of all taxes.

No, the FUNNIEST thing is that you actually believe the shit you're shoveling. Time and again I hear all about the fifty percent of Americans who pay NO taxes. I gotta tell ya, I only made aroun $52k last year, and I sure as hell paid taxes. Last time I checked, you had to have an income of around $7,000 per year to pay ZERO income taxes. Are you saying that most of us make less than that? Holy shit! What have you assholes done to this country?!

Mike

Hey Kwicko, why don't you do an little research into tax rates and then go fuck yourself.

CHRISISALL

Thursday, August 28, 2008 9:29 PM

BEHAAAAVE YOURSELVES!!!

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, August 28, 2008 9:29 PM

*SLAP*

I get hit for damn near 37% of every fucking penny as an independant contractor AND I have to cover fuel and fluids, you know, motor oil, dexron III and wiper fluid don't grow on trees neither...

Health insurance ? HA, can't afford it, and only pure dumb luck that I know a doctor who needs a skilled mechanic to keep his hobby toys running.

AND I still have to struggle to put food on the table, so don't nobody... NOBODY in this fuckin thread dare EVER try to shovel that shit you just did Kirk.

The poor get hit HARD from taxes, especially since holding two and three jobs actually *increases* the bite when you tally it up cause it eliminates the single-job exclusions.

Don't EVER try to shovel that fucking whine about the bloody rich paying the way of the slacker poor, most rich folk pay NO taxes, and nor do most corporations - and so who has to shovel, and shovel, and shovel their income into the flaming hole ?

Poor working stiffs like me, under threat of force/incarceration, in order to support the agendas of people who rarely ever have to pay the fucking bill.

You wanna talk about reality, how bout the reality of MY paycheck after the taxman takes that goddamn ginornimous bite out of it, ehe ?

Compared to the little nibble on capital gains for having the blessed luck to be born rich in the first fucking place, you better PRAY those ignorant Morlocks don't ever figure out the shell game hidden under that patina of lies, or else get ready to be Krokus Fans.

"Eat the rich, yeah eat the rich.
Don't you know, that life is a bitch.
Eat the rich, yeah eat the rich.
Out of the palace, and into the ditch!"

-Frem
EDIT: Heh, looks like a buncha crossposts by folk who didn't buy that shit anymore than I did.

I find that... comforting.

WHOZIT

Thursday, August 28, 2008 9:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by deadlockvictim:

...ok so follow the money.

During the primaries, John McCain had no fewer than 11 former or current lobbyist working in some capacity on his campaign staff.

Quote:
A Huffington Post examination of the campaigns of the top three presidential candidates in each party shows that lobbyists are playing key roles in both Democratic and Republican bids --although they are far more prevalent on the GOP side. But, all the campaigns pale in comparison to McCain's, whose rhetoric stands in sharp contrast to his conduct.

on the other hand...
Quote:
Of the leading Democratic candidates, Barack Obama is the least entangled with K Street. His campaign has no lobbyists on the payroll or serving as key advisers.

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/06/mccain_the_mav
erick_and_all_th.html

i think it's pretty plain to see which candidate will be shelling out the cash to big business

Why was the reporter for ABC news arested?

ERIC

Thursday, August 28, 2008 9:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
Obama isn't going to be able to cut any-one's taxes with the spending he proposes.

Sure he is, by raising taxes on the rich. That's a good thing.

Quote:
It's just another campaign slogan he never intends to implement.

You mean like "Mission Accomplished" and "I know how to win wars?"

Quote:
The funniest thing is that Obama and you seem to believe 95% of Americans pay taxes in the first place,

Maybe he means 95% of taxpaying households. Either way is good.

Quote:
when in reality 5% actually pay the vast majority of all taxes.

As it should be.

Quote:
Obama just wants to give out welfare payments and call them tax cuts.

Sounds like he wants to give tax cuts and call them tax cuts.

Edit: Here's a graphical comparison of the tax plans:

http://elspitler.angelfire.com

Interestingly, someone in my position can expect a similar tax cut- about $500 to $1000 - under either plan. So 'Big Daddy Government' isn't taking your money and giving it to me any more than usual.

KIRKULES

Thursday, August 28, 2008 9:36 PM

I would attempt to educate Eric and Kwicko but we've been through this before in a previous thread http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=33384 . Many like to delude themselves into believing they pay taxes because they see with-holdings from their check each week. In reality they get all the federal taxes back at tax time plus an earned income tax credit in many cases.

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, August 28, 2008 9:47 PM

*DOUBLE SLAP*

Tell it to the $197.93 BILL from the fucking IRS last year, dimwit.

-F

CHRISISALL

Thursday, August 28, 2008 9:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
Many like to delude themselves into believing they pay taxes because they see with-holdings from their check each week. In reality they get all the federal taxes back at tax time plus an earned income tax credit in many cases.

While I agree that the tax bite is not as big for some as they think it is, this idea that we ALL get it ALL back is pure bantha fodder.

EDIT to add: You, uh, ARE talking about present day America, right? Not Sweden, or Oz or something- right?

Bantha-herderisall

KIRKULES

Thursday, August 28, 2008 9:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
*SLAP*

AND I still have to struggle to put food on the table, so don't nobody... NOBODY in this fuckin thread dare EVER try to shovel that shit you just did Kirk.

The poor get hit HARD from taxes, especially since holding two and three jobs actually *increases* the bite when you tally it up cause it eliminates the single-job exclusions.

Don't EVER try to shovel that fucking whine about the bloody rich paying the way of the slacker poor, most rich folk pay NO taxes, and nor do most corporations - and so who has to shovel, and shovel, and shovel their income into the flaming hole ?

