Originally posted by Pyrthian: lol - good luck with that and - yes - you are proving my point say one thing - vote another just look at the candidates who is your candidate of choice?
I'll play. There will be no such luck. What point of yours did I prove ? I am/do look at the candidates and the lack of on the Dumb side. Can the Dumbs be so dumb as to back him again ? My candidate of choice ? Too early to tell right now. I don't like any of them right now. I am waiting for the debates to form an agenda and then pick who supports my beliefs on what ever agenda. I will say that Romney does not impress me. Rick Perry ? Heh, I didn't like him as a three/four term Governor from my state but I am listening to him. Bauchman, I like her. Palin I like also. Neither better than any other candidate but they have my interest. If even to shape debate/policy. Trump is good at that too. Who is your candidate of choice ? I know you never answer a question straight forward, but try.
Originally posted by tbone42: Saying something is false only because oyou dont like the newsource for personal political reasons and not facts they are reporting on is the real BS.
C'mon man, ! What did I say was false ? Only "because I don't like the news source for personal political reasons and not facts they are reporting on" ? What news source says the TEA PARTY is against gay marriage ? I don't give a damn about his personal political reasons and he is not reporting on facts. Then you ask me if a source would matter,
[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 08-26-2011).]
C'mon man, ! What did I say was false ? Only "because I don't like the news source for personal political reasons and not facts they are reporting on" ? What news source says the TEA PARTY is against gay marriage ? I don't give a damn about his personal political reasons and he is not reporting on facts. Then you ask me if a source would matter,
What did I say about gay marriage? You can make the guy all you want, but you are not even engaging the right person with the right piece of conversation, Cliff.
[This message has been edited by tbone42 (edited 08-26-2011).]
IP: Logged
12:49 PM
cliffw Member
Posts: 35940 From: Bandera, Texas, USA Registered: Jun 2003
Originally posted by tbone42: What did I say about gay marriage? You can make the guy all you want, but you are not even engaging the right person with the right piece of conversation, Cliff.
Enlighten me. Be more specific. I did think that you were referring to Pyrithian's and my discourse on Tea Party and gay marriage.
Enlighten me. Be more specific. I did think that you were referring to Pyrithian's and my discourse on Tea Party and gay marriage.
My post you were responding to was about the GFK poll on Congress' approval, and the news source it came from that Bear was complaining about... not homosexuality. Try to keep it "straight".. LOL.. I kill me!
[This message has been edited by tbone42 (edited 08-26-2011).]
So nobody wants to respond the the Republicons/Tea Party wanting to raise the pay roll tax? Or is that gonna be glossed over because it cant be defended in line whith their supposed rhetoric? Or is my FOX news story not good enough?
[This message has been edited by tbone42 (edited 08-26-2011).]
IP: Logged
12:57 PM
cliffw Member
Posts: 35940 From: Bandera, Texas, USA Registered: Jun 2003
Originally posted by tbone42: My post you were responding to was about the GFK poll on Congress' approval, not homosexuality. Try to keep it "straight".. LOL.. I kill me!
Ok. You edit beat my post. I didn't respond to a GFK poll nor an opinion of one. Let me look back, as I have been in and out, preoccupied. Would you quote me, this is a long thread and I am busy (it may not seem like it, damn PFF is addictive).
Ok. You edit beat my post. I didn't respond to a GFK poll nor an opinion of one. Let me look back, as I have been in and out, preoccupied. Would you quote me, this is a long thread and I am busy (it may not seem like it, damn PFF is addictive).
No problem, its happened to me once or twice. EDIT: went back and made sure there was no confusion by adding a quote of Bear... I see now why you got confuzzed, my post came after yours directly with no quote. Partially my fault, I dont expect everyone to follow every part of every conversation.
Maybe we need a tea party vs. Gays thread, so we can leave this one to tea party popularity. Thats what the poll was (partially) about.
[This message has been edited by tbone42 (edited 08-26-2011).]
IP: Logged
01:00 PM
Rickady88GT Member
Posts: 10648 From: Central CA Registered: Dec 2002
So nobody wants to respond the the Republicons/Tea Party wanting to raise the pay roll tax? Or is that gonna be glossed over because it cant be defended in line whith their supposed rhetoric? Or is my FOX news story not good enough?
I am not sure the pay role tax is the best way about it, BUT I would suport ANY tax that would force the lower 50% to pay a share. Then eliminate any and all tax credits rich or poor. I think that the problem is not that the rich dont pay eough, one part of the problem is that the poor dont pay at all. EVERY AMERICAN should pay some tax. NOBODY should EVER get a "refund" for NOT paying tax. If you as an American made $100 in a year, for example you would still pay a % on that $100.
Yes I do have a lot in common with the Tea Party, but like everything else in life, I differ on some things.
IP: Logged
03:50 PM
2.5 Member
Posts: 43225 From: Southern MN Registered: May 2007
Originally posted by tbone42: So nobody wants to respond the the Republicons/Tea Party wanting to raise the pay roll tax? Or is that gonna be glossed over because it cant be defended in line whith their supposed rhetoric? Or is my FOX news story not good enough?