If you want to talk about how tough it is to make a good living today that's a totally different subject. I've been a low paid blue collar worker my entire life so I think I know a little about working pay check to pay check. If things are any tougher today than they were at any time in my lifetime I sure don't see it. Tax rates on all Americans are about as low as they've been in our lifetimes. If your want to argue for some socialist utopia then do it honestly but don't fucking tell me how high you're taxed, because that's just bullshit.
Just be honest like the others and admit you want big daddy government to take money from others and give it to you.

RIGHTEOUS9

Thursday, August 28, 2008 10:21 PM

I'm not sure why we should ever be giving big corporations tax breaks -

this "starting at the top and letting everything trickle down" shit has consistantly not worked.

What is undenyable though is that money always evaporates upwards. Let people at the bottom of the food chain keep more of their money and it will always make its way back up to the top.

The rich can't lose anyway.... unless this slight redistribution at the bottom and at the middle allows entrepreneurs to challenge the status quo companies, forcing them to eiher build better products, offer better services or get out of the way, which is also a win for all of us.

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Thursday, August 28, 2008 10:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
I'm not sure why we should ever be giving big corporations tax breaks -
this "starting at the top and letting everything trickle down" shit has consistantly not worked.

We can all probably agree that out-sourcing is not good for the average working American. So why do corporations out-source? and what could we possibly do to ensure this does not continue to happen?

CHRISISALL

Thursday, August 28, 2008 10:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:

I've been a low paid blue collar worker my entire life
If your want to argue for some socialist utopia then do it
admit you want big daddy government to take money from others and give it to you.

News flash for ya sonny, America is a Socialist
Democracy. See, we have Social Security, college grants, child care credits, Senior Citizen discounts, Family Values......etc.

Chrisisall

KWICKO

Thursday, August 28, 2008 10:54 PM

Quote:
Many like to delude themselves into believing they pay taxes because they see with-holdings from their check each week. In reality they get all the federal taxes back at tax time plus an earned income tax credit in many cases.

Oh, please, please educate me! Let's see, out of the $52k I made last year, about $5k went to federal income tax. After I totalled up the deductions and exemptions, I came out with a tax refund of... Oh, wait - I didn't get a refund. I had to scratch a check for $484.00 to the IRS.

So yeah, I guess I don't pay a single penny in taxes!

So how's about you go fuck yourself, eh?

You maintain that 95% of households in America pay NOTHING in taxes, and that even if they had some withheld from their pay, they'd get it all back and more, at the expense of the richest 5%. I called bullshit on it. I'm sure as hell not in that top 5%, and I'm not in the bottom 5% either, but I'm definitely paying taxes.

And you seem to think I have a problem with that, which is where you're dead wrong. I don't mind paying for schools for kids I don't have; I don't mind paying for fire departments for fires I hope I'll never have; I don't mind paying for wars I won't fight in. What I *DO* mind is these idiotic fucknuts like you who seem to think we can have all the benefits of modern society without anyone having to pay for them.

You don't want anyone to pay unfair taxes? Fine - support a flat sales tax on ALL GOODS, with zero exemptions or loopholes. A church buys a stack of bibles - that's taxable. A corporation buys a Congressman - that's taxable, too. You won't be taxes when you make money, but you will be taxed on every single penny you spend.

Sound fair to everyone?

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Thursday, August 28, 2008 10:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
If you want to talk about how tough it is to make a good living today that's a totally different subject. I've been a low paid blue collar worker my entire life so I think I know a little about working pay check to pay check. If things are any tougher today than they were at any time in my lifetime I sure don't see it. Tax rates on all Americans are about as low as they've been in our lifetimes. If your want to argue for some socialist utopia then do it honestly but don't fucking tell me how high you're taxed are because that's just bullshit.
Just be honest like the others and admit you want big daddy government to take money from others and give it to you.

That’s exactly what Frem wants. He’s one of the hardest Left-leaning Leftists on this board, but he won’t admit it.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

KWICKO

Thursday, August 28, 2008 11:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
We can all probably agree that out-sourcing is not good for the average working American. So why do corporations out-source? and what could we possibly do to ensure this does not continue to happen?

Well, it can start with buying more American-made goods, buying less cheap Chinese crap, and working to bring about legislation that will STOP giving "American" companies tax breaks to send American jobs overseas. If you absolutely must have big breaks for companies, give them a bit of a break for KEEPING American workers working, and working for a livable wage and benefits.

I used to be in the manufacturing end of things, but I saw which way the wind was blowing when the government decided to "reclassify" jobs like working at McDonald's and start calling those "manufacturing" jobs, so they could say that the U.S. added manufacturing jobs in a couple quarters. I knew it was a desperation maneuver, and it wouldn't last, and that we were covering up the fact that we were shipping our manufacturing jobs out of this country at an alarming rate.

So I bailed out of manufacturing, and got into logistics. Easier work, too, as it turns out. Even if we don't MAKE things here anymore, we still have to STORE things here, and get them where they need to be on time.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, August 28, 2008 11:16 PM

Again.....Id love to make 15 an hour mowing the lawn and not have to pay taxes....

so DAMN BITTER!

KIRKULES

Thursday, August 28, 2008 11:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:

I'm not sure why we should ever be giving big corporations tax breaks -

I get confused when people talk about "big corporations" as if they're a living entity. Where do you think the profits of big corporations go to. They go to stockholders in the form of dividends and capital gains, employees in the form of wages and benefits and the government as taxes. You make it sound like some dude named Big Corporation is sitting on a pile of gold somewhere that's rightfully yours.
The reason the government gives tax breaks to companies is to influence where they invest their capital. If the Gov. wants a cure for Aids they give tax breaks for Aids research, if the Gov. wants higher food prices they pay farmers not to plant. It's a way to nudge a company or industrial sector with minimal interference with the free market. I personally think the Gov. just screws things up when they interfere with the free market, but occasionally they do get it right as with independent research grants. A perfect example of how the Gov. messes things up by interfering with the free market is corn ethanol. The lobbyists for the farmers gave us corn ethanol when the Gov. should have been funding solar, wind, nuclear and clean coal research. The thing is, these energy technologies still won't be adopted by the free market until they become financially feasible and that's the way it should be.

CHRISISALL

Thursday, August 28, 2008 11:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

You don't want anyone to pay unfair taxes? Fine - support a flat sales tax on ALL GOODS, with zero exemptions or loopholes.

Frakin' A, Mike.

But rich peeps would be paying more then...
*Chrisisall's Magic 8-Ball says:
Outlook not so good

Chrisisall

ANTHONYT

Thursday, August 28, 2008 11:41 PM

Hey,

Y'all remember that this was a rant against spin, right? Not taxes? Or big corporations?

I'm complaining that people tailor the truth to custom fit their arguments.

I'm wishing that the truth wasn't an article of clothing to be trimmed and cropped by your local seamstress.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

KIRKULES

Thursday, August 28, 2008 11:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

You don't want anyone to pay unfair taxes? Fine - support a flat sales tax on ALL GOODS, with zero exemptions or loopholes.
Frakin' A, Mike.

But rich peeps would be paying more then...
*Chrisisall's Magic 8-Ball says:
Outlook not so good

Chrisisall

There's a flat tax proposal called the "Fair Tax" that I could support. I believe it exempts the first 30k of income. The problem with a flat tax is that the rich use a smaller percentage of their total income as desposable income than the poor and middle class.

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Thursday, August 28, 2008 11:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
Quote:
Originally posted by Eric:
Two thirds of companies paid no income tax whatsoever over the last ten years. I don't give a flying fuck about them. Obama will cut taxes for 95% of households.

Is this meant as a joke, it sure reads like one. If you're serious you really need to take an economics class. Obama isn't going to be able to cut any-one's taxes with the spending he proposes. It's just another campaign slogan he never intends to implement. The funniest thing is that Obama and you seem to believe 95% of Americans pay taxes in the first place, when in reality 5% actually pay the vast majority of all taxes. Obama just wants to give out welfare payments and call them tax cuts.

Well, maybe he learned from Clinton -

President Clinton and Vice President Gore's Economic Plan:
Building the Path to Prosperity for America's Families
August 5, 2000
Seven years ago this week, President Clinton and Vice President Gore's economic plan was enacted without a single Republican vote. Vice President Gore broke a tie on August 6, 1993 to pass the measure in the Senate and President Clinton signed the 1993 Budget Reconciliation into law four days later. Their bold, three-part strategy established fiscal discipline; invested in education, health care, science and technology; and opened foreign markets so that American workers have a fair chance to compete abroad. Passage of the economic plan was a historic turning point, reversing 12 years of trickle-down economics and turning the largest deficit in history into the largest budget surplus in history. It also committed the country to a path of fiscal discipline that helped unleash the productive potential of the American people, contributing to the longest economic expansion in history, including the creation of over 22 million jobs, the lowest unemployment and inflation rates in a generation, rising wages and the highest homeownership rates on record. Today, working families are enjoying the benefits of this comprehensive plan and the course of fiscal discipline it established.

Clinton-Gore Economic Plan Restored Fiscal Discipline

The previous two administrations drove annual budget deficits to their highest level in history, piled up more debt in 12 years than the nation did in the previous 200, and quadrupled the national debt. Thanks to the 1993 economic plan, President Clinton and Vice President Gore kept their promise to cut the deficit in half in four years and produced three back-to-back surpluses for the first time in over 50 years. Fiscal discipline has resulted in real benefits for American families by keeping interest rates low and productivity high, and by creating the conditions for the strongest economy in our nation's history.

Slashed the Federal Deficit

- 1993 Plan - $500 Billion in Deficit Reduction: When President Clinton and Vice President Gore took office, the deficit was $290 billion and expected to grow to $455 billion by 2000. The 1993 economic plan contained $500 billion of total projected deficit reduction over five years, including $255 billion in spending cuts. Even before the Balanced Budget Agreement of 1997 took effect, the deficit had been cut to $22 billion in FY 1997, a 92 percent drop.

- Paul Volcker, Former Federal Reserve Board Chairman: "The deficit has come down, and I give the Clinton Administration and President Clinton himself a lot of credit for that. [He] did something about it, fast. And I think we are seeing some benefits." [Audacity, Fall 1994].

- Today - On Track to be Debt Free by 2012: Today we have turned the largest deficit in history into the largest surplus in history and, under the Administration's budget framework, we are on track to be debt free by 2012 for the first time since Andrew Jackson's administration.

Lowered Interest Rates and Increased Productivity

- 1993 Plan - Fiscal Responsibility Produced an Immediate Drop in Interest Rates: Even though the recession had technically ended when President Clinton and Vice Pres

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Thursday, August 28, 2008 11:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
I would attempt to educate Eric and Kwicko but we've been through this before in a previous thread http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=33384 . Many like to delude themselves into believing they pay taxes because they see with-holdings from their check each week. In reality they get all the federal taxes back at tax time plus an earned income tax credit in many cases.