First off, it is not a Fox News story.
quote
your linky By CHARLES BABINGTON Associated Press
The Associated Press get no high marks in my book. They more or less just compile news reports from other places. Who is Charles Babington ? A quick Google search reveals that he is a liberal/Progressive. He spent 17 years with the Washington Post when it was liberal leaning propaganda source. He quit the Washington Post after it started being more fair and balanced in response to losing revenue to the Washington Times which reported and did not favor agendas. Here is a response to his article.
quote
linky The opening sentence of Charles Babington's "objective report" about the possible extension of what was billed late last year as a "temporary payroll tax cut" reads like a Democratic National Committee press release: "News flash: Congressional Republicans want to raise your taxes."
That said, I will comment on the meat of his argument. From my interpretation of his factsopinion propaganda. I looked up the ?reporter? after his opening remarks. See, the Associated Press in my opinion picks and chooses which articles it will present and from a predetermined slant of presentation. Show me a positive conservative report. I have not read the reviews (such as linked above) of what Charles Babington stated in your source. I have not even read your entire source but will do so. Before I start, I will say that CHARLES BABINGTON's introductory title raises red flags.
[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 08-26-2011).]
IP: Logged
09:49 PM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27079 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
So nobody wants to respond the the Republicons/Tea Party wanting to raise the pay roll tax? Or is that gonna be glossed over because it cant be defended in line whith their supposed rhetoric? Or is my FOX news story not good enough?
Maybe if you get your facts straight, first?
They don't want to RAISE the payroll tax. Obama lowered it recently, with the idea that it would help folks by letting them keep more of their own money (wow, sure sounds "Republican/Tea Party", huh?). But the reduction was temporary, and the GOP/Tea Party folks were saying they might be willing to let the *temporary* reduction expire. That's all.
They don't want to RAISE the payroll tax. Obama lowered it recently, with the idea that it would help folks by letting them keep more of their own money (wow, sure sounds "Republican/Tea Party", huh?). But the reduction was temporary, and the GOP/Tea Party folks were saying they might be willing to let the *temporary* reduction expire. That's all.
So raise it, opposite of lower and not the same as leave it alone. Whatever. Republicans want to let it expire and not extend it.. THATS the issue.. speak to that, please, not whether it is expiring or not when they have the opportunity top match their rhetoric and keep taxes low.
So you are ok with it then? Even if it would strengthen the economy not to let it expire? What's your opinion, other than whether it is expiring or whether it is a raising of taxes?
So you are in favor of higher taxes for the middle class in this case or not? Thats the easiest way to ask, if you are going to deflect and try to make it all about expiring or not. Not what I am interested in. Well?
[This message has been edited by tbone42 (edited 08-26-2011).]
That said, I will comment on the meat of his argument. From my interpretation of his factsopinion propaganda. I looked up the ?reporter? after his opening remarks. See, the Associated Press in my opinion picks and chooses which articles it will present and from a predetermined slant of presentation. Show me a positive conservative report. I have not read the reviews (such as linked above) of what Charles Babington stated in your source. I have not even read your entire source but will do so. Before I start, I will say that CHARLES BABINGTON's introductory title raises red flags.
That still does not refute the evidence found in the poll. He's not MAKING news, he's reporting it. So the poll is worthless because of who reports its findings? How convenient. That being said, it would be so easy to ignore any facts you or others post here by poll just because it does not agree with my politics. Door swings both ways then? So all anyone can agree with is their political position of choice, because we can write off any reporting we dont like as propaganda?
Usually when i find fault with a story or article, I provide fact checking (like snopes) or a link that soundly refutes what I think is BS. I guess from your side of the aisle, all you need to do is not politically agree with the person reporting the story (or the story itself) and without any further proof or effort it is automatically not true?
Like I said, how covenient.
[This message has been edited by tbone42 (edited 08-26-2011).]
So the next time you discount something because it is from Fox News...
I have never discounted one story here or anywhere without providing proof, links, and evidence. Not by FOX, not by huff post.. if I have a problem with it and want to complain about it, I look it up and do some research. I dont automatically write off anything without checking around and finding some proof. Give it a try some time, instead of conveniently discounting anything not written by your favorite corps of journalists.
[This message has been edited by tbone42 (edited 08-26-2011).]
IP: Logged
10:28 PM
PFF
System Bot
fierobear Member
Posts: 27079 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
I have never discounted one story here or anywhere without providing proof, links, and evidence. Not by FOX, not by huff post.. if I have a problem with it and want to complain about it, I look it up and do some research. I dont automatically write off anything without checking around and finding some proof. Give it a try some time, instead of conveniently discounting anything not written by your favorite corps of journalists.
Originally posted by fierobear: Maybe if you get your facts straight, first? They don't want to RAISE the payroll tax. Obama lowered it recently, with the idea that it would help folks by letting them keep more of their own money
That's not all. That's not even it. Maybe if you get your facts straight first. Well, I say that in jest. What I mean is, maybe you should state the facts straight. It is not a tax. Social Security is a deduction every bit as a contribution to a 401k. A forced deduction which is supposed to be returned, unless you die. Unlike a 401k.
quote
Originally posted by cliffw: tbone42. I have not even read your entire source but will do so.