Oh what utter bullshit

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

CITIZEN

Friday, August 29, 2008 12:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Just be honest like the others and admit you want big daddy government to take money from others and give it to you.

That’s exactly what Frem wants. He’s one of the hardest Left-leaning Leftists on this board, but he won’t admit it.

Have you read one of Frem's posts?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

CITIZEN

Friday, August 29, 2008 12:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
I get confused when people talk about "big corporations" as if they're a living entity.

Tell it to the corporations that lobbied for corporate personhood.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

KIRKULES

Friday, August 29, 2008 12:09 AM

" John McCain wants to cut corporate income taxes for all companies."

The reason McCain wants to lower corporate taxes is to fight the "outsourcing" problem we face today. One of the primary things driving companies overseas is the lower corporate taxes abroad. Even France and Great Britain have lower corporate taxes than the U.S. now. Great Brittan has successfully wooed many of the big deals Wall Street was getting a few years ago with lower taxes and less regulation. If you want to keep companies in the U.S., cutting corporate taxes is the first step.

KIRKULES

Friday, August 29, 2008 12:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
Quote:
Originally posted by Eric:
Two thirds of companies paid no income tax whatsoever over the last ten years. I don't give a flying fuck about them. Obama will cut taxes for 95% of households.

Is this meant as a joke, it sure reads like one. If you're serious you really need to take an economics class. Obama isn't going to be able to cut any-one's taxes with the spending he proposes. It's just another campaign slogan he never intends to implement. The funniest thing is that Obama and you seem to believe 95% of Americans pay taxes in the first place, when in reality 5% actually pay the vast majority of all taxes. Obama just wants to give out welfare payments and call them tax cuts.

Well, maybe he learned from Clinton -

President Clinton and Vice President Gore's Economic Plan:
Building the Path to Prosperity for America's Families
August 5, 2000
Seven years ago this week, President Clinton and Vice President Gore's economic plan was enacted without a single Republican vote. Vice President Gore broke a tie on August 6, 1993 to pass the measure in the Senate and President Clinton signed the 1993 Budget Reconciliation into law four days later. Their bold, three-part strategy established fiscal discipline; invested in education, health care, science and technology; and opened foreign markets so that American workers have a fair chance to compete abroad. Passage of the economic plan was a historic turning point, reversing 12 years of trickle-down economics and turning the largest deficit in history into the largest budget surplus in history. It also committed the country to a path of fiscal discipline that helped unleash the productive potential of the American people, contributing to the longest economic expansion in history, including the creation of over 22 million jobs, the lowest unemployment and inflation rates in a generation, rising wages and the highest homeownership rates on record. Today, working families are enjoying the benefits of this comprehensive plan and the course of fiscal discipline it established.

Clinton-Gore Economic Plan Restored Fiscal Discipline

The previous two administrations drove annual budget deficits to their highest level in history, piled up more debt in 12 years than the nation did in the previous 200, and quadrupled the national debt. Thanks to the 1993 economic plan, President Clinton and Vice President Gore kept their promise to cut the deficit in half in four years and produced three back-to-back surpluses for the first time in over 50 years. Fiscal discipline has resulted in real benefits for American families by keeping interest rates low and productivity high, and by creating the conditions for the strongest economy in our nation's history.

Slashed the Federal Deficit

- 1993 Plan - $500 Billion in Deficit Reduction: When President Clinton and Vice President Gore took office, the deficit was $290 billion and expected to grow to $455 billion by 2000. The 1993 economic plan contained $500 billion of total projected deficit reduction over five years, including $255 billion in spending cuts. Even before the Balanced Budget Agreement of 1997 took effect, the deficit had been cut to $22 billion in FY 1997, a 92 percent drop.

- Paul Volcker, Former Federal Reserve Board Chairman: "The deficit has come down, and I give the Clinton Administration and President Clinton himself a lot of credit for that. [He] did something about it, fast. And I think we are seeing some benefits." [Audacity, Fall 1994].

- Today - On Track to be Debt Free by 2012: Today we have turned the largest deficit in history into the largest surplus in history and, under the Administration's budget framework, we are on track to be debt free by 2012 for the first time since Andrew Jackson's administration.

Lowered Interest Rates and Increased Productivity

- 1993 Plan - Fiscal Responsibility Produced an Immediate Drop in Interest Rates: Even though the recession had tech

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

KWICKO

Friday, August 29, 2008 12:32 AM

Quote:

By the way, Obama is no Bill Clinton. Clinton was a Capitalist not a Socialist like Obama.

Blahblahblah...heard it, read it all a million times before.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

KWICKO

Friday, August 29, 2008 12:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:

Oh what utter bullshit

I love you, man!

After a long, well though-out and erudite post that was spot-on AND informative, you have the uncanny ability to summarize your feelings perfectly! Beauty.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Friday, August 29, 2008 12:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:

Oh what utter bullshit

I love you, man!

After a long, well though-out and erudite post that was spot-on AND informative, you have the uncanny ability to summarize your feelings perfectly! Beauty.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

CHRISISALL

Friday, August 29, 2008 12:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
The problem with a flat tax is that the rich use a smaller percentage of their total income as desposable income than the poor and middle class.

*falls outta his chair*
DUDE!!! You seriously need a math class. If a rich guy pays lawyers & accountants to keep him from paying taxes because of loopholes, a flat tax will still bring in more revenue than nothing.

Chrisisall

KIRKULES

Friday, August 29, 2008 1:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
The problem with a flat tax is that the rich use a smaller percentage of their total income as desposable income than the poor and middle class.
*falls outta his chair*
DUDE!!! You seriously need a math class. If a rich guy pays lawyers & accountants to keep him from paying taxes because of loopholes, a flat tax will still bring in more revenue than nothing.

Chrisisall

Your problem is that you are starting from the false assumption that the rich pay little or no taxes under the current system. Your second mistake is assuming my math skills are poor. I have had plenty of math classes and got A's in Calculus I, II, III and Elementary Deferential Equations. I think you might want to redo your calculations and get back to me.

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Friday, August 29, 2008 1:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
The problem with a flat tax is that the rich use a smaller percentage of their total income as desposable income than the poor and middle class.

Excuse me? Since when is the flat tax on disposable income?

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

KIRKULES

Friday, August 29, 2008 1:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
The problem with a flat tax is that the rich use a smaller percentage of their total income as desposable income than the poor and middle class.

Excuse me? Since when is the flat tax on disposable income?

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

If you will read Kwicko's post you will see that the subject he brought up was the "flat sales tax" not the flat income tax.

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Friday, August 29, 2008 1:37 AM

You are right he did.

However, your assertion that rich people spend less of their disposable income is absolutely absurd.

I have no disposable income as my income is too low. My brother has the means to buy $14000 plasma screen tv's - so who do you think would pay more tax in either a flat income tax or flat sales tax situation?

In England they have the VAT (Value Added Tax). Someone who has no disposable income would pay less VAT than someone that was rich simply because they would be unable to buy many items with VAT on them.

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

KWICKO

Friday, August 29, 2008 1:57 AM

Quote:

Your problem is that you are starting from the false assumption that the rich pay little or no taxes under the current system.

Certainly, I'm NOT starting from that assumption. But you certainly seemed to be starting from the assumption that the bottom 95% of us pay NO taxes whatsoever.

I'm aware that the rich pay some rather high income taxes - if you can prove that any of that money is actually INCOME. That's the rub - it tends to get squirreled away through loopholes and blind trusts until there is no income that can be recorded without the use of forensic accountants.

So you take a CEO who's getting $175 million a year in salary, bonuses, and incentives. Do you suppose he's actually paying the income tax on that entire amount?

And you do have it right on one point - a flat tax would take a higher percentage of disposable income from the poor and middle class - but only when they spent their money. If you have, say, a flat rate of 10-12% on goods sold (I currently pay 8.25% sales tax on most things), the poor and middle class won't really feel that much of a pinch, AND the rich will have reason to keep the tax rates in check, because they are also paying that same percentage on the things they buy. 10% on a new Honda isn't going to kill me - figure the gubmint takes about $2000 on that purchase; extrapolate that to the 10% tax on a Bugatti Veyron 16.4 (at $1.2million list price), and you see why the rich won't want the tax rate going any higher than that. They have a vested interest in looking out for the poor, at least a little bit, because what they sow, so shall they reap.

The poor also won't have too big a bitch about it, because they can't point at the rich and say they aren't paying their fair share. If they buy something, they pay. They pay the same percentage of the price that the poor would pay. If the rich want to buy more expensive things, then they'll pay more in actual dollars in tax, but the percentage of the price will stay the same.

Buy a house in the Hamptons? 10% goes to Uncle Sam. Buy a time-share in Aspen? 10%. Buy a crack-house in the ghetto? 10% Rent a car? 10% Buy a Pinto? 10% Buy an Aston Martin? 10%

THAT is what I'm proposing. For the record, I have no issue at all with paying my taxes. No one wants to see taxes increase, but I can say that I don't see how we're going to spend our way out of the hole we've dug without raising taxes at least a bit. At some point, we have to start paying down that massive deficit and our national debt, or we will continue to see our dollar devalued and our debt load increasing, until we are no longer ABLE to pay it down. We have to start somewhere, and it seems to me that if the rich and poor are in it for the same percentages, it will be more fair to all involved.

The best part of the idea is that it encourages a bit more frugality. It's not going to stop me buying food, or shoes, but it might make me think twice about buying that third, fourth, or fifth car just to have as a weekend toy. Right now, I have six cars, which is at least four more than I have any need for. Several of them are rarely driven.

Will it work? Who knows... it'll probably never get the chance. But it would be nice to see someone try. What we've got now surely isn't doing much good...

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

KIRKULES

Friday, August 29, 2008 1:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
You are right he did.

However, your assertion that rich people spend less of their disposable income is absolutely absurd.

I have no disposable income as my income is too low. My brother has the means to buy $14000 plasma screen tv's - so who do you think would pay more tax in either a flat income tax or flat sales tax situation?

Under a flat sales tax system anyone who spends $14,000 on a TV will pay the same amount in taxes whether they pay with cash or max out their credit card. The point I like about the flat sales tax is that after buying basic necessities, everyone is able to control their own tax rate. A rich person could live modestly and pay the exact same taxes as a poor person. If a rich person buys a mega yacht they'll pay mega taxes. It would definitely reshape our economy by penalising spending and encouraging savings. This might be a good thing as long as you don't build yachts or other high ticket items for a living. Clinton's luxury tax decimated the boating and high end car companies until it was repealed.

KIRKULES

Friday, August 29, 2008 2:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:

Your problem is that you are starting from the false assumption that the rich pay little or no taxes under the current system.

Certainly, I'm NOT starting from that assumption. But you certainly seemed to be starting from the assumption that the bottom 95% of us pay NO taxes whatsoever.

I'm aware that the rich pay some rather high income taxes - if you can prove that any of that money is actually INCOME. That's the rub - it tends to get squirreled away through loopholes and blind trusts until there is no income that can be recorded without the use of forensic accountants.