I will give you a play by play.
quote
your linky Many of the same Republicans who fought hammer-and-tong to keep the George W. Bush-era income tax cuts from expiring on schedule are now saying a different "temporary" tax cut should end as planned.
Many of the same Republicans ? Name 'em, ! A different type of "tax cut" ? Oh. I see. Revenue enhancement is code for tax hike. What is it about the Dumbs that they can not call a spade a spade ? What is it about the Dumbs that they think that if they call a rose a thorn, that it will not still be a rose ? Global Warming/Climate Change ? There are other examples but just now I don't have time to think of them. Social Security deductions are not a tax. This exact scenario is what is gonna doom ObamaCare at the Supreme Court.
quote
your linky The tax break extension they oppose is sought by President Barack Obama.
Tax break again ? Tell a lie enough times and it will become truth ?
quote
your linky Unlike proposed changes in the income tax, this policy helps the 46 percent of all Americans who owe no federal income taxes but who pay a "payroll tax" on practically every dime they earn.
Tell a lie enough times and it will become truth ? All payroll taxes are returned, to everybody, if they do not owe federal income taxes. Forty six percent of Americans owe no Federal Income tax ? What is wrong with that picture ? 100% of the people I drink beer with buy their own.
quote
your linky "It's always a net positive to let taxpayers keep more of what they earn," says Rep. Jeb Hensarling, "but not all tax relief is created equal for the purposes of helping to get the economy moving again." The Texas lawmaker is on the House GOP leadership team.
Is this quote taken out of context ? The House GOP leadership team ? Never heard of the dude and I am from Texas. Always a net positive to let taxpayers keep more of what they earn ? Let us keep it all. He is right though in that all tax relief is not created equal. That's why we need a TEA PARTY fair tax. Income tax is a ruse.
quote
your linky At issue is a tax that the vast majority of workers pay, but many don't recognize because they don't read, or don't understand their pay stubs. Workers normally pay 6.2 percent of their wages toward a tax designated for Social Security. Their employer pays an equal amount, for a total of 12.4 percent per worker.
Tell a lie enough times and it will become truth ? It is not a tax. What a crock of zhit, ! Box 4, on a payroll stub, for those that do understand it, is the list of IRS tax burdens. Box eight displays deductions labeled that are not exempt from income, Social Security or Medicare contributions/deductions. I asked you earlier, before your fishing trip, where is the social justice in fishing. Where was the social justice for the men who discovered America ? The men who tamed the wild west ? The men who went to the moon ? If you want to be somebody, you have to be somebody.
quote
your linky Obama cited the payroll tax in his weekend radio and Internet address Saturday, when he urged Congress to work together on measures that help the economy and create jobs. "There are things we can do right now that will mean more customers for businesses and more jobs across the country. We can cut payroll taxes again, so families have an extra $1,000 to spend," he said.
What is the difference between a family with an extra thousand and a business with an extra ten thousand. Nobama could have given all that wasted stimulus to families. He gave it to businesses, including unions.
quote
your linky Social Security payroll taxes apply only to the first $106,800 of a worker's wages. Therefore, $2,136 is the biggest benefit anyone can gain from the one-year reduction.
Why is that statement even in his diatribe ?
quote
your linky That worries Rep. David Camp, R-Mich., chairman of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, and a member of the House-Senate supercommittee tasked with finding new deficit cuts. Tax reductions, "no matter how well-intended," will push the deficit higher, making the panel's task that much harder, Camp's office said.
Wait, what, ? I thought your linky was exposing GOP agreement to a ?tax? increase, ? Social Security deductions were supposed to just pay for the program, not affect the deficit. It was supposed to pay for itself, just like NobamaCare, ... .
quote
your linky "We don't need short-term gestures. We need long-term fundamental changes in our tax structure and our regulatory structure that people who create jobs can rely on," said Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., when asked about the payroll tax matter.
This does not seem like a call to hike taxes.
quote
your linky House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., "has never believed that this type of temporary tax relief is the best way to grow the economy," said spokesman Brad Dayspring.
This does not seem like a call to hike taxes.
quote
your linky Some top Republicans have taken a wait-and-see approach, expecting the payroll tax issue to be a bargaining chip in the upcoming debt reduction talks. Neither House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, nor Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has taken a firm stand on whether to extend the one-year tax cut. Most GOP presidential candidates also are treading lightly.
Where is the evidence of the GOP being in favor of a tax hike ? This ?tax break? is probably opposed as it will further wreck Social Security.
quote
your linky Many Democrats also are ambivalent about Obama's proposed tax cut extension. They are more focused on protecting social programs from deep spending cuts. Some worry that a multiyear reduction in the tax designated for Social Security could undermine that program's health and stature.
Why does not the headline read "Dumbocrats may ok tax increase ?
quote
your linky For decades the payroll tax generated more revenue than the Social Security paid out in benefits. The excess was used to fund other government operations. Last year, however, Social Security benefits began outstripping revenue from its designated sources, forcing the program to start tapping its "trust fund" of government obligations.