So you take a CEO who's getting $175 million a year in salary, bonuses, and incentives. Do you suppose he's actually paying the income tax on that entire amount?

And you do have it right on one point - a flat tax would take a higher percentage of disposable income from the poor and middle class - but only when they spent their money. If you have, say, a flat rate of 10-12% on goods sold (I currently pay 8.25% sales tax on most things), the poor and middle class won't really feel that much of a pinch, AND the rich will have reason to keep the tax rates in check, because they are also paying that same percentage on the things they buy. 10% on a new Honda isn't going to kill me - figure the gubmint takes about $2000 on that purchase; extrapolate that to the 10% tax on a Bugatti Veyron 16.4 (at $1.2million list price), and you see why the rich won't want the tax rate going any higher than that. They have a vested interest in looking out for the poor, at least a little bit, because what they sow, so shall they reap.

The poor also won't have too big a bitch about it, because they can't point at the rich and say they aren't paying their fair share. If they buy something, they pay. They pay the same percentage of the price that the poor would pay. If the rich want to buy more expensive things, then they'll pay more in actual dollars in tax, but the percentage of the price will stay the same.

Buy a house in the Hamptons? 10% goes to Uncle Sam. Buy a time-share in Aspen? 10%. Buy a crack-house in the ghetto? 10% Rent a car? 10% Buy a Pinto? 10% Buy an Aston Martin? 10%

THAT is what I'm proposing. For the record, I have no issue at all with paying my taxes. No one wants to see taxes increase, but I can say that I don't see how we're going to spend our way out of the hole we've dug without raising taxes at least a bit. At some point, we have to start paying down that massive deficit and our national debt, or we will continue to see our dollar devalued and our debt load increasing, until we are no longer ABLE to pay it down. We have to start somewhere, and it seems to me that if the rich and poor are in it for the same percentages, it will be more fair to all involved.

The best part of the idea is that it encourages a bit more frugality. It's not going to stop me buying food, or shoes, but it might make me think twice about buying that third, fourth, or fifth car just to have as a weekend toy. Right now, I have six cars, which is at least four more than I have any need for. Several of them are rarely driven.

Will it work? Who knows... it'll probably never get the chance. But it would be nice to see someone try. What we've got now surely isn't doing much good...

Mike

Great post Kwicko, can't really find anything I totally disagree with. Sounds like we agree on a lot more than either of us would like to admit.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, August 29, 2008 2:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Have you read one of Frem's posts?

I've read many of them. His are some of the most interesting posts, even when he's spitting hatred at me personally. And he's about as close as we have here to a real Marxist.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

KWICKO

Friday, August 29, 2008 3:22 AM

Quote:

Great post Kwicko, can't really find anything I totally disagree with. Sounds like we agree on a lot more than either of us would like to admit.

When it comes to where our money goes and why, you and I probably aren't all that different in our outlooks.

And I'll say this: The kind of tax I've put forward - and trust me, it's a raw plan, and there would still be lots and lots of details to iron out - isn't favored by either political party. The people who've come closest to it are Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee - and you saw how far it got them. It's a fair tax plan, to be sure, but it's also a political-suicide plan.

For whatever reason, neither side seems to be very much in favor of FAIR taxation for all; the Democrats want to soak the rich, and the Republicans want to stick it to the poor. In other words, no matter who you ask, it's always "the other guy" who should shoulder more of the tax burden.

Like I said, it'll likely never see the light of day. But it's still fun to imagine a more rational America.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, August 29, 2008 3:43 AM

I don’t think either side disputes where the tax burden is. Both sides tax the rich, but the dispute is in deciding how far we can milk that burden. When we take money from the rich we take potential investment in the economy, which cause the economy to slow, so the right balance of taxation and investment is a critical issue.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

KWICKO

Friday, August 29, 2008 4:36 AM

But when you take money from ANYONE, you take money from the economy. What are the po' folk going to do with their money, save it? Hell, no - they're going to spend it! Thus are created more demand for goods, and more jobs to meet that demand.

That's what I'm trying to get at is the fundamental disconnect between people on both sides. On one side, you have people who seem to be saying that "the 95% of Americans who don't contribute are a drag on the system", while the other side seems to be saying that "it's only because of that 95% of Americans that there's a system at all." Somewhere in the middle lies the truth. And I'd bet that we could get along longer without the top 5% than they could without the 95% - but we all still need each other to make it work smoothly.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, August 29, 2008 4:54 AM

ROFLMAO.

Oh that's rich - ME a Socialist, or a Marxist ?

Like they said, do you even READ any of the stuff I post ?
Does any of it at all make it through that plastic bubble you insulate yourself from the real world with ?

Looka'here buddy...

I am sick of our taxes funding a bloated military mired in a mass force tactical doctrine obsolete since the end of the civil war, for one.

Let's see, there's the open fucking pit that is our intelligence agencies, enough of them that there's ridiculous redundancy and duplication of effort on top of which instead of protecting the american people they not only waste those resources committing acts of terror and harrassment against the very fucking people they're supposed to be protecting in the first place, and not only do it to the near exclusion of their supposed job, when they DO actually perform anything remotely resembling their original function, they act in such a fashion so counterproductive it further endangers their alleged protectees...

And let's not even talk about "Black" projects we the people, the supposed folk actually in charge, aren't even allowed to know about, much less vote against.

Add to that bailing out rich assholes who got their dicks in a wringer cause they made bad financial decisions.

Sending foreign aid to other countries when we're so bad off here, the primary recipient of which, a country-that-shall-not-be-named, has a habit of fucking us over EVERY CHANCE THEY GET as our politicos bend over and smile for it.

In general spending MY money to snoop on and irritate the populace with ridiculous petty nitpicks like whether they've properly sorted all their recyclables correctly in the bin...

A phony "war on (some) drugs" while at the same time subsidizing Big Pharma, that most notorious drug-pusher of all, wasting my money to eliminate corporate competition is what that has ALWAYS smelled like to me.

Then there's the heavily subsidized medical care industry, gah.. $750 for a fucking wheelchair ?
(I got mine at Harbor Freight for $135 out of pocket, fuck you very much invacare!)

Enforcing truely ridiculous "copyright" laws designed in fact to make us pay over and over for a product we never get to actually own.

Goddamn, I could go on for pages, but ain't no point to it, and don't it just bang the irony gong that the righties whine and whinge about socialists and leftists and all their social control programs....

While they puff themselves up in support of the military, or homeland security, or intel agencies, police, and so on, as if they were not (at least in my eyes) the same fucking thing ?

I don't want YOUR fucking money - I want to KEEP enough of mine to fucking live on, and not have to supplement it with work-for-barter just to put food on the goddamn table, you'd sound angry too if all you had to eat in the last three days was forty biscuits from those store-brand four-packs-of-ten cause that's all you could AFFORD to eat in spite of working 56hours on the clock (and about 10 more off, including auto repairs which would have cost several hundred dollars if done by an autoshop) last week.

Oh, and that 37% doesn't touch the fact that I pay for FUEL, you can imagine I am not fucking happy about that, with a nice chunk of every gallon being what...
Everyone together now... TAXES!

Then there's the Gov's little bites out of my utility bills, sales tax, and doesn't even touch the horror that is property tax.
(one reason my ass is getting just about forcefully drafted to city council, in fact)

And heaven forfend if I dare want a shot of rum to kick back with at the end of the day cause that comes with a nice bitchslap of excise tax based on what amounts to somebody elses fucking RELIGIOUS objection in the first damned place.

And all that shit, a very large part of it goes to enforcing dumbass rules and agendas that I not only do not agree with, but are downright inimical to all I believe if not me *personally*, you know, like invading my fucking privacy - which'd be torture for anyone assigned to d

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, August 29, 2008 4:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
But when you take money from ANYONE, you take money from the economy. What are the po' folk going to do with their money, save it? Hell, no - they're going to spend it! Thus are created more demand for goods, and more jobs to meet that demand.

They don’t create more jobs to meet that demand. They just create demand. Those jobs are created by the rich people who invest in the economy, taking advantage of that demand. Poor people don’t have the resources to create jobs, not in the short run. In the long run, maybe, but in the here and now, it takes the resources of rich people.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, August 29, 2008 5:07 AM

Oh, just in case it wasn't so clear from the post...

Fuck raising taxes, start CUTTING shit.

Goddamn, it's shocking that no one else even brought that concept up yet.

-F

PIRATENEWS

Friday, August 29, 2008 5:13 AM

Quote:
"I'm an alcoholic!"
-Glenn Beck

Yes, take your economic advice from a drug addict with a $50-million salary, who sees dogs knawing the heads off little children.

Glenn Beck on acid:

Beck is paid $50-million to sell the sheeple on any candidate the elite globalists tell him to sell, and to demonize any candidate who would actually save USA.

Jew "Rush" Limbaugh is paid $700-million salary to do the same thing. Hence his need for 100 oxycontin a day.

Even local TV disinfobabes get $5-million/year in major cities.

We need salary caps for all talking heads - ASAP. $50,000/year.

CITIZEN

Friday, August 29, 2008 9:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Oh, just in case it wasn't so clear from the post...

Fuck raising taxes, start CUTTING shit.

Goddamn, it's shocking that no one else even brought that concept up yet.

It's a little late for that, after a near decade of Bushite fiscal irresponsibility, any incoming president will have to 'cut shit' AND raise taxes. Or they could be incredibly fiscally irresponsible, and drive the American economy and government into collapse by continuing chimpmans policies. If that's what you want, your best bet is probably McCain.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

KWICKO

Friday, August 29, 2008 11:46 AM

Quote:

They don’t create more jobs to meet that demand. They just create demand. Those jobs are created by the rich people who invest in the economy, taking advantage of that demand. Poor people don’t have the resources to create jobs, not in the short run. In the long run, maybe, but in the here and now, it takes the resources of rich people.

...and the demand of the poor people. Try building a factory just because you have the money to do so, and see where that gets ya. You don't respond to demand because you're rich; you're rich because you responded to demand and came out with a product for which there WAS a demand in the first place. It isn't a matter of "If you build it, they will come" - it's more along the lines of "if they come, you'd better build it - or someone else WILL."

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

KWICKO

Friday, August 29, 2008 11:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Oh, just in case it wasn't so clear from the post...

Fuck raising taxes, start CUTTING shit.

Goddamn, it's shocking that no one else even brought that concept up yet.

-F

Oh, hell, Frem - I figured that was pretty much a given. As Cit points out, due to the reckless spending habits of the past 8 years, President Obama (get used to it) is going to have to both raise taxes AND cut spending, JUST to try to get a tiny start on paying down our enormous debt.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, August 29, 2008 2:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
...and the demand of the poor people. Try building a factory just because you have the money to do so, and see where that gets ya.