What a bunch of zhit, . Social Security was a dumbocratic promise to take care of us. Fricken government, . It was a ruse. The word tax was not appetizing I suppose. Heh, now they call it a tax,
liar RON PAUL liar ,,when you think ron paul ,,THINK LIAR, LIAR, LIAR,always RACIST.,PORK MASTER,LIAR GOOGLE Ron Paul earmarks Ron Paul pork barrel ron paul racist & many,many,many more
I like ron pauls racist policy from the 90s,,He thought blacks were stupid & a very high percentage of criminal,,This & his first involvement with KKK nazi David Duke made Paul reinvent himself..ROn paul can not be elected unless all blacks are sent back to Africa,,The man is a racist Pig,he is as bad as Al Sharpton
..NBC,,CBS,,ABC are part of democrat party If you think FOX is bias 1/20 as much as CBS,your an Idiot moron with brain melt from Reed & Pil o sheit & Obamanation.
Obama could not have been elected with out The complicity of the major media,,& the New York times owner & editor admitted it How can a man whos wife said she did not like America be elected?? how could a man who attended a Hate America church for 20 years be elected president ??,No republican could do this His school records are still hidden.. you see the results of Obama , the country is being destroyed by democrat policies & Obama has added to the destruction
IP: Logged
10:56 AM
Rickady88GT Member
Posts: 10648 From: Central CA Registered: Dec 2002
liar RON PAUL liar ,,when you think ron paul ,,THINK LIAR, LIAR, LIAR,always RACIST.,PORK MASTER,LIAR GOOGLE Ron Paul earmarks Ron Paul pork barrel ron paul racist & many,many,many more
I like ron pauls racist policy from the 90s,,He thought blacks were stupid & a very high percentage of criminal,,This & his first involvement with KKK nazi David Duke made Paul reinvent himself..ROn paul can not be elected unless all blacks are sent back to Africa,,The man is a racist Pig,he is as bad as Al Sharpton
You ar a man of much hate yourself, but no proof. I asked for a list you give more hate. What is the diference between you and him? Or what you "claim him to be"
That's not all. That's not even it. Maybe if you get your facts straight first. Well, I say that in jest. What I mean is, maybe you should state the facts straight. It is not a tax. Social Security is a deduction every bit as a contribution to a 401k. A forced deduction which is supposed to be returned, unless you die. Unlike a 401k.
I'm going to circumvent most of your post, which respecftfully, is a bunch of eyerolling smilies and anecdotal statements about when you go drinking or who a politician is from your state you have never heard of, and rhetoric about founding fathers and did they social justice, which I have no idea how that fits in with what we are discussing here with the expiring payroll tax. Lets just take issue with your one statement here at the beginning of your post and we'll go from there. You say that SS is not a tax.
I looked for links for those who do not call it a tax... did not find one. Now, I LIKE how you define what SS is,but is THAT the truth?
A few other things that I would like to point out- You say the "Dumbocrats" won't call a spade a spade.
(Which, if you want me to take any conversation with you seriously from here on out, you would stop using petty namecalling as part of a "discussion".. I am sure you would be offended if I called the Tea Party "TeaBaggers", as almost all in the tea party take offense, and many cannot themselves refrain from the same kind of namecalling behavior as well. I refrain from throwing around insuts like that.. mostly because I was raised correctly, and follow the golden rule whenever applicable. I expect the same from those who want to engage me in rational discussions about politics. Make them look bad with facts about their behavior, not namecalling. If you want to have a namecalling screaming match, I COULD oblige, but I would likely just walk away. Thats not what I am trying to do here, and I didnt think thats what you were about, either.)
Ok, I'll agree that political posturing usually makes for lousy definition of what any politician is talking about. But Democrats are not alone. For example, our Governor promised he would not raise taxes in Ohio to accomplish his goals. And immediately increased fees at the license bureau and in other areas. His response to criticism "But its not a tax!" And my response? You are still taking more money out of my pocket than before, sir! A tax by any other name is a fee, and since I know very few people who can get along without driving, he's taking more money out of all our pockets at a time when we can afford it the least.
Now what I ask you is this: Regardless of who is spinning this as a tax increase, or an expiration of a decrease, or if it is a tax at all.. I still cant get a single person identifying themselves as a conservative to say whether they are for paying more out of their check like before or if you would rather have more take home pay as a result of extending the payroll "taxcut" or whatever you want to call it. I just want an answer, and this kind of dodging of THAT question is why I am having a hard time thinking Republicans are being genuine in their pledge to take less of our money. Temporary or not. And who is in favor of letting this happen?
This business about 46% not paying taxes is not the issue (and I believe is a estimated number, and may be inflated) but a right wing talking point. It should read "46% pay no FEDERAL taxes" which is a far cry from paying no taxes at all. To be anecdotal, I know nobody who purchases at the store for personal items that does not pay sales taxes. I now nobody who doesn't pay SD taxes, or state taxes. And most people I know of SS/DI still pay taxes on their benefit payments. But when you talk to someone about that (not necessarily you..) its "46 percent pay no taxes" and that is just as much for effect as a Democrat calling the payroll tax expiring a tax increase. That as well is unwillingness for some to call "a spade a spade" as you said.
Now, If 1% of our country are considered "the wealthy" and get those tax cuts, and 46% pay no federal taxes, that means that the other 53% are of the middle class. Or "we who get squeezed like citrus fruits". Do you believe that those who pay the most should not keep more money from their paychecks? Thats the answer I am looking for.
[This message has been edited by tbone42 (edited 08-27-2011).]
liar RON PAUL liar ,,when you think ron paul ,,THINK LIAR, LIAR, LIAR,always RACIST.,PORK MASTER,LIAR GOOGLE Ron Paul earmarks Ron Paul pork barrel ron paul racist & many,many,many more
I like ron pauls racist policy from the 90s,,He thought blacks were stupid & a very high percentage of criminal,,This & his first involvement with KKK nazi David Duke made Paul reinvent himself..ROn paul can not be elected unless all blacks are sent back to Africa,,The man is a racist Pig,he is as bad as Al Sharpton
Stan- you made a thread for this nonsense, could you keep it there so we can actually keep the discussion on topic?
IP: Logged
01:06 PM
Aug 28th, 2011
cliffw Member
Posts: 35940 From: Bandera, Texas, USA Registered: Jun 2003
Originally posted by tbone42: A few other things that I would like to point out- You say the "Dumbocrats" won't call a spade a spade.
(Which, if you want me to take any conversation with you seriously from here on out, you would stop using petty namecalling as part of a "discussion".. I am sure you would be offended if I called the Tea Party "TeaBaggers", as almost all in the tea party take offense, and many cannot themselves refrain from the same kind of namecalling behavior as well. I refrain from throwing around insuts like that.. mostly because I was raised correctly, and follow the golden rule whenever applicable. I expect the same from those who want to engage me in rational discussions about politics. Make them look bad with facts about their behavior, not namecalling. If you want to have a namecalling screaming match, I COULD oblige, but I would likely just walk away. Thats not what I am trying to do here, and I didnt think thats what you were about, either.)
Dumbocrats, Repulsivecans, Tea Baggers. A rose by any other name is still a rose. You are wrong in that I would be offended that anyone would call the Tea Party "Tea baggers". I can see beyond rhetoric, and terminology actually gives more insight into , if not just to the message, the feelings or passion of the messenger and clues to the pscyhie/motivation of the messenger. The ability to see beyond personal feelings allows one to experience, consider, and understand more. I am not expecting for you to take my conversation seriously nor do I expect anyone to converse with me in a certain manner. I also do not wish to make anyone look bad and name calling wouldn't do it anyway. That said, I like you, your posts, and your civility. Please though don't jump on the "civility and decorum bandwagon" as a measure of discourse. Civility and decorum is relative. I responded to your request ...
quote
Originally posted by tbone42: So nobody wants to respond the the Republicons/Tea Party wanting to raise the pay roll tax? Or is that gonna be glossed over because it cant be defended in line whith their supposed rhetoric? Or is my FOX news story not good enough?
... and how you take it is up to you. My day will neither get shorter nor longer no matter how you do. I obliged your request and then am scolded for my delivery style ? My reply was feelings, not linked sources or others talking points to discredit your source. I never did read the rest of the critique of Charles Babington.
quote
Originally posted by tbone42: Some people shoot the messenger. This messenger really doesnt care what you think about ..... .... Dont like it? Not my problem..
You have not offended me and I apologize that I offend you. That is not my intent. I will not apologize for my ... flair, that's just me. I did not personally call you a name nor do I do that to anybody (that I can recollect), even some who I lock horns with. I was surprised to be scolded for my response.
I stand factually corrected and applaud you for being fair in looking for a source which supported my beliefs. I do think my description of Social Security is the truth. A calculated way for the government to get more money. Thinking now on the issue of contributions being a tax, of course they are. The government is not empowered to take money from us in any other way, . (Well, fees being a back door directed tax.) Here is an interesting take on if it is a tax or not.
quote
Originally posted by tbone42: Now what I ask you is this: I still cant get a single person identifying themselves as a conservative to say whether they are for paying more out of their check like before or if you would rather have more take home pay as a result of extending the payroll "taxcut" or whatever you want to call it. I just want an answer, and this kind of dodging of THAT question is why I am having a hard time thinking Republicans are being genuine in their pledge to take less of our money. Temporary or not. And who is in favor of letting this happen?
I'm conservative though not a Repulsivecan. I am not for paying more out of my check and can't imagine anyone who is, except a politician. I am not even a fan of Social Security. People need to learn to do for themselves and, there was no national calamity before we had Social Security. What was that "tax" savings ? $1,000.00 a year, less than $100.00 a month ? Nothing individually but it does benefit the economy collectively.
quote
Originally posted by tbone42: Now, If 1% of our country are considered "the wealthy" and get those tax cuts, and 46% pay no federal taxes, that means that the other 53% are of the middle class. Or "we who get squeezed like citrus fruits". Do you believe that those who pay the most should not keep more money from their paychecks? Thats the answer I am looking for.
Sorry for the correction. It reflects what I believe you are asking. Yes, yes I do. Success should not be penalized.
quote
Originally posted by tbone42: This business about 46% not paying taxes is not the issue (and I believe is a estimated number, and may be inflated) but a right wing talking point. It should read "46% pay no FEDERAL taxes" which is a far cry from paying no taxes at all. To be anecdotal, I know nobody who purchases at the store for personal items that does not pay sales taxes. I now nobody who doesn't pay SD taxes, or state taxes. And most people I know of SS/DI still pay taxes on their benefit payments. But when you talk to someone about that (not necessarily you..) its "46 percent pay no taxes" and that is just as much for effect as a Democrat calling the payroll tax expiring a tax increase. That as well is unwillingness for some to call "a spade a spade" as you said.
You are 110% right and an unintentional error on my part. Dang, I almost made it entirely through life without ever being wrong, , . My point was about fairness in taxing. Everybody should pay taxes that others do. With fairness in mind, I agree with a lower tax rate, but some tax should be paid.
[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 08-28-2011).]
IP: Logged
08:50 AM
NEPTUNE Member
Posts: 10199 From: Ticlaw FL, and some other places. Registered: Aug 2001
It'll be interesting (and telling) to see how the Tea Drinking politicians act when a natural disaster affects their lives. Wait; we've already seen it:
quote
Irene may send fiscal conservatives running to feds for money
Mike Thomas
COMMENTARY
10:35 p.m. EDT, August 27, 2011 tea-party politics have now entered the realm of disaster relief.
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor promises he will oppose any federal assistance for this storm unless it is accompanied by corresponding cuts in the federal budget.
This is the hard line he took after tornadoes flattened Joplin, Mo., killing 134 people.
We will see how sincere he is with his own state at risk, with Virginia Beach and Norfolk facing a huge storm surge and howling winds. Not to mention Chris Christie's exposed shoreline, including Atlantic City.
Is Cantor really going to provoke another showdown like the one over the debt limit? The Eastern Seaboard is flooded, powerless, beaten and battered and the tea party digs in its heels on disaster relief to score philosophical points on federal spending?
Let's assume that becomes the new precedent.
Sooner or later, the hurricanes will be headed back this way, very possibly sooner.
I think the Twin Ricks — Scott and Perry — might have qualms with Cantor's pay-as-you-go disaster relief when Florida and Texas get whacked again.
Rick Perry hasn't been shy about begging for federal disaster aid to handle the record drought in his state. In fact, he got downright ornery when it wasn't swift enough in coming.
In April, Rick Scott gladly accepted FEMA money to help cover the cost of a raging fire in Southwest Florida.
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal praised President Barack Obama in May for opening the federal floodgates when the Mississippi River overflowed its banks.
Gov. Bob Riley of Alabama couldn't thank Obama enough for disaster relief sent after tornadoes pummeled his state last year. More tornadoes brought more help this year.
There's nothing like a natural disaster to turn a conservative, anti-Washington politician into Yogi Bear, begging for a federal picnic basket.
Also consider the impact of an inflexible balanced-budget amendment championed by these conservatives.
There are four reasons not to raise taxes on the wealthy:
First, the rich may not be able to afford it. As defined by The Washington Post in a Dec. 10, 2010, article, the wealthy have incomes of $250,000 per year, “the annual income that President Obama and others have repeatedly used to define what it means to be ‘rich’ in America today.”
However, there is wide disparity in their disposable income due to locality, the costs of local taxes, fees and personal expenses required to maintain professions. And some of these people may actually be in the hole.
After all, they generally pay for their children to attend college because they don’t qualify for low-cost loans and some pay very high real-estate taxes, which enrich local coffers.
Second, the rich already pay more than their share of taxes. Rep. Tom Graves, R-Ga., tweeted in April that “America’s wealthiest 25 percent pay 86 percent of total income taxes. Wealthiest 5 percent pay 60 percent of total income taxes.”
PolitiFact checked the congressman’s facts and came up with similar numbers, citing a report by the IRS that was completed last winter showing the top 5 percent of taxpayers paid 58.7 percent of federal income taxes and the top 25 percent paid 86.34 percent. That means that the remaining 75 percent of the population paid only 13.66 percent of federal income taxes.
Third, the redistribution of wealth is morally wrong.
The June 11 issue of Stansberry’s Investment Advisory newsletter states, “As everyone should know by now, the promises of socialism aren’t affordable. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is inefficient and kills Peter’s incentives. The result is usually economic stagnation.”
Indeed, the journal continues, that is what we have experienced since 1971, when we went off the gold standard.
The fourth reason is our entire tax system needs to be reformed, probably to a fair tax, which taxes consumption. For when 75 percent of our population pays only 13.66 percent of our federal income taxes, change we can finally believe in has to come.
You assume that only Christians opose gay marage. That is not true. It is also true that some who claim to be Christian suport gay marage.
So being that you have not made a valid list of "Christian sharia law" I have to ask again for more examples. Muslum sharia law is a VERY long and extensive list of laws. To say Christians are imposing this type of system on the US would imply that you have 10 or more laws, at least.
the BLUE LAWS [ not on a sunday] effect sales of many odd items in many states not just alcohol but many diverse items from comic books to car sales
sex laws sodomy laws [anti-gay] prostitution laws ect behind every one is some church moral group
dry countys are all in the bible belt church's support from Prohibition to hours you can buy a drink with lots of laws in every state
the war on drugs and drug laws all church supported heavy chuch money behind anti-decrim/anti-legalization efforts
anti-cursing laws all church supported , F-them all free speach inc's cursing
limits on medicine, and reproductive research [morning after pill stem cells ect] all that stupid anti-progressive efforts backed by the churches
anti-sex ed and birth control ed efforts family planning ect all church backed
anti-nudest laws inc beaches all church backed
censorship of books movies and music all by church group demands esp rating systems and esp FCC censorship of TV programs and radio
our nut thumpers are very much as active on limiting rights and freedoms as their like thinking tali-bann nuts
You are 110% right and an unintentional error on my part. Dang, I almost made it entirely through life without ever being wrong, , . My point was about fairness in taxing. Everybody should pay taxes that others do. With fairness in mind, I agree with a lower tax rate, but some tax should be paid.
I knew you were on our side.
Yes, lower taxes and keep them low. Economy needs it to recover... I agree taxes must be paid, but we, the middle class, get squeezed so dang bad.
What if miffing me (and not about you) is the unwillingness some here have to speak to this issue of the payroll tax . We can get dodgy and say "Its an expiring tax cut" but except you, nobody told me if it should expire in their opinion. I fear its because if they do, it wil also speak to their position on the Bush Era tax cuts for the wealthy, which the right is defending so hard. After all, if one is in favor of the payroll tax cut expiring for the poor and middle class, then one should be in favor of letting the "tax cuts on the wealthy" expire as well, right?
Me? I think both should stay in place.. at least for now with the economy struggling and Job numbers so low. But, when (if) we recover a little further, I think both should expire to help pay back the oney we all owe on the defecit, if leaving a debt for our children and grandchildren is really why we want to pay it down, and not just a political battlecry to make the other guys look bad.
Good posts Cliff, and yeah, I believe Civility and Decorum SHOULD be observed, but I wont be the C&D police. I just stop talkin to those that dont observe it.
IP: Logged
01:37 PM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27079 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
Originally posted by tbone42: the Bush Era tax cuts for the wealthy,
You are repeating a half-truth. The Bush era tax cuts were for EVERYONE. Every tax bracket got a tax cut.
quote
which the right is defending so hard. After all, if one is in favor of the payroll tax cut expiring for the poor and middle class, then one should be in favor of letting the "tax cuts on the wealthy" expire as well, right?
No, not right.
The "payroll tax cut" was intended to be temporary, part of "stimulus". One could argue that it was a political ploy. The Bush tax cuts were also intended to be stimulus AFTER 9/11. Remember that...you know...airplanes...twin towers...Pentagon...economy dropped? Did the economy recover after 9/11? I'd say so. Right up until the housing market crashed (which was driven by DEMOCRATIC policies and leftist activism forcing banks to make bad loans). Did the Bush "stimulus" work? It seems so. Did the "payroll tax reduction" work? Eh, questionable. Unemployment is still above 9%.
But back to the Bush tax cuts. Anyone who repeats the half-truth of "tax cuts for the wealthy" is being less than truthful, or at least is showing too much bias.
Originally posted by tbone42: Me? I think both should stay in place.. at least for now with the economy struggling and Job numbers so low. But, when (if) we recover a little further, I think both should expire to help pay back the oney we all owe on the defecit, if leaving a debt for our children and grandchildren is really why we want to pay it down, and not just a political battlecry to make the other guys look bad.
Me ? I guess I was not clear. The fault is mine. The Social Security " tax break " should be repealed. Call it a tax hike. I can see why the GOP might lean that way. We have already spent our children's national inheritance leaving them a debt. Do we now want to strip the solvency of our senior's retirement ? The program is already forecast for trouble at current operating principles. The Bush tax cuts ? Why should they be repealed ? The rich are already overtaxed and, ... tax hikes never get repealed. Tax cuts with the economy struggling and jobs numbers so low ? Why not always if it helps those statistics ? Perhaps the tax burden was part of the reason for a declining economy and jobs going overseas. It is said that we have the highest tax rate in the world (I believe, maybe just corporate). It is time that citizens and corporations quit becoming a cash cow for government.
The "payroll tax cut" was intended to be temporary, part of "stimulus". One could argue that it was a political ploy. The Bush tax cuts were also intended to be stimulus AFTER 9/11. Remember that...you know...airplanes...twin towers...Pentagon...economy dropped? Did the economy recover after 9/11? I'd say so. Right up until the housing market crashed (which was driven by DEMOCRATIC policies and leftist activism forcing banks to make bad loans). Did the Bush "stimulus" work? It seems so. Did the "payroll tax reduction" work? Eh, questionable. Unemployment is still above 9%.
But back to the Bush tax cuts. Anyone who repeats the half-truth of "tax cuts for the wealthy" is being less than truthful, or at least is showing too much bias.
Speaking of showing too much bias...you even blame the 2008 market crash on Democrats only?
Also let me get this straight the Bush Tax Cuts were a "temporary stimulus" to get the economy back on track after 9/11 and it worked (says you) but they never decided to end this temporary measure to... oh I don't know help pay for two wars? I mean it sounds great "We were just attacked by terrorists and our economy is suffering but you the people won't feel any effects of trying to get the economy back or going to war in two places, in your pocketbook, in fact you'll be paying less for all of it".
Isn't that exactly what many people here crap on the Democrats for ...."stimulus" in time of catastrophe? What is it they say " A rose be any other name"
Seems to me that the feeling of patriotism and comradery shortly after 9/11 could have been channelled into convincing the American people to deal with the BIG issues like the economy and how to pay for two wars at that time but nope it was deemed better by some to "kick the can down the road" as many like to say. Add to that the 2008 crash and....YIKES! Now you can argue that Obama dropped the ball since he took office and I think in many ways he has but to say that Bush didn't exacerbate the problems beforehand is a little out there IMO.
Me ? I guess I was not clear. The fault is mine. The Social Security " tax break " should be repealed. Call it a tax hike. I can see why the GOP might lean that way. We have already spent our children's national inheritance leaving them a debt. Do we now want to strip the solvency of our senior's retirement ? The program is already forecast for trouble at current operating principles. The Bush tax cuts ? Why should they be repealed ? The rich are already overtaxed and, ... tax hikes never get repealed. Tax cuts with the economy struggling and jobs numbers so low ? Why not always if it helps those statistics ? Perhaps the tax burden was part of the reason for a declining economy and jobs going overseas. It is said that we have the highest tax rate in the world (I believe, maybe just corporate). It is time that citizens and corporations quit becoming a cash cow for government.
Correct, tax hikes never do get repealed. However, the Bush Era tax cuts are temporary (like the payroll tax) and set to expire at the end of 2012. Republicans are painting themselves into a corner on the issue by wanting to allow the payroll tax to expire and will argue to extend the temporary tax cuts to the wealthy. More votes in the middle class and poor than the wealthy, why would they want to pander only to the rich and not the middle class. You can believe this will be an election year issue of explosive potential.. "They let the payroll tax cuts expire after only one year, but want to renew tax cuts for the wealthy that have had them for a decade!" It will get ugly before its through.. if they were smart, The Repubs would be in favor of extending the payroll tax cuts until after the election, for that reason.
[This message has been edited by tbone42 (edited 08-28-2011).]
IP: Logged
06:35 PM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27079 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
Originally posted by newf: Speaking of showing too much bias...you even blame the 2008 market crash on Democrats only?
I didn't say "market crash", did I? Which market are you referring to?
quote
Also let me get this straight the Bush Tax Cuts were a "temporary stimulus" to get the economy back on track after 9/11 and it worked (says you) but they never decided to end this temporary measure to... oh I don't know help pay for two wars?
They shouldn't have made those tax cuts temporary. I disagree with them on that.
As far as paying for two wars, the economy rebounded and tax revenues went up.
The one problem is that they didn't cut *spending*. Reagan had a Democratic Congress and they didn't follow through on spending cuts. Bush and the Republicans didn't cut spending, either. That's where they went wrong, not the tax cuts.
quote
I mean it sounds great "We were just attacked by terrorists and our economy is suffering but you the people won't feel any effects of trying to get the economy back or going to war in two places, in your pocketbook, in fact you'll be paying less for all of it".
And it worked.
quote
Isn't that exactly what many people here crap on the Democrats for ...."stimulus" in time of catastrophe? What is it they say " A rose be any other name"
No. Tax cuts are not the same as government stimulus, which doesn't work, and adds to the debt and deficit at the same time. The Republicans didn't do government stimulus (at least not to the level the Dems did). When you get to keep more of your money, it is good for you and good for the economy.
quote
Seems to me that the feeling of patriotism and comradery shortly after 9/11 could have been channelled into convincing the American people to deal with the BIG issues like the economy and how to pay for two wars at that time but nope it was deemed better by some to "kick the can down the road" as many like to say. Add to that the 2008 crash and....YIKES!
The budget deficits under Bush and the Republicans were pocket change compared to the Democrat's spending. We're talking about the Dems spending FOUR TIMES as much, on a yearly basis.
quote
Now you can argue that Obama dropped the ball since he took office and I think in many ways he has but to say that Bush didn't exacerbate the problems beforehand is a little out there IMO.
Different situations, different economies, different types of "stimulus".
!
! A different type of "tax cut" ? Oh. I see. Revenue enhancement is code for tax hike.
. My point was about fairness in taxing. Everybody should pay taxes that others do. With fairness in mind, I agree with a lower tax rate, but some tax should be paid.