Try building a factory if you’re poor. When you overtax the rich you take money from the economy that could be used to build those factories and create those jobs, but giving money to the poor will not build factories. It might help those that already exist, in theory, but there is a limit to how far that will grow the economy, eventually you have to have the rich people. And it's the rich people we tax, not the poor people.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

RIGHTEOUS9

Friday, August 29, 2008 2:55 PM

I'm no expert, but I don't see why you have to protect teh uber rich and the financial dynasties for the sake of this nation.

I know that in the movie industry small companies get together and assume varying parts of risk by investing...everybody stands to gain and to lose. I'm not sure why any other industry has to be different(or whether it is) on this point.

........

what we have in this country is defacto royalty though. The rich families stay rich, because they own the government. They are often invested in keeping the status quo, which is counter-progress.

Our country is no longer a meritocracy. Our upward mobility ranks below more "socialist" rival european nations. We have a soft caste system now.

In my opinion, that consolidation of wealth, that inheritance of it by people that did not personally earn it, is counter to our democracy. Money is power, and so long as that power is earned, and anybody can earn it, I guess that's somehow fair, but that isn't the country we live in.

I think its great that a person in this nation used to be able to start his own enterprise, become a multi- millionare and make his children's lives better with that money, with that opportunity. I'm not so sure I think its great that those same entrepreneurs solidified their lines forever in wealth for the rest of history.

I say bring back the estate tax.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, August 29, 2008 3:44 PM

On average a poor person in the US will be poor for less then 10 years. I grew up in poverty that most people I speak with today in this country can’t imagine. We ate beans and potatoes, because that was all we could afford. Yet despite that level of poverty we were still more affluent then the average poor in Europe. Today, I’m not poor anymore. I make what the Democrats would call upper class income, and from the time I was on my own to the day I become Middle-class (or upper class according to Democrats) was about 10 years. And I wasn't even really trying to get rich - I just went to school - I wasn't even thinking about entrepreneurship.

Yet, I hear a lot of people trying to convince me that the US is a bad country where people can’t prosper. Yet I’m living proof of the fact that we can. I’ve been all over Europe and I’ve seen what constitutes “middle class” there – and it’s pretty close to what we would consider “poor.” When I hear people tell me that people can’t prosper in the US, what I here are people who either haven’t thought this stuff all the way through, people who are too lazy to assert themselves or people trying to push a particular agenda. But they certainly aren't people accurately assessing the conditions in the US, at least not from my perspective.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

RIGHTEOUS9

Friday, August 29, 2008 3:54 PM

There's not a country in the world where you cant go somewhere if you have the utmost drive and luck to go with it.

America is better than many, maybe most. But among developed countries it isn't ranking that impressively. Just because it is possible to get ahead in America does not mean that that mobility is as accesible to every American as it should be, as it is for people of other nations...

it's an ideal we built our nation on, and we are second rate. That cool with you?

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, August 29, 2008 4:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
it's an ideal we built our nation on, and we are second rate. That cool with you?

I have no problem being second, if indeed we are, because what we have is good. I don’t believe in throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Fixing our problems and improving our conditions does not mean lying to ourselves about our success and prosperity.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

RIGHTEOUS9

Friday, August 29, 2008 4:04 PM

Well there you go

in this nation, I thought we used to have a problem with being second best.

That does explain why we still have such a disconnect when we argue on these boards in these times.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, August 29, 2008 4:21 PM

It depends a lot on what being “second best” means. Being second best among a list of developed nations isn’t going to bother me to much. There are a lot of things that one can get in the US that one can’t get in the UK. For instance, the house I live in today would be assessable only to people with a considerable degree of wealth in the UK, but the house that I could afford in the UK would probably be more then enough for me to live a comfortable life, and owning a large house isn't all its cracked up to be. The point is that while there may be differences between the developed nations, these differences often are not significant enough to be concerned with being second best.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

RIGHTEOUS9

Friday, August 29, 2008 4:26 PM

In this case we're talking specifically about what second best is referring to.

You are fine with our waning upward mobility in this nation, even while other nations have improved beyond us in this area.

I like how our chants of patriotism are going to have to change over time.

"We're still the greatest country in the world!" "Well, we're still one of the great nations in the world!" "Well maybe we're just a good country, and in the world." "Well, we're alright."

RUE

Friday, August 29, 2008 4:39 PM

Second best isn't so bad. Being 15th or 41st on a metric kinda' sucks.

***************************************************************
Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice.

CHRISISALL

Friday, August 29, 2008 4:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
got A's in Calculus I, II, III and Elementary Deferential Equations.

And I can kill a person in several different ways due to 25 years of martial art training, what do either of these things have to do with understanding simple arithmetic?

1+2=-2isall

CHRISISALL

Friday, August 29, 2008 4:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
The point is that while there may be differences between the developed nations, these differences often are not significant enough to be concerned with being second best.

I'm okay with the silver...

Chrisisall

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, August 29, 2008 4:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
In this case we're talking specifically about what second best means.

You are fine with our waning upward mobility in this nation, even while other nations have improved beyond us in this area.

I’m fine with our prosperity. And I have no problem with other developed nations having prosperity also. I think there is plenty of wealth in the world for everyone. And quite frankly, I’m happy to see other nations actually being able to compete with the US, even if it’s only the developed nations. In time I hope to see all nations competing with the US and everyone having the opportunities for the pursuit of happiness.

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
I like how our chants of patriotism are going to have to change over time.

Why? Patriotism has nothing to do with it. I love my country because it’s my country, not because it’s better then everyone else. That is happens to be better in a lot of ways and pretty good in most ways is just my good fortune. I could have been born in Ethiopia, where I still would probably have loved my country, but I wouldn’t have been as well off.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero