"Rich still arent paying their fair share"

[newtothegame]

http://washingtonexaminer.com/obama-we-raised-taxes-but-the-rich-still-arent-paying-their-fair-share/article/2517443#.UOWqhG_AexV

Notice the part about 1:50-2:15....Obama specifically say's (after this agreement was passed,) "ask the wealthiest americans to contribute and pay their fair share".....
I thought that is what we just did?????
lol, Who couldn't see this coming??? And it will not be just the "wealthiest".....

“Obviously, there is still more to do when it comes to reducing our debt,” Obama said in the video. “And I’m willing to do more, as long as we do it in a balanced way that doesn’t put all the burden on seniors or students or middle class families, but also asks the wealthiest Americans to contribute and pay their fair share.”
:lol:

[HUSKER55]

DEFINE FAIR SHARE:

wasn't it on another thread that 50% of the population pay no taxes at all

[fast4522]

The Bilderburg Group owns this President, when he is leaving office four years from now company's like GE will still pay next to nothing in taxes. Not so funny is the fact you will not be able to buy the old style light bulbs and all of the ones being sold will be from Europe by who? That pays how much taxes? This is complete control as refereed to in another thread. What the puppet (President) will say in the near future is more garbage about millionaires need to pay more of their fair share to do things in a fair balanced way. Feelgood talk that translates multinationals pay nothing and small business and the middle class pick up the whole tab. Company's like Apple will pay a little only because of its small employee ratio in the USA compared to the sardine cans in China producing our Ipods & Ipads. Huge factory's with workers 8 to 10 per room living on site in the factory working shifts of employees on the cheep. No one is going to go after Apple to pay more taxes in the next four years, Apple will always be a little darling of the Bilderburg Group and the President. Examples go on and on as far as the eyes can see, regulations are for company's operating inside the USA so the millionaires can not compete with the Bilderburg institutional investor. Most of your multinational company's are comprised of these same Bilderburg institutional investors. And when the fat lady sings, they always make in the stock market while the retirement investments of the average guy gets smoked.

[Tom]

DEFINE FAIR SHARE:

wasn't it on another thread that 50% of the population pay no taxes at all

0.7% pay 40% of all income taxes.
To a democrat, fair share means revenge and payback.
No democrat has any honor.
By definition.

[soupan]

Oh it's so amusing reading the rants of those who SPECIFICALLY applaude and vote for the same people who give it to them, right up the ass.

Hey Fast and Tom...did you read this definition on another thread?

Derrieracracy (Dairy-air-oc-racy)

A system of Government where it's politicians are controlled by the wealthy and powerful who exploit the country's laws and labor, only to have the adult children of those exploited vote them out, thus seizing their power and eventually their wealth.

These are the same wealthy and powerful you applaude and vote for.
Guys like Jack Welch who built GE into a tax evading, poluting, outsourcing monster, all under the guise of needing to "stay competitive" of course.

BTW, the reason the guy in the white house won so easily, is precisely due to the votes of those who parents were exploited for cheap labor and who have now pretty much taken over "your" country. :lol: :lol:

So FAST rants about the China sweat shops....lol...Hey Fasty, the wealthy have just found an even CHEAPER, legal way to exploit, (all to stay competitive, of course) the labor market. A way so very few can become very wealthy all at the expense of THIS country.

Tell you what, if shipping hundreds of millions (if not billions) of $$$ in Salaries overseas to China, Malaysia, Vietnam etc (not to mention the payoffs of powerful politicians over there) and if parking money in the Cayman's or Nassau (like EVERY BANK and many wealthy individuals do) if that's not TREASONOUS, I don't know what is.

NO, the 7% tax increase is NOT enough on the wealthy, and OBAMA caved in.

So how does it feel FASTY and TOMMY...to get it RIGHT BACK UP YOUR ARSE!

[Robert Goren]

I just checked. If you are single and used the standard deduction with only yourself as a dependent, you start paying the income tax at $9750. Basically every single person with no kids pays income tax. I don't know where they get those crazy numbers like half the people don't pay incomes. If you are a kid working full time at Burger King, you are paying income taxes. Not a lot, but some

[Actor]

DEFINE FAIR SHARE:During WWII persons making more than $200,000 paid a marginal rate of 94%. If you adjust for inflation the $200,000 becomes $2,500,000. A marginal tax rate of 94% on incomes over $2,500,000 is fair.

[Tom]

Hey soup bone - how long have you been thinking, talking and sitting all on the same body part?

You really are proud of your gross ignorance, aren't you?
You must have flunked of some very good schools.

BTW it is not nice to blame others for your miserable failure as a person.:lol:

[Tom]

During WWII persons making more than $200,000 paid a marginal rate of 94%. If you adjust for inflation the $200,000 becomes $2,500,000. A marginal tax rate of 94% on incomes over $2,500,000 is fair.

Da, Comrade. Da.

[RunForTheRoses]

I just checked. If you are single and used the standard deduction with only yourself as a dependent, you start paying the income tax at $9750. Basically every single person with no kids pays income tax. I don't know where they get those crazy numbers like half the people don't pay incomes. If you are a kid working full time at Burger King, you are paying income taxes. Not a lot, but some

Google Earned Income Tax Credit

[Saratoga_Mike]

I just checked. If you are single and used the standard deduction with only yourself as a dependent, you start paying the income tax at $9750. Basically every single person with no kids pays income tax. I don't know where they get those crazy numbers like half the people don't pay incomes. If you are a kid working full time at Burger King, you are paying income taxes. Not a lot, but some

Married couple with two kids making $35,000/yr filing jointly...standard deduction $11,900....exemptions $15,200...equals $7,900 in taxable income....owe $790 in taxes...but it's all offset by EIC....they actually get money back.

[RunForTheRoses]

Google Earned Income Tax Credit

It is true that EIC is higher for those with Dependents but even for single filers they don't pay tax to ~24K (the amount you listed as Standard Deduction + the amount EIC phazes out for single filers:

A single filer's adjusted gross income must be less than $13,950

http://www.taxslayer.com/support/208?language=1&page=1

[RunForTheRoses]

Married couple with two kids making $35,000/yr filing jointly...standard deduction $11,900....exemptions $15,200...equals $7,900 in taxable income....owe $790 in taxes...but it's all offset by EIC....they actually get money back.

Plus there are a plethora of other Refundable and Non refundable tax Credits such as the Child tax Care Credit. There are also plenty of loopholes for business and wealthy which I would like to see eradicated. The tax code is a very good guide to Polictics in this country, everyone should go out and get a copy of the IRS Publication 17, usually available at your library, post office or IRS service center:

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p17.pdf

[jdhanover]

Taxes is a complex issue. A person making a low salary may not pay income tax but they do pay taxes (sales tax, gas tax, and a host of other local/state taxes).

To me the issue is as much the so-called loopholes as anything else. When the tax code drives people to send money and assets overseas, we have a problem. If much of that came back here, then tax revenue would rise significantly without changing rates.

But do you know why that doesn't happen? Because BOTH parties have their 'pet' industries that they protect.

I am amused that the Republicans here blame the Democrats and vice-versa. The tax code has been developed over many years and both parties have had the power to change it but didn't.

[ArlJim78]

the centerpiece of the Romney/Ryan tax policy was to maintain revenue, close loopholes and lower rates, thereby bringing money in to the system and stimulating a better environment for business and remove the unfairness of some of the outrageous tax credits for select industries.
this plan was rejected by the voters and demagogued by the media which characterized it as only benefitting the rich.
the voters have selected the path of higher taxes and more loopholes, although most of them did so thinking the higher taxes would fall only on other people.

[jdhanover]

the centerpiece of the Romney/Ryan tax policy was to maintain revenue, close loopholes and lower rates, thereby bringing money in to the system and stimulating a better environment for business and remove the unfairness of some of the outrageous tax credits for select industries.
this plan was rejected by the voters and demagogued by the media which characterized it as only benefitting the rich.
the voters have selected the path of higher taxes and more loopholes, although most of them did so thinking the higher taxes would fall only on other people.

I disagree on this, Jim (respectfully I might add - something that this part of PA has a tendency to not be unfortunately) - they said this is what they would do, but their 'plan' (which lacked detail and/or GAO verification) didn't do this. In the end they would have protected their interests and their main contributors.

[Robert Goren]

If congress tried to close loopholes(which is unlikely), they wouldn't stay closed long. Those of us old enough to remember the Reagan presidency should remember he tried and 30 years everyone he closed is back with bunch thrown for good measure. When you hear a politician of either party these days talking about closing loopholes, you can be sure they are just blowing wind out of their backside.

[Tom]

In the end they would have protected their interests and their main contributors.

Which, bottom line, is exactly what the Obama plan has been all along.
His economic policy has been nothing but class warfare, blind hatred of his betters, and rewarding his contributors while pushing a green agenda that has failed at every turn.

With Romney, at least we had a shot.

[Mike at A+]

My wife's paycheck goes into our savings account through automatic deposit by one of the big payroll processing companies. Today is payday and her check is usually in long before we wake up (around 5AM). It is now after 1PM and no check. The processing company is naturally blaming it on "fiscal cliff fallout". Gotta love this administration. Demonize those evil rich people and screw everyone else.

[Saratoga_Mike]

The payroll processors should still be operating under the 2012 withholding tables, so I think they're just using that as an excuse for their own internal screw up on some other front.

[Saratoga_Mike]

I disagree on this, Jim (respectfully I might add - something that this part of PA has a tendency to not be unfortunately) - they said this is what they would do, but their 'plan' (which lacked detail and/or GAO verification) didn't do this. In the end they would have protected their interests and their main contributors.

Their plan did lack detail, I agree, but the CBO (I think you meant CBO, not GAO) only scores bills coming out of Congress, not presidential candidates' proposals.

[thaskalos]

No democrat has any honor.
By definition.

Does this apply only to politicians...or is it meant for the common citizens as well?

[Valuist]

the centerpiece of the Romney/Ryan tax policy was to maintain revenue, close loopholes and lower rates, thereby bringing money in to the system and stimulating a better environment for business and remove the unfairness of some of the outrageous tax credits for select industries.
this plan was rejected by the voters and demagogued by the media which characterized it as only benefitting the rich.
the voters have selected the path of higher taxes and more loopholes, although most of them did so thinking the higher taxes would fall only on other people.

Unfortunately we are a country now controlled by mindless sheeple, incapable of ever reading between the lines, and influenced by a biased media.

[HUSKER55]

for those of you who can remember, (I know..I know...as we get older memory is a luxury :D ), Bob Dole said, during his campaign , that if corporations paid just 4% flat tax it would solve the problem way back then.


ya know what, if I was president I would order a delta strike on the Camem Islands and see who is screwing who.

I know there is no one who could make that fly but wouldn't it be interesting to find out how many hands are in the till.

[soupan]

.

What would a delta strike accomplish on a bunch of offices with nothing important inside and a nameplate on the door do?

The Cayman Islands are just used as a phony address...

(in case those on this site don't know, which makes it even more immoral and Treasonous).

[mostpost]

http://washingtonexaminer.com/obama-we-raised-taxes-but-the-rich-still-arent-paying-their-fair-share/article/2517443#.UOWqhG_AexV

Notice the part about 1:50-2:15....Obama specifically say's (after this agreement was passed,) "ask the wealthiest americans to contribute and pay their fair share".....
I thought that is what we just did?????
lol, Who couldn't see this coming??? And it will not be just the "wealthiest".....

“Obviously, there is still more to do when it comes to reducing our debt,” Obama said in the video. “And I’m willing to do more, as long as we do it in a balanced way that doesn’t put all the burden on seniors or students or middle class families, but also asks the wealthiest Americans to contribute and pay their fair share.”
:lol:

Once again Obama is correct. 39.6% might be a fair rate for those earning $400,000. It is too low for those earning $1,000,000 and way too low for those earning $5,000,000 plus.

[HUSKER55]

then where are the politicians hiding all this money?

[mostpost]

DEFINE FAIR SHARE:

wasn't it on another thread that 50% of the population pay no taxes at all
50% of the population-the bottom 50%-controls 1% of the wealth. How is it fair to ask them to pay any taxes? Even 1% is unjust.

[mostpost]

0.7% pay 40% of all income taxes.
To a democrat, fair share means revenge and payback.
No democrat has any honor.
By definition.

1% of the population has 42% of the financial wealth of the country. 40% of the taxes with 42% of the wealth seems very fair to me. Of curse to a synchopant like you it would seem unfair.

[RaceBookJoe]

1% of the population has 42% of the financial wealth of the country. 40% of the taxes with 42% of the wealth seems very fair to me. Of curse to a synchopant like you it would seem unfair.

Newton's 1st Law : Couch potatoes remain couch potatoes and achievers keep doing the things that bring achievement :)

[johnhannibalsmith]

50% of the population-the bottom 50%-controls 1% of the wealth. How is it fair to ask them to pay any taxes? Even 1% is unjust.

Good news is, before long it will be up to 60% and even more won't have to pay taxes. Bad news is, that probably won't help your "revenue" problem.

And no more mocking other people's spelling with your "curse of the cinco pants" in the other post. :D

[Saratoga_Mike]

1% of the population has 42% of the financial wealth of the country. 40% of the taxes with 42% of the wealth seems very fair to me. Of curse to a sycophant like you it would seem unfair.

I'm sure Tom's been called many names, but sycophant (I assume that's what you meant - I corrected your spelling in the quote)? Exactly who is Tom attempting to butter up? It's almost laughable. No, it is laughable.

[soupan]

then where are the politicians hiding all this money?


LOL...


The assets aren't PHYSICALLY transferred....It's like if you deposit $1000 in your bank, and you write a check to someone for that $1000, then they deposit it in their bank.

The EXACT $1000 you deposited isn't sent by Brinks truck from one bank to the other... It's all done "on paper".

The offices and Banks in the Caymans may have a few clerical staff, or maybe empty storefronts....it's just a front, until tax time.

So to answer your questions, they are hiding the assets there, but they don't really exist there.

Nice, isn't it?

[Tom]

Does this apply only to politicians...or is it meant for the common citizens as well?

Elected democrats have no honor.
Private citizen dems have no brains!~:lol:

[Tom]

The payroll processors should still be operating under the 2012 withholding tables, so I think they're just using that as an excuse for their own internal screw up on some other front.

Mine used the new 6% rates.

[Tom]

Exactly who is Tom attempting to butter up?

Moi?
Mr. Diplomacy?

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

[thaskalos]

Elected democrats have no honor.
Private citizen dems have no brains!~:lol:
That's more like it... :)

[badcompany]

Newton's 1st Law : Couch potatoes remain couch potatoes and achievers keep doing the things that bring achievement :)

And the Couch Potatoes will blame their lack of achievement on the achievers.:)

When you live in big city like NYC, you really get to see how many useless wastes of sperm there are walking around (No offense, Mostpost;) ). Everyday I wonder how long before the system breaks under all the dead weight.

[PaceAdvantage]

Once again Obama is correct. 39.6% might be a fair rate for those earning $400,000. It is too low for those earning $1,000,000 and way too low for those earning $5,000,000 plus.Says who?

Why do you and those like you continue to PENALIZE people for being successful?

EVERYONE should pay the SAME EXACT income tax rate. If you MAKE MORE, you PAY MORE. But everyone PAYS THE SAME in terms of percentages.

I'm sure you'd have a problem with that though, right?

[badcompany]

50% of the population-the bottom 50%-controls 1% of the wealth. How is it fair to ask them to pay any taxes? Even 1% is unjust.

What percentage of government services do they take?

[soupan]

Says who?

Why do you and those like you continue to PENALIZE people for being successful?

EVERYONE should pay the SAME EXACT income tax rate. If you MAKE MORE, you PAY MORE. But everyone PAYS THE SAME in terms of percentages.

I'm sure you'd have a problem with that though, right?

Sure he has a problem with it because it's fantasy, it doesn't work.

It's the discrepancy in income over the last decade (destruction of the middle class) that's probably the major cause of this problem.

[TJDave]

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report) - A consortium of billionaires today warned that if their taxes are raised they will no longer have enough money to buy politicians. The group, led by casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson, commissioned a new study showing that the cost of an average politician has soared exponentially over the past decade.

While the American family has seen increases in the cost of food, health care and education, Mr. Adelson says, "those costs don't compare with the cost of buying a politician, which has gone through the roof." The casino billionaire points to his group's study, which puts the cost of purchasing an average House member at two million dollars and an average senator at several times that.

"And let's say you buy a Senator like [South Carolina Senator] Jim DeMint and he decides to quit," Mr. Adelson says. "Good luck trying to get your money back."

The Vegas magnate complains that the media has ignored billionaires' essential role in giving jobs to politicians who would otherwise have difficulty finding "honest work of any kind." "Billionaires are providing employment for a group of seriously incompetent and marginal people," Mr. Adelson says. "You raise taxes on us, and who's going to create those jobs? I really don't think people have thought this through."

Adding insult to injury for America's billionaires, he says, "the simple dream of someday owning a President is slipping out of reach. People think a billion buys you a President, but they are so wrong."

[thaskalos]

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report) - A consortium of billionaires today warned that if their taxes are raised they will no longer have enough money to buy politicians. The group, led by casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson, commissioned a new study showing that the cost of an average politician has soared exponentially over the past decade.

While the American family has seen increases in the cost of food, health care and education, Mr. Adelson says, "those costs don't compare with the cost of buying a politician, which has gone through the roof." The casino billionaire points to his group's study, which puts the cost of purchasing an average House member at two million dollars and an average senator at several times that.

"And let's say you buy a Senator like [South Carolina Senator] Jim DeMint and he decides to quit," Mr. Adelson says. "Good luck trying to get your money back."

The Vegas magnate complains that the media has ignored billionaires' essential role in giving jobs to politicians who would otherwise have difficulty finding "honest work of any kind." "Billionaires are providing employment for a group of seriously incompetent and marginal people," Mr. Adelson says. "You raise taxes on us, and who's going to create those jobs? I really don't think people have thought this through."

Adding insult to injury for America's billionaires, he says, "the simple dream of someday owning a President is slipping out of reach. People think a billion buys you a President, but they are so wrong."
Is it too early for me to nominate this for "Post of the Year"?

[Saratoga_Mike]

I know it was a parody, but how did Mr. Adelson's money work out for Newt Gingrich? How about Foster Freiss' money behind Rick Santorum? Is Linda McMahon the senator from CT now? Is Meg Whitman the gov of Cali? Is Carly Fiorina a senator from Cali now?

Money isn't as powerful as people perceive - money AND a message are powerful.

[ArlJim78]

the Citizens United decision didn't turn out to have the effect that some were claiming it would either.

[mostpost]

Says who?

Why do you and those like you continue to PENALIZE people for being successful?
Taxes are not to PENALIZE people for being successful. They are to pay for services for the common good. Your problem is you think the government is picking on you and you don't believe in the common good.

EVERYONE should pay the SAME EXACT income tax rate. If you MAKE MORE, you PAY MORE. But everyone PAYS THE SAME in terms of percentages.

I'm sure you'd have a problem with that though, right?

A big problem. In fact you can supersize the problem I have with it. Someone who is a millionaire can afford to a higher rate than someone who works at the post office and never made more than $50,000 in a year. Particularly since we both paid 10% on earnings up to $17,000 (2011 rates) and we both paid 15% on earnings between 17,000 and 50,000. At $69,000 our millionaires rate goes up to 25%, but guess what, if I made more than $69,000 my rate would go up too.

There is no lower tax rate for middle class or poor than there is for wealthy.
There is nothing that says you pay 10% on your first $17,000, but if you earned $1M during the year, you have to pay 20%. We all pay the same percentage on the same amounts. Any person making only $17,000 would be thrilled to pay 15% tax if their salary could go up to $40,000 a year. They would be thrilled if it went up to $20,000.

[mostpost]

the Citizens United decision didn't turn out to have the effect that some were claiming it would either.
The Citizens United decision didn't turn out to have the effect that some hoped it would for the same reason that the voter suppression efforts did not have the effect some hoped they would have. Because both energized and focused the efforts of the people those strategies were meant to marginalize.

[JustRalph]

then where are the politicians hiding all this money?

First off, they aren't hiding anything. It's legal. Just like Romney's money was legally in tax havens in the islands

2nd, you didn't really think there were buildings full of money down there? Did you?

Apple, Google, IBM, GE all avoid paying taxes thru the Caymens, the Irish Double and a few other ways. Much more than real people do.

Apple has 145 billion in the bank. Taxed at a rate of about 2%. Google has an estimated 75 billion cash on hand taxed at 2 %. Somehow that's ok with Dems
http://www.webguild.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/obamatechdinner.jpg



You could take all of their money and you wouldn't make a dent in our debt.

[Robert Goren]

First off, they aren't hiding anything. It's legal. Just like Romney's money was legally in tax havens in the islands

2nd, you didn't really think there were buildings full of money down there? Did you?

Apple, Google, IBM, GE all avoid paying taxes thru the Caymens, the Irish Double and a few other ways. Much more than real people do.

Apple has 145 billion in the bank. Taxed at a rate of about 2%. Google has an estimated 75 billion cash on hand taxed at 2 %. Somehow that's ok with Dems
http://www.webguild.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/obamatechdinner.jpg



You could take all of their money and you wouldn't make a dent in our debt.Where did you get that idea? Not from any Dem I know. Great picture by the way. Where did you get? Larry Ellison in the same room with half the people in picture would have been fun to see.

[fast4522]

What you do not get Robert is four years from now these same folks will all still be paying next to nothing in taxes. The beauty of a flat tax is that everyone would pay the same percentage. Obama is going after the normal rich, while letting the super rich skate. That is why Warren Buffet was right there saying the rich should be paying more, but in private saying so they will leave me alone.
Your average guy who never amounted to anything ever in his life often is more full of shit than any guy he supported for President.

[PaceAdvantage]

A big problem. In fact you can supersize the problem I have with it. Someone who is a millionaire can afford to a higher rate than someone who works at the post office and never made more than $50,000 in a year. Particularly since we both paid 10% on earnings up to $17,000 (2011 rates) and we both paid 15% on earnings between 17,000 and 50,000. At $69,000 our millionaires rate goes up to 25%, but guess what, if I made more than $69,000 my rate would go up too.

There is no lower tax rate for middle class or poor than there is for wealthy.
There is nothing that says you pay 10% on your first $17,000, but if you earned $1M during the year, you have to pay 20%. We all pay the same percentage on the same amounts. Any person making only $17,000 would be thrilled to pay 15% tax if their salary could go up to $40,000 a year. They would be thrilled if it went up to $20,000.You say I think the gov't is picking on me? Are you under the impression that I am some millionaire? Are you assuming that I am wealthy?

Don't be so ****ing clueless.

[hcap]

15 Things the GOP Doesn't Want You to Know About Taxes and the Debt

http://gocl.me/PBpnkD

[fast4522]

Not one egg sucking ferret socialist here can dispute post # 50 :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Robert Goren]

What you do not get Robert is four years from now these same folks will all still be paying next to nothing in taxes. The beauty of a flat tax is that everyone would pay the same percentage. Obama is going after the normal rich, while letting the super rich skate. That is why Warren Buffet was right there saying the rich should be paying more, but in private saying so they will leave me alone.
Your average guy who never amounted to anything ever in his life often is more full of shit than any guy he supported for President.The flat tax isn't going to happen, GWB had 6 years of a rebublican congress and he and them never brought it once. The only time we hear about is around election and then only by fringe candidiates. It is only a topic for forums like this. Nobody is goimg to give up their loopholes and they have the money to stop any attempt to make sure that doesn't happen. You don't seem to get it. The Koch brothers and Buffet are the same side on this issue.

[Tom]

Not one egg sucking ferret socialist here can dispute post # 50 :lol: :lol: :lol:

ESFS....

I like.
Monkey like.

[Mike at A+]

50% of the population-the bottom 50%-controls 1% of the wealth. How is it fair to ask them to pay any taxes? Even 1% is unjust.
THEN THEY SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO VOTE!

[soupan]

THEN THEY SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO VOTE!


NOR REPRODUCE!!!!

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[mostpost]

You say I think the gov't is picking on me? Are you under the impression that I am some millionaire? Are you assuming that I am wealthy?

Don't be so ****ing clueless.
Maybe because you said this:
Why do you and those like you continue to PENALIZE people for being successful?

The very fact that you think the purpose of taxes is to somehow penalize you. Taxes are to raise money. Paraphrasing Willie "The Actor" Sutton. Why do we tax the rich? Because that's where the money is.

Are you a millionaire? Probably not. Wealthy? Depends on your definition. You conservatives think $250,000 is middle class. I call it wealthy. I think you fit in or near that category.

And I note that you did not address my theory which you quoted in #51.

[mostpost]

What you do not get Robert is four years from now these same folks will all still be paying next to nothing in taxes. The beauty of a flat tax is that everyone would pay the same percentage. Obama is going after the normal rich, while letting the super rich skate. That is why Warren Buffet was right there saying the rich should be paying more, but in private saying so they will leave me alone.
Your average guy who never amounted to anything ever in his life often is more full of shit than any guy he supported for President.
See #46 in this thread for a brilliant, insightful explanation of why everyone pays the same percentage now.

If "these same folks will all still be paying next to nothing in taxes," four years from now; it is because they will still be earning substandard wages four years from now. When workers have no leverage such as can be provided by unions, employers can pay whatever they can get away with.

You never will get the Warren Buffet thing, will you? Buffet wants the rich to pay their fair share-all the rich. He is not interested in voluntarily paying more so that David Koch can pay less. That is why he will fight for all legal deductions and credits, while at the same time fighting for the elimination of same.

[Saratoga_Mike]

The Citizens United decision didn't turn out to have the effect that some hoped it would for the same reason that the voter suppression efforts did not have the effect some hoped they would have. Because both energized and focused the efforts of the people those strategies were meant to marginalize.

...maybe your voters weren't as dumb as you feared

[Saratoga_Mike]

Mine used the new 6% rates.

Yeah, I was wrong

[Tom]

Originally Posted by mostpost
50% of the population-the bottom 50%-controls 1% of the wealth. How is it fair to ask them to pay any taxes? Even 1% is unjust.


How is it fair we have to carry them?
We do not need 50% of the population, that is what you are saying.
Why do we keep them?
They subtract from the public good.
Deport them all to Mexico.
We don't need no stinking anchors.

[Striker]

It is true that EIC is higher for those with Dependents but even for single filers they don't pay tax to ~24K (the amount you listed as Standard Deduction + the amount EIC phazes out for single filers:

A single filer's adjusted gross income must be less than $13,950

http://www.taxslayer.com/support/208?language=1&page=1
Only if you are over 25 years old. This screws the kids coming out of college that don't make a decent salary. I was one of those, as I made about 18k out of college and I certainly had to pay taxes, and didn't qualify for the earned income tax credit.

[PaceAdvantage]

Are you a millionaire? Probably not. Wealthy? Depends on your definition. You conservatives think $250,000 is middle class. I call it wealthy. I think you fit in or near that category. When it comes to being clueless, you just can't help yourself, can you?

From calling me a racist a while ago, to now declaring that I make anywhere near 250,000....

[johnhannibalsmith]

... I make anywhere near 250,000....

And that's just revenue from the "Single Indian Babes" in my area ads. :D

[Tom]

Seeing how most libs are takers, not makes, they have no clue what many of these 200-500K households really are.

Many are small businesses, with business expenses and the lot thrown into that mix. They pay out salaries to people who have jobs, again, many libs will have to look up that word. Fitst you libs whine and ctry that the min wage must go up, and when it does, it comes out of these people's pockets. then you want to steal from them what is left just to finance your ridiculous social programs, when in face, it is these people who are doing REAL work to improve society by providing jobs.

[Actor]

How is it fair we have to carry them?
We do not need 50% of the population, that is what you are saying.
Why do we keep them?
They subtract from the public good.
Deport them all to Mexico.
We don't need no stinking anchors.Responding only to your question "Why do we keep them?" In making this response I tacitly accept, only for the sake of argument, your implication that there are members of society that "We do not need..." and who "subtract from the public good." There are three responses: anthropological, religious and pragmatic.

Anthropological. About 10 or 20 years ago archeologists uncovered the skeleton of a prehistoric man. Examination revealed that the man died in his early 40s and that during the last 10 years of his life he was an invalid. Someone had to take care of him. In a hunter gather society, a very tough lifestyle, why did they bother? When it's tough enough providing for yourself and the kids why expend resources on Grandpa? Archeologists surmised the the old boy was a source of information, a mentor who could tell them where game could be found and berries could be picked. I think the scientist missed the real reason. They took care of him because they loved him.

It's not human nature to get rid of people. The criminals we lock up for long periods of time or, on rare occasions, execute are the exception. In general we do not banish or euthanize those who do not, or cannot, contribute.
Religious.Most people in this country pay lip service to religion. They go to church on Sunday and then behave like heathens the rest of the week. Nevertheless, religious values are deeply ingrained in our society.

In Biblical times the poor were allowed to enter the fields and pick up that part of the crop that had fallen on the ground. Furthermore, the owner of the land was expected to insure that part of the crop did fall to the ground so that the poor could pick it up.

Christ said "The poor will be with you always." It's a Christian responsibility to care for the poor.
Pragmatic. They vote.

End of my acceptance of your implications for the sake of argument.

Deport them all to Mexico.I assume that you are ignorant of the fact that citizens cannot be deported. In any case, if we don't want them why should Mexico accept them?

They subtract from the public good.Define "they." Define "public good."

We do not need 50% of the population, that is what you are saying.Study the English language. Read his post. That's not what he's saying.

How is it fair we have to carry them?Define fair. Everyone has his own definition. To some only a per capita tax (deemed unconstitutional by SCOTUS) is fair. Others want a flat tax rate. I say that the only fair tax is one that asymptotically approaches 100% as you make more and more money. Very important word, asymptotically.

[Actor]

... to now declaring that I make anywhere near 250,000....If you don't then the new tax law benefits you. :lol:

[hcap]

Seeing how most libs are takers, not makes, they have no clue what many of these 200-500K households really are.So you are a "maker"? Really. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Tom]

Yes, hcap, I contribute.
Not only do I pay taxes, I help create jobs where I work, and have for 40 years.

I doubt you would understand nay of it though.


Actor - you do not pay taxes, you are not needed.

[Actor]

Actor - if you do not pay taxes, you are not needed.FTFY

Again accepting your statement as true for the sake of argument only I ask the following.

So what?

[PaceAdvantage]

If you don't then the new tax law benefits you. :lol:What has that got to do with anything?

The point remains, why are successful people penalized for being successful? Not every wealthy person inherited it from mommy and daddy. Not every wealthy person is a crook.

This whole "soak the rich" mantra is pathetic. "Oh, they're rich, so they can afford to pay more." If that's the case, why do the "rich" spend so much effort on lowering their tax exposure under the current convoluted system?

Everyone should pay the same rate, end of story. Doesn't matter what the rate is...10%...15%....25%...50%....whatever...there can be no bitching and complaining if everyone's tax rate is exactly the same. And the more you make, the more you pay in absolute dollars.

[hcap]

Yes, hcap, I contribute.
Not only do I pay taxes, I help create jobs where I work, and have for 40 years.

I doubt you would understand nay of it though.The only "making" you make is noise. :)

How do you know what I do and have done? And other liberals on this board? In addition to having a small business when I was in my late teens and 1 US patent pending when I was 17 placed under security wraps-never published, and 2 US patents later issued. One for a traction planetary transmission(no gear teeth), and one for a non-mechanical laser scanning device.

As you know I also co-authored the initial ALLData spreadsheets with Ray Baker and continue to contribute occasionally to that project although my vision has seriously deteriorated. The ALLData spreadsheets were, and are (other than the NEW RS program) given away at no charge. Ray has done an outstanding job supporting this project. I spent 100's of hours programming and supporting many users as well.

So your blanket statement about libs is wrong as usual.
Shove it where the sun don't shine "Mr Maker" :cool:

[Tom]

Shove it where the sun don't shine "Mr Maker"

You will have to move your head, first. Not enough room.

How do you know what I do and have done? And other liberals on this board?

I know more about you guys than you do about the so-called rich people. You stinking libs have no clue about any one's economic position, yet there you are, with your hands out justifying stealing from them to funs stupid projects and wate billins of dollars. You libs are a disgusting lot - not the stuff this great nation was built on, but the slugs who have torn it down. Your whole plan is steal from the rich.

What are you guys, a bunch of "men" in tights?

[hcap]

You will have to move your head, first. Not enough room.



I know more about you guys than you do about the so-called rich people. You stinking libs have no clue about any one's economic position, yet there you are, with your hands out justifying stealing from them to funs stupid projects and wate billins of dollars. You libs are a disgusting lot - not the stuff this great nation was built on, but the slugs who have torn it down. Your whole plan is steal from the rich.

What are you guys, a bunch of "men" in tights?You know nothing about us personally. You are an insulting idiot. You should apologize to all libs on this board you clam have their hands out begging. Our philosophy, OR WHAT YOU THINK IS OUR PHILOSOPHY, has nothing to do with your personal insults. How about all the time you spend posting here on company time? Should we assume you are cheating your employer? It is not as though you spend 5 minutes posting. When I ran my shop, office personal were expected to work most of the time. And your extra curricular activities, even if not affecting your productivity, sets a poor example for management. And labor.

[mostpost]

What has that got to do with anything?

The point remains, why are successful people penalized for being successful? Not every wealthy person inherited it from mommy and daddy. Not every wealthy person is a crook.

This whole "soak the rich" mantra is pathetic. "Oh, they're rich, so they can afford to pay more." If that's the case, why do the "rich" spend so much effort on lowering their tax exposure under the current convoluted system.
They can afford it. They know they can afford it. They spend so much effort because they do not want to pay it. The rate does not matter. If the rate was 2% they would still be complaining about the rate and scheming to not pay it.

Everyone should pay the same rate, end of story. Doesn't matter what the rate is...10%...15%....25%...50%....whatever...there can be no bitching and complaining if everyone's tax rate is exactly the same. And the more you make, the more you pay in absolute dollars.
Every one pays the same rates now. 10% up to $17,000; 15% from $17,000 to $69,000 and so on. I pointed all this out in #46 which you ignored except to whine about minutia, which you are very good at.

What you want is to eliminate brackets.

[Tom]

hcap, when you apologize for stealing from people to make yourself feel good, we will talk.

You libs are the ones who gave Obama the so-called power-mandate to steal. That make YOU a thief as well.

Go find a nice colored chart to play with. Pretty colors come down children.

[soupan]

This whole "soak the rich" mantra is pathetic. "Oh, they're rich, so they can afford to pay more." If that's the case, why do the "rich" spend so much effort on lowering their tax exposure under the current convoluted system?



If that's the case, what? If the rich can afford to pay more, why do they, what?

I can see a lot of thought went into this post.

This post is SO ILLOGICAL I'm going to be nice and just do this: :lol:

[mostpost]

Everyone should pay the same rate, end of story. Doesn't matter what the rate is...10%...15%....25%...50%....whatever...there can be no bitching and complaining if everyone's tax rate is exactly the same. And the more you make, the more you pay in absolute dollars.
Besides being wrong for any number of moral reasons, the flat tax is wrong financially. The top one percent holds approx. 35% of the nations wealth. They pay 25% for earnings between 69K and 139K; 28% between 139K and 212K; 33% between 212K and 379K and 35% over 379K-now 39.6K over 400K.

If you institute a 15% flat tax, which is what most propose, you would lose $46,550 in tax revenues from a person in the top one percent who earns $379,000. How do you make that up? How many people in the bottom 50% do you need to tax to offset that $46,550. Remember that the bottom 50% now controls only 1% of the nations wealth. Remember also that a lot of those people are already paying 15% or more. The few people whose rate would go up to 15% do not possess enough wealth to offset dropping the rates of those in the top 1%-who control 35% of the wealth.

[soupan]

You libs are the ones who gave Obama the so-called power-mandate to steal.



You might need to go back a few more years, at least 40.

Oh what about the infamous "READ MY LIPS, NO NEW TAXES"...OOOPS,

(I LIED)..

What famous lib said this, Monkey breath?

[mostpost]

Yes, hcap, I contribute.
Not only do I pay taxes, I help create jobs where I work, and have for 40 years.

I doubt you would understand nay of it though.


Actor - you do not pay taxes, you are not needed.
What do you mean, you help create jobs where you work? It was my understanding that jobs were only created by the owners of a business; that the workers were just an inconvenience that the owner has to pay. Are you the owner of the business?

Actor - you do not pay taxes, you are not needed.
I read this as you telling Actor that since he does not pay taxes, he is not needed. Is that incorrect? Well, then you need a course in composition and grammar. I'm just saying it is confusing. On the other hand if Actor does indeed pay no taxes, why? And how do you know?

[hcap]

hcap, when you apologize for stealing from people to make yourself feel good, we will talk.

You libs are the ones who gave Obama the so-called power-mandate to steal. That make YOU a thief as well.

Once again you are saying I amnd other liberals personally steal.

In any case you are violating the TOS.

PS:And to follow your logic you gave Georgy boy the right to steal as well.
Which makes you a thief too. :sleeping:

[Tom]

You might need to go back a few more years, at least 40.

Oh what about the infamous "READ MY LIPS, NO NEW TAXES"...OOOPS,

(I LIED)..

What famous lib said this, Monkey breath?

You memory is as flawed as your character. Of course he said that, and he only relented in the spirit of compromise. This is why to this day, I always say NEVER compromise with a liberal - they are nothing but liars. Bush 41's only mistake was he trusted vermin, Soupy Sales.

[Tom]

It was my understanding that jobs were only created by the owners of a business; that the workers were just an inconvenience that the owner has to pay. Are you the owner of the business?

Only useless union workers. I have always been management - part of the ones who actually make things happen. Union boys say "whatever I can get." Managers say "whatever it takes."

[Tom]

PS:And to follow your logic you gave Georgy boy the right to steal as well. Which makes you a thief too.

No, he cut taxes for everyone.
Go play with your tinker toys.

[mostpost]

Only useless union workers. I have always been management - part of the ones who actually make things happen. Union boys say "whatever I can get." Managers say "whatever it takes."
I am a union boy and I never once said, "whatever I can get". I always said do the job and do it right and get paid what you deserve. And that is what most workers would say-union or otherwise.
You continually make unsubstantiated statements about unions and union members. Statements that are at odds with what I have experienced. There are good workers and there are bad workers. Union membership is not a criterion for which is which. The idea that union workers don't pull their weight is nonsense. In fact the opposite may be more true.

You may not be aware of it, but union membership is not a requisite for employment with the United States Postal Service. Even if you do not join the union, even if you do not pay the dues, you still get all the benefits the union has negotiated, the union still must represent you in dealings with management.

Now during the 28 years I worked at the Bellwood, Il. post office we had several employees who did not join the union. None of them lasted more than three or four years, They always performed at a level that did not satisfy the requirements of their position. Eventually it was impossible even for the union they did not support to save them.

Management does "whatever it takes" :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Riiiight!! Ken Lay did whatever it takes for Enron. The Banksters did whatever it takes for their banks. Bernie Madoff did whatever it takes. Is ignoring safety regulations "what it takes?" Is polluting "what it takes?" Is stealing from the employees pension fund, "what it takes?"

I am not saying you have done any of these things. But these are things that have been done by management all in the name of getting things done.
So stop portraying management as the guys with the white hats and labor as the Cavendish gang. It just ain't so.

[hcap]

Mr "Job Creator", one more time......
Once again you are saying I and other liberals personally steal.

In any case you are violating the TOS.

...Our philosophy, OR WHAT YOU THINK IS OUR PHILOSOPHY, has nothing to do with your personal insults. How about all the time you spend posting here on company time? Should we assume you are cheating your employer? It is not as though you spend 5 minutes posting. When I ran my shop, office personal were expected to work most of the time. And your extra curricular activities, even if not affecting your productivity, sets a poor example for management. And labor.

And?

[PaceAdvantage]

If that's the case, what? If the rich can afford to pay more, why do they, what?

I can see a lot of thought went into this post.

This post is SO ILLOGICAL I'm going to be nice and just do this: :lol:It was quite the easy to understand statement. I'm sorry it's above your pay grade.

[PaceAdvantage]

Every one pays the same rates now. 10% up to $17,000; 15% from $17,000 to $69,000 and so on. I pointed all this out in #46 which you ignored except to whine about minutia, which you are very good at. I believe soupan's reply to me was actually meant for you.

You deserve this:

:lol:

Everyone pays the same rates now? And then you proceed to type how people who make more pay higher rates... :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Whatever man...you're clueless and hopeless, all in one.

[PaceAdvantage]

Besides being wrong for any number of moral reasons, the flat tax is wrong financially. The top one percent holds approx. 35% of the nations wealth. They pay 25% for earnings between 69K and 139K; 28% between 139K and 212K; 33% between 212K and 379K and 35% over 379K-now 39.6K over 400K.

If you institute a 15% flat tax, which is what most propose, you would lose $46,550 in tax revenues from a person in the top one percent who earns $379,000. How do you make that up? How many people in the bottom 50% do you need to tax to offset that $46,550. Remember that the bottom 50% now controls only 1% of the nations wealth. Remember also that a lot of those people are already paying 15% or more. The few people whose rate would go up to 15% do not possess enough wealth to offset dropping the rates of those in the top 1%-who control 35% of the wealth.There is no "how do you make that up."

It now becomes "how do you (the gov't) SPEND less."

Your problem is you're always looking to SOAK THE TAXPAYER and not looking at ways to CURB SPENDING.

[thaskalos]

You will have to move your head, first. Not enough room.



I know more about you guys than you do about the so-called rich people. You stinking libs have no clue about any one's economic position, yet there you are, with your hands out justifying stealing from them to funs stupid projects and wate billins of dollars. You libs are a disgusting lot - not the stuff this great nation was built on, but the slugs who have torn it down. Your whole plan is steal from the rich.

What are you guys, a bunch of "men" in tights?

You are so right, Tom...we "stinking libs" have no clue about anyone's economic position...

It's only geniuses like you who possess all the knowledge about who the "contributors" and the "freeloaders" among us are.

We libs are the ones lying on the couch watching soap operas all day, stopping only long enough to walk to the mailbox to collect our government checks...while you conservative folk are out there paying your taxes and creating jobs.

How naughty of us; will an apology do?

[Actor]

We libs are the ones lying on the couch watching soap operas all day, stopping only long enough to walk to the mailbox to collect our government checks...Haven't you heard about direct deposit? I didn't think the government sent out checks any more. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Tom]

You are so right, Tom...we "stinking libs" have no clue about anyone's economic position...

You don't.
And you know it.
You make assumptions as to who can afford to pay more with zero facts.
But it makes you feel good, which is all your libs are about.
I refer to that fountain of misinformation mostie in his reply a couple back, where he throws out Ken Lay as an example. You guys are clueless when it comes to taxes.

How naughty of us; will an apology do?

Offer it to the people you are stealing from.
See if they accept it.

[hcap]

Once again you are saying I and other liberals personally steal.

In any case you are violating the TOS.

...Our philosophy, OR WHAT YOU THINK IS OUR PHILOSOPHY, has nothing to do with your personal insults. How about all the time you spend posting here on company time? Should we assume you are cheating your employer? It is not as though you spend 5 minutes posting. When I ran my shop, office personal were expected to work most of the time. And your extra curricular activities, even if not affecting your productivity, sets a poor example for management. And labor.

I guess no one cares what you do at work.

http://p.twimg.com/A2Ow5zBCYAAzEhe.jpg:large

I would have fired your ass a long time ago :cool: :cool:

[badcompany]

Perhaps some of you Liberal geniuses can explain to us mouth breathers why the federal government takes in enough every year to build 1000 Yankee Stadiums; yet, we still have to hear about the "crumbling infrastructure."

Could it be that Government is an inefficient allocator of resources and should shrunk, not grown?

[Actor]

Perhaps some of you Liberal geniuses can explain to us mouth breathers why the federal government takes in enough every year to build 1000 Yankee Stadiums; yet, we still have to hear about the "crumbling infrastructure."

Could it be that Government is an inefficient allocator of resources and should shrunk, not grown?The only efficient government is a dictatorship.

[Tom]

I guess no one cares what you do at work.
I would have fired your ass a long time ago :cool: :cool:

See, more ignorance on your part.
You speak loudly of which you know little.
OR nothing.

But go ahead, if it makes up for some small part of your miserable little life, pretend you understand something in this lifetime.

[Saratoga_Mike]

We libs are the ones lying on the couch watching soap operas all day, stopping only long enough to walk to the mailbox to collect our government checks...while you conservative folk are out there paying your taxes and creating jobs.



...and attending strip joints on the taxpayer? :)

"They’re on the dole — and watching the pole. Welfare recipients took out cash at bars, liquor stores, X-rated video shops, hookah parlors and even strip clubs — where they presumably spent their taxpayer money on lap dances rather than diapers, a Post investigation found."

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/poor_some_ugar_on_me_0Hq1d3iPnvj2RwpsEDS7MN

[Tom]

"They’re on the dole — and watching the pole.


Priceless! :lol::lol:

[Actor]

I guess no one cares what you do at work.

I would have fired your ass a long time ago :cool: :cool:I don't think Tom has a job. Allow me to play Sherlock Holmes:

Compiling the dates and times of all of Tom's posts for a week (31 Dec to 6 Jan) I find that he's at his computer a lot. Most of his posts are only a few minutes apart. He's seldom away from his computer for more than a couple of hours. The times when he was away from his computer for at least 8 hours were:

Monday - 19hours 20min beginning at 7:11 pm
Tuesday - 8:14 beginning at 11:23 pm
Wednesday - 11:14 beginning at 10:03 pm
Thursday - 9:04 beginning at 10:23 pm
Friday - 10:31 beginning at 11:10 pm
Saturday - 15:02 beginning at 7:47 pm

Since these intervals begin in the evening I suspect he is sleeping, not working.

Of course this is not conclusive. He could still have a job and be posting from work. Or he could be working from home.

But I suspect he is a retired curmudgeon like me.

[Saratoga_Mike]

I don't think Tom has a job. Allow me to play Sherlock Holmes:

Compiling the dates and times of all of Tom's posts for a week (31 Dec to 6 Jan) I find that he's at his computer a lot. Most of his posts are only a few minutes apart. He's seldom away from his computer for more than a couple of hours. The times when he was away from his computer for at least 8 hours were:

Monday - 19hours 20min beginning at 7:11 pm
Tuesday - 8:14 beginning at 11:23 pm
Wednesday - 11:14 beginning at 10:03 pm
Thursday - 9:04 beginning at 10:23 pm
Friday - 10:31 beginning at 11:10 pm
Saturday - 15:02 beginning at 7:47 pm

Since these intervals begin in the evening I suspect he is sleeping, not working.

Of course this is not conclusive. He could still have a job and be posting from work. Or he could be working from home.

But I suspect he is a retired curmudgeon like me.

I like the precision of this exercise. Will there be a follow-up report? Could you track his posts back to 1999? Maybe he's never worked.

[Tom]

Don't quit your day job.
I am not retired and have no intentions of retiring.
My day starts at 7:30 am and generally ends between 10-11pm.
I am not at work all that time, but I do deal with suppliers in China and Taiwan in the evening, at home, due to time zones.

So yes, I do post at work, just as I work at home.
I am on salary, so all that counts is my results, not hours. I get the same check every week no matter what I do.

So far, my results have kept me gainfully employed full time since 1973.
Now that we have totally dodged the truths I have posted, can we get back on topic? Consider the messenger attacked and still alive.:D

[mostpost]

I believe soupan's reply to me was actually meant for you.

You deserve this:

:lol:

Everyone pays the same rates now? And then you proceed to type how people who make more pay higher rates... :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Whatever man...you're clueless and hopeless, all in one.Talk about clueless and hopeless. MY two sentences that you quote above are not contradictory at all. I will give you another chance to figure it out, or maybe someone else can explain what I am getting at.

And No, Soupan's reply was not meant for me.

[Actor]

I do deal with suppliers in China and Taiwan in the evening, at home, due to time zones.Only a con could deal with China and Taiwan and still claim to be a job creator. Who's being conned? :rolleyes:

It didn't work for Romney.

I am not retired and have no intentions of retiring... So far, my
results have kept me gainfully employed full time since 1973.40 years? Your employer must have a lousy pension plan. :lol:

[hcap]

Don't quit your day job.
I am not retired and have no intentions of retiring.
My day starts at 7:30 am and generally ends between 10-11pm.
I am not at work all that time, but I do deal with suppliers in China and Taiwan in the evening, at home, due to time zones.

So yes, I do post at work, just as I work at home.:DSo when I said your postings at work leads to the assumption that you are dishonest, my assumption was incorrect? Just as your assumption that liberals steal PERSONALLY is incorrect .Our philosophy, OR WHAT YOU THINK IS OUR PHILOSOPHY, has nothing to do with your personal insults. How about all the time you spend posting here on company time? Should we assume you are cheating your employer?Supporting a philosophy or candidate YOU do not, is not evidence of such. Just like as you claim spending a lot of time posting from work does not mean you are a cheater. BTW, if you are management and you are in direct contact with labor, which in a factory environment is quite useful, labor knowing you apparently waste so much time, will only disrespect you that much more. And it will be counterproductive. Unless of course you don't give a flying sh*t about labor and your company's bottom line. On the other hand, if you are the kind of isolated manager who has no idea what labor does, I guess it would then explain your Maker/Taker crapola ala Ayn Rand meme. And if you did get off your lardass and did some hard physical work occasionally you would see not all blue collar guys cheat and develop some useful people skills.

[hcap]

Interesting article by a Liberal you guys hate. Read it anyway :)

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/07/entitlement_reform_is_a_hoax/

"Entitlement reform” is a hoax
No, Social Security won’t contribute to future budget deficits

[mostpost]

So when I said your postings at work leads to the assumption that you are dishonest, my assumption was incorrect? Just as your assumption that liberals steal PERSONALLY is incorrect .Supporting a philosophy or candidate YOU do not, is not evidence of such. Just like as you claim spending a lot of time posting from work does not mean you are a cheater. BTW, if you are management and you are in direct contact with labor, which in a factory environment is quite useful, labor knowing you apparently waste so much time, will only disrespect you that much more. And it will be counterproductive. Unless of course you don't give a flying sh*t about labor and your company's bottom line. On the other hand, if you are the kind of isolated manager who has no idea what labor does, I guess it would then explain your Maker/Taker crapola ala Ayn Rand meme. And if you did get off your lardass and did some hard physical work occasionally you would see not all blue collar guys cheat and develop some useful people skills.

I think Tom said above that he has always been in management. I do not believe someone can be a good manager if he has not worked in the positions he is managing. I don't mean two weeks on the assembly line as part of a management training program. I mean long term consistent work. You need that to understand what the worker faces.

When you do not do that, you start thinking that you are working hard and no one else is. Kind of like if you use one on those computer programs that makes stock trades while you are sleeping. Guys who do that think they are working hard. :lol: :lol:

[mostpost]

Interesting article by a Liberal you guys hate. Read it anyway :)

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/07/entitlement_reform_is_a_hoax/

"Entitlement reform” is a hoax
No, Social Security won’t contribute to future budget deficits
That is something that everyone knows. I meant every liberal. A lot of guys who post here have no clue.

[JustRalph]

I think Tom said above that he has always been in management. I do not believe someone can be a good manager if he has not worked in the positions he is managing. I don't mean two weeks on the assembly line as part of a management training program. I mean long term consistent work. You need that to understand what the worker faces.

When you do not do that, you start thinking that you are working hard and no one else is. Kind of like if you use one on those computer programs that makes stock trades while you are sleeping. Guys who do that think they are working hard. :lol: :lol:

You could have cut out the bullshit and just hurled a insult at Tom. Do a search for "Soupan" follow his lead.

[Tom]

More you have no clues about, mostie.
Is there no bottom to your shallowness?

I have done and still do every job there is. Unlike you, I have experience on both sides. I know every job in the place because I write the work instructions and do the training. and do the evaluations.

I started out on the night shift and worked my way into management after 5 years. No one negotiated a thing for me.

You and hcap should give it up....it is so obvious neither of you would know a clue if Obama delivered it to you......two of the dimmest wits I have ever come across.:lol::lol::lol:

[PaceAdvantage]

Talk about clueless and hopeless. MY two sentences that you quote above are not contradictory at all.Sure they are.

[badcompany]

Interesting article by a Liberal you guys hate. Read it anyway :)

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/07/entitlement_reform_is_a_hoax/

"Entitlement reform” is a hoax
No, Social Security won’t contribute to future budget deficits

:lol:

The same tired excuses and rationalizations for failure trotted out by a state sponsored midget economist.

"If we just raise taxes, SS will be fine!"

Yes, let's canabalize what's left of the private sector to prop up public sector inefficiency.

"Medicare would be fine if it weren't for those darn high medical costs."

Medicare and Medicaid artifically increase demand for healthcare and, in doing so contribute to those high costs.

Funny, how freaks like Reich don't seem to notice that the industries where costs are out of control are the ones that have the most government intervention.

In summary, there was a joke in the old Soviet Union that their Nuclear Warheads were their second most dangerous and terrible weapon, the first being their economists.

[mostpost]

More you have no clues about, mostie.
Is there no bottom to your shallowness?

I have done and still do every job there is. Unlike you, I have experience on both sides. I know every job in the place because I write the work instructions and do the training. and do the evaluations.

I started out on the night shift and worked my way into management after 5 years. No one negotiated a thing for me.

You and hcap should give it up....it is so obvious neither of you would know a clue if Obama delivered it to you......two of the dimmest wits I have ever come across.:lol::lol::lol:

If you started on the night shift and worked your way into management, then you haven't always been in management-which is what you said somewhere above. I based my response on what you wrote and now you are telling me that what you wrote is incorrect. If I was clueless, it is because you made me clueless.

So which is it? Have you always been in management (post #84) or did you start on the night shift and work your way up into management(post #110)? Can't be both. :bang:

[mostpost]

Sure they are.
OK. I will explain this one more time. A single filer would pay;
10% of his first $17,000
15% of the amount between $17,000 and $69,000.
25% of the amount between $69,000 and $139,350.
For the purposes of this illustration we are talking about
a single file not married filing jointly or married filing separately.
We are not considered exemptions or deductions or Earned Income
Credits or Child Care Credits. We are just looking at rates.

We will look at two taxpayers.
Taxpayer A is retired and is earning about $40,000 a year before taxes,
We'll call him PostMost.
We know that Taxpayer B is a multi-billionaire or maybe even a multi-trillionaire, but for the purposes of this discussion we shall say he earns in the neighborhood of $100,000.
We will call him AP.

Postmost pays 10% of his first $17,000 of earnings or $1,700.
AP also pays 10% of his first $17,000 of earnings. Again this is $1,700.
Two guys, two different annual earnings. Same rate, same dollar amount paid.

Postmost pays 15% of any money he earns between $17,000 and $40,000.
On that $23,000 Postmost pays $3450 in taxes.

AP also pays 15% on his earnings between $17,000 and $40,000. On that $23,000 AP also pays $3450 in taxes. At this point both taxpayers have paid the same dollar amount and have been assessed at the same rate.

From this point forward postmost pays no more taxes because postmost is earning no more money. But if he did, he would pay at the same rate of !5% on his earnings up to $69,000 as does AP. and both would 25% on earnings between $69,000 and $100,000.

I don't know any better way to explain this. The rates are the same for every one within the brackets. If you still don't get it, I can't help you. If you still choose to not get it, I won't help you.

[mostpost]

:lol:

The same tired excuses and rationalizations for failure trotted out by a state sponsored midget economist.

"If we just raise taxes, SS will be fine!"
It just happens to be true and there is a far greater danger that the general economy will destroy Social Security than there is that Social Security will contribute even one penny to the National Debt.


Yes, let's canabalize what's left of the private sector to prop up public sector inefficiency.
Administrative costs for various Health Care Insurance groups.
Medicare 3%
Large companies who self insure 5-10%
Small group market 25 to 27%
Individuals 40%
Medicare Advantage plans.
Yet somehow you think that it is the government that is inefficient. :bang:


"Medicare would be fine if it weren't for those darn high medical costs."
Those darn high medical cost are caused by making profit the standard for hospital admissions and test rather than medical need.

Medicare and Medicaid artifically increase demand for healthcare and, in doing so contribute to those high costs.
EXPLAIN HOW THIS WORKS. I can hardly wait.

Funny, how freaks like Reich don't seem to notice that the industries where costs are out of control are the ones that have the most government intervention.
Do you mean like where coal mining companies have to provide safe rooms so miners don't die or where oil companies are supposed to provide working shut off valves so that platforms don't explode. Or are you referring to the healthcare industry where Medicare operates under the same rules as the other providers, but much more efficiently.

In summary, there was a joke in the old Soviet Union that their Nuclear Warheads were their second most dangerous and terrible weapon, the first being their economists.
I do not have time to list the obvious differences between the Soviet Union and the United States and since you seem to think they are the same, any attempt to do so would be a waste of time.

[soupan]

:lol:




Funny, how freaks like Reich don't seem to notice that the industries where costs are out of control are the ones that have the most government intervention.

In summary, there was a joke in the old Soviet Union that their Nuclear Warheads were their second most dangerous and terrible weapon, the first being their economists.

Really???

Name them. Start with health care. Just make sure you include in your analysis, the health insurance lobby and drug manufacturers.

Since you're quoting pundits in the old Soviet Union, maybe you'd like to join your comrades Tom, Bridget Bardot and Gerard "porky" Depardeau in packing up and moving to Moscow.

I'm sure the lifestyle there beats the hustle and bustle of Manhattan.

[badcompany]

Really???

Name them. Start with health care. Just make sure you include in your analysis, the health insurance lobby and drug manufacturers.

Since you're quoting pundits in the old Soviet Union, maybe you'd like to join your comrades Tom, Bridget Bardot and Gerard "porky" Depardeau in packing up and moving to Moscow.
I'm sure the lifestyle there beats the hustle and bustle of Manhattan.

In addition to healthcare, which you already named we'll go with housing which is heavily intervened: Freddie/Fannie, FHA, Rent Control etc.

How about education, or do you think College Tuition is reasonably priced?

And we'll finish with the financial sector which is probably the most intervened industry with a Central Planning Agency, The Fed, which has total control over the money supply and interest rates.

An industry which is not so heavily intervened is the tech sector, and, not surprisingly the U.S has the best companies in the world, Apple, Google, Amazon.

You see, there's a difference between capitalism and crony capitalism. An over-sized government fosters the latter as businesses tend to focus their interests on controlling politicians rather than serving consumers.

As far as my moving, when you pay my bills, you can tell me where to live, but, like most liberals you're probably an entitled deadbeat freeloader.

[soupan]

In addition to healthcare, which you already named we'll go with housing which is heavily intervened: Freddie/Fannie, FHA, Rent Control etc.

How about education, or do you think College Tuition is reasonably priced?

And we'll finish with the financial sector which is probably the most intervened industry with a Central Planning Agency, The Fed, which has total control over the money supply and interest rates.

An industry which is not so heavily intervened is the tech sector, and, not surprisingly the U.S has the best companies in the world, Apple, Google, Amazon.

You see, there's a difference between capitalism and crony capitalism. An over-sized government fosters the latter as businesses tend to focus their interests on controlling politicians rather than serving consumers.

As far as my moving, when you pay my bills, you can tell me where to live, but, like most liberals you're probably an entitled deadbeat freeloader.

What a fool.

The reason healthcare costs are through the roof is BECAUSE of a capitalist mentality. Health care should never be a FOR PROFIT industry.
Plus, considering what Americans get for their health care dollar, if you're pronouncing victory, be my guest.


Second point is almost a bigger goof then the first.

City and State universities in states like yours are outstanding, and the tuition, although rising too quickly for my liking, is still reasonable compared to a comparable private. (key word comparable)

Now your 3rd point about the fed shows you know NOTHING about the financial industry.
I would dare...DARE any fool with a mindset like you to abolish the Fed. and go to an "open market" system. Interest rates would now SOAR and everyone with a variable would walk away from their mortgages.

Guess who gets left holding the bag?

Now come on, say something stupid like "DUH, I DON"T CARE, I DON"T HAVE A VARIABLE." Won't matter.
Guess what, it's irrelevant, you'd have a run on the banks (unless the fed intervened) and you'd be right back to bailout city. Remember the bailout?
This is THE MOST IMPORTANT TIME IN HISTORY for central banks to manipulate the markets.

[Saratoga_Mike]

What a fool.

The reason healthcare costs are through the roof is BECAUSE of a capitalist mentality. 1) Health care should never be a FOR PROFIT industry.
Plus, considering what Americans get for their health care dollar, if you're pronouncing victory, be my guest.


Second point is almost a bigger goof then the first.

2) City and State universities in states like yours are outstanding, and the tuition, although rising too quickly for my liking, is still reasonable compared to a comparable private. (key word comparable)

Now your 3rd point about the fed shows you know NOTHING about the financial industry.
I would dare...3) DARE any fool with a mindset like you to abolish the Fed. and go to an "open market" system. Interest rates would now SOAR and everyone with a variable would walk away from their mortgages.

Guess who gets left holding the bag?

Now come on, say something stupid like "DUH, I DON"T CARE, I DON"T HAVE A VARIABLE." Won't matter.
Guess what, it's irrelevant, you'd have a run on the banks (unless the fed intervened) and you'd be right back to bailout city. Remember the bailout?
This is THE MOST IMPORTANT TIME IN HISTORY for central banks to manipulate the markets.

1) But the rate of healthcare inflation was radically lower prior to govt intervention, even if you adjust for the graying population. That said, I agree a single payor system would reduce costs. It would also reduce innovation and quality. There's a tradeoff.

2) I don't believe any conservative would argue your point that tuitions at private universities have risen too quickly. But why? Govt intervention. Please examine tuition inflation at private universities pre- and post-1980 when govt monies really started to kick in (e.g., Pell grants).

3) If you abolished the Fed and replaced it with the gold standard, it would be highly, highly deflationary.

Can you debate without childish barbs? It's very unbecoming.

[badcompany]

Now your 3rd point about the fed shows you know NOTHING about the financial industry.
I would dare...DARE any fool with a mindset like you to abolish the Fed. and go to an "open market" system. Interest rates would now SOAR and everyone with a variable would walk away from their mortgages.

Guess who gets left holding the bag?

Now come on, say something stupid like "DUH, I DON"T CARE, I DON"T HAVE A VARIABLE." Won't matter.
Guess what, it's irrelevant, you'd have a run on the banks (unless the fed intervened) and you'd be right back to bailout city. Remember the bailout?
This is THE MOST IMPORTANT TIME IN HISTORY for central banks to manipulate the markets.

You infantile moron.

You act as though the Fed came into existance in 2008. It didn't. It's been around for 100 years. It's current mandate is price stability and full employment.

In the last 15 years we've had two giant boom/busts. There's been high unemployment for the last 5 years, and, in an environment of tight money, savers are getting 0% interest.

Yeah, great effin' job, Fed Central Planners.

[soupan]

1)

Can you debate without childish barbs? It's very unbecoming.

Absolutely.

[soupan]

In the last 15 years we've had two giant boom/busts. There's been high unemployment for the last 5 years, and, in an environment of tight money, savers are getting 0% interest.

Yeah, great effin' job, Fed Central Planners.

I love statements like this.
Ok. So what's your gripe? Tight money or low rates for savers?

I won't get into the spreads and cost and carry and risk deltas, since I'm the moron who thinks (according to you) that the fed is a new Govt organization.

I'll just make it very simple for you:

ANY OTHER ALTERNATIVE WOULD HAVE LED TO DEPRESSION.

Yes, great effin' job Fed. Like it or not.

[soupan]

1) But the rate of healthcare inflation was radically lower prior to govt intervention, even if you adjust for the graying population. That said, I agree a single payor system would reduce costs. It would also reduce innovation and quality. There's a tradeoff.

2) I don't believe any conservative would argue your point that tuitions at private universities have risen too quickly. But why? Govt intervention. Please examine tuition inflation at private universities pre- and post-1980 when govt monies really started to kick in (e.g., Pell grants).

3) If you abolished the Fed and replaced it with the gold standard, it would be highly, highly deflationary.

Can you debate without childish barbs? It's very unbecoming.

Eventually we will go to a single payer system in this country, or health care costs will either bankrupt employers or many many more people will be uninsured and die. One or the other but more likely both.

Mike, I hear you about tuition. BUT? Is this due to Govt loans or is it more a booming population. I think it's more the later then former.
Regardless, the more poor kids who attend and finish college the better off society will be overall. They'll be producers. That's what we need.
I have friends from wealthy families who dropped out (or never attended) college. They usually have their family businesses to fall back on or their father's have enough contacts to get them positions where they can make it.
The poor don't have those luxuries or contacts.
I think we need more colleges with degrees to match the challenges of the future.

Sorry, with my backround, I can't address the gold standard theory seriously, so on that subject, we'll agree to disagree.

[badcompany]

I love statements like this.
Ok. So what's your gripe? Tight money or low rates for savers?

I won't get into the spreads and cost and carry and risk deltas, since I'm the moron who thinks (according to you) that the fed is a new Govt organization.

I'll just make it very simple for you:

ANY OTHER ALTERNATIVE WOULD HAVE LED TO DEPRESSION.

Yes, great effin' job Fed. Like it or not.

My problem, is the failure of Central Planning. If you're going to give the Fed credit for averting a depression (something you can't prove) you have to give it the blame for creating the crisis in the first place. As I've pointed out, the Fed's been around for 100 years a fact that can be proven.

Get it, you wrinkled ***** old Socialist piece of garbage?

You see, it's easy to name call.

[mostpost]

1) But the rate of healthcare inflation was radically lower prior to govt intervention, even if you adjust for the graying population. That said, I agree a single payor system would reduce costs. It would also reduce innovation and quality. There's a tradeoff.
What Government intervention are you referring to? What year did it start?
I found numbers on Health care spending from CMS (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services) and calculated the annual inflation rate. (Nobody knows how to have fun like I do :jump: :jump: )
I won't bore you with all the details but here are a few nuggets.
From 1961 to 1985 inclusive, the inflation rate for health care was over 10% twenty times. After 1985 it was over 10% only three times. Before 1985 there was only one time when health care inflation was seven percent or less. After 1985 this occurred seventeen times including 3 years of 3.9% under you know who. If your theory is correct would not the inflation rate be going up constantly?
2) I don't believe any conservative would argue your point that tuitions at private universities have risen too quickly. But why? Govt intervention. Please examine tuition inflation at private universities pre- and post-1980 when govt monies really started to kick in (e.g., Pell grants).

3) If you abolished the Fed and replaced it with the gold standard, it would be highly, highly deflationary.

Can you debate without childish barbs? It's very unbecoming.
Neither Soupan nor Badcompany are very good at that.

[badcompany]

Neither Soupan nor Badcompany are very good at that.


This coming from a Pillar of self-awareness. :lol:

[soupan]

My problem, is the failure of Central Planning. If you're going to give the Fed credit for averting a depression (something you can't prove) you have to give it the blame for creating the crisis in the first place. As I've pointed out, the Fed's been around for 100 years a fact that can be proven.

Get it, you wrinkled ***** old Socialist piece of garbage?

You see, it's easy to name call.

This is getting better every second.

You're not even smart enough to learn a bit about this before shooting your mouth off.


Anyone with any knowledge of the financial meltdown knows that 98% of what caused the meltdown was outside the regulatory authority of the Fed.

Care to put your foot in your mouth anymore?

BTW...you wouldn't want to bet on the results of a poll taken by 1000 of the most respected world economists asking if this country would go into serious depression (with an attempted run on the banks) if the fed didn't take action in the meltdown, would you?

The result would be like 999-1
But of course, it's not proven.

[Valuist]

I love statements like this.
Ok. So what's your gripe? Tight money or low rates for savers?

I won't get into the spreads and cost and carry and risk deltas, since I'm the moron who thinks (according to you) that the fed is a new Govt organization.

I'll just make it very simple for you:

ANY OTHER ALTERNATIVE WOULD HAVE LED TO DEPRESSION.

Yes, great effin' job Fed. Like it or not.

First off, he is talking about two bubble bursts; not just 2008. Many seem to forget the nature of the dot.com bubble burst and resulting recession at the turn of the century. This boom-bust can be directly linked to the easy money policy of Greenspan.

As for your comment that "any other alternative would've led to depression". Guess what? Are we better off now because things could've been worse in 2009 and 2010? Maybe if we had let things settle without meddling, we'd have bottomed and at least be going in the right direction. But now we have an economy where investment is driven by the whims of the Federal Reserve. Nothing has been fixed, including banks being too big to fail. The debt problems and spending certainly haven't been addressed.

But the sheeple don't care. They aren't smart enough to read deeper than headlines crafted by a left wing media.

[badcompany]

First off, he is talking about two bubble bursts; not just 2008. Many seem to forget the nature of the dot.com bubble burst and resulting recession at the turn of the century. This boom-bust can be directly linked to the easy money policy of Greenspan.

As for your comment that "any other alternative would've led to depression". Guess what? Are we better off now because things could've been worse in 2009 and 2010? Maybe if we had let things settle without meddling, we'd have bottomed and at least be going in the right direction. But now we have an economy where investment is driven by the whims of the Federal Reserve. Nothing has been fixed, including banks being too big to fail. The debt problems and spending certainly haven't been addressed.

But the sheeple don't care. They aren't smart enough to read deeper than headlines crafted by a left wing media.

Excellent post.

Of course, Soupbonehead will probably counter with an argument from a "respected" Economist like Ben Bernanke who said this back in 2007:

(March 28, 2007) "At this juncture, however, the impact on the broader economy and financial markets of the problems in the subprime market seems likely to be contained. In particular, mortgages to prime borrowers and fixed-rate mortgages to all classes of borrowers continue to perform well, with low rates of delinquency."

[soupan]

First off, he is talking about two bubble bursts; not just 2008. Many seem to forget the nature of the dot.com bubble burst and resulting recession at the turn of the century. This boom-bust can be directly linked to the easy money policy of Greenspan.

As for your comment that "any other alternative would've led to depression". Guess what? Are we better off now because things could've been worse in 2009 and 2010? Maybe if we had let things settle without meddling, we'd have bottomed and at least be going in the right direction. But now we have an economy where investment is driven by the whims of the Federal Reserve. Nothing has been fixed, including banks being too big to fail. The debt problems and spending certainly haven't been addressed.

But the sheeple don't care. They aren't smart enough to read deeper than headlines crafted by a left wing media.

Dont blame the fed for the banks too big to fail policy. That's out political system that legislated that. Banks were ALWAYS limited in how much they could expand geographically. When they paid off (I mean lobbied) our pols, they had that removed and the cancer grew.

I know for a FACT that there were many at the fed that were against this.

You ask if we're better off like this? I'll be nice and let you retract that statement, or at least word it differently

I'll be nice in explaining that whenever you ARTIFICIALLY manipulate these enormous markets (banking, bonds, equities, etc) which were set up and regulated to work in concert and be reasonably fair (which is probably a whole other debate)then there HAS to be pain inflicted as a result of that manipulation. (as in huge losses)

We had the choice of enormous, dangerous, violent (there would be riots when people tried to get their money out of the bank and the bank tells "we ain't got any of it anymore") type of pain.

OR

What exists today.

Do I think a better job could have been done with the bailout and TARP?
Absolutely.

Let things settle without meddling?

Do you know how much money (electronically) passes between banks per day? Throughout the globe?
When bank A tells bank B they can't pay the money they borrowed (plus the interest) one month ago (and we're not talking about $978.00 ,we're talking hundreds of mil at a clip) what does bank C do when they hear about it?
Everyone stops doing business. And when the public hears about it, they pull their money.
When the stock market hears about it, they SELL...

Let things settle MY ASS!

[soupan]

Excellent post.

Of course, Soupbonehead will probably counter with an argument from a "respected" Economist like Ben Bernanke who said this back in 2007:

(March 28, 2007) "At this juncture, however, the impact on the broader economy and financial markets of the problems in the subprime market seems likely to be contained. In particular, mortgages to prime borrowers and fixed-rate mortgages to all classes of borrowers continue to perform well, with low rates of delinquency."

Hey dopey, Ill repeat this for you one last time.

The instruments that caused the collapse and which were tied to the sub-prime market are NOT REGULATED BY THE FED.

SO...how is the fed to know the dangers ahead if they don't know the degree of activity the banks are partaking?

Again, do some research and learn so you don't sound like an idiot.

[badcompany]

Hey dopey, Ill repeat this for you one last time.

The instruments that caused the collapse and which were tied to the sub-prime market are NOT REGULATED BY THE FED.

SO...how is the fed to know the dangers ahead if they don't know the degree of activity the banks are partaking?

Again, do some research and learn so you don't sound like an idiot.

Yes, I get it. Everyone who doesn't subscribe to your exact narrative of how the crisis occured is an idiot.

You're free to believe that the Fed's easy money policies didn't contribute to blowing up the housing bubble, but don't act like it's an extreme opinion.

You know, smug old men like you are a big reason horseracing has declined as a sport. Young people went to the track, took a look at your kind and said "No, thanks." I don't blame them.

[soupan]

You're free to believe that the Fed's easy money policies didn't contribute to blowing up the housing bubble, but don't act like it's an extreme opinion.




Of course it contributed. It's a major contributor. But when you have every CEO in America complaining that business is sluggish and cash flow is struggling due to high rates, the Fed is under ENORMOUS pressure to ease rates.

When you ease rates to free up credit, mortgages follow suit.
The ultimate responsibility lies in the hands of the institutions who WRITE those mortgages. If you were going to lend someone money, you would only do so if you knew they could pay it back, correct?

How's the Fed to blame here?

I don't want anyone to "buy" into my theories (or narrative, as you put it) because they're not "my" theories. They're economic reality.

My problem, and it should be yours too, is that bankers knew then and know today, the ramifications of risk default they take.
I still don't believe they're acting diligently (enough).

When someone in Washington screams that they want more regulation of them (bankers), they get called for "we don't need more big Gov't regulations".

Even PA himself called me on this labeling them (in jest) "oh, those big, bad bankers".

[thaskalos]

You know, smug old men like you are a big reason horseracing has declined as a sport. Young people went to the track, took a look at your kind and said "No, thanks." I don't blame them.

I seriously doubt that this is a "big reason" for the decline of the sport.

"Smug old men" were at the poker tables too...but, curiously enough, that didn't keep the young people away from there.

[hcap]

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/01/chart-day-deficit-reduction-so-far-24-trillion


Chart of the Day: Deficit Reduction So Far = $2.4 Trillion

Michael Linden and Michael Ettlinger provide us today with a handy chart of all the deficit reduction we've implemented over the past couple of years. In all, we've reduced spending by $1.8 trillion and increased taxes by $600 billion, for a total of $2.4 trillion. More details here. This may not be the grand bargain of Beltway dreams, but it's pretty good progress in a short period of time.

And three-quarters of it has been from spending cuts. If you're wondering why President Obama thinks the sequestration negotiations should include a balance of both spending reductions and tax increases, now you know.

http://www.motherjones.com/files/blog_deficit_reduction_cap.jpg

[Tom]

What spending cuts - details.

[Tom]

http://reason.com/blog/2012/12/31/no-real-cuts-in-those-fiscal-cliff-spend

Lesson No. 1: These spending cut numbers are always talked about in 10-year terms. It's like giving 10 binding New Year's resolutions in one fell swoop. "I will lose 20 pounds per year for 10 years." But you only weigh 190 pounds, and that's 200 pounds over 10 years? You will weigh less than zero? Huh?

Make this really simple - how much did we spend in 2010?
How much did we spend in 2011?
How much did we spend in 2012?

Get back to me with reality........

[hcap]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/repeat-after-me-obama-cut_b_1955561.html

Repeat After Me: Obama Cut the Deficit and Slowed Spending to Lowest Level in 50 Years

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2012-10-10-chart_spending_growth.jpg

And....

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-spending-binge-never-happened-2012-05-22?pagenumber=1

Obama spending binge never happened


"contrary to the tax-and-spend stereotype of Democrats -- President Barack Obama has actually presided over the smallest increases in federal spending of any recent president."


And......

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/may/23/facebook-posts/viral-facebook-post-says-barack-obama-has-lowest-s/

[Tom]

Where do you get this nonsense?

[hcap]

Where do you get this nonsense?
Links are included. But it does absolutely no good when one refuses to look

http://www.addictinginfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/11.30.2012.Obama_Fiscal_Cliff_Ostrich.jpg

[Tom]

That was a rhetorical question.
I know where get it from.... floridalandforsalecheap.com

See Post 137.

[hcap]

See the clumps of dirt? Rocks and bugs?

How do you bury your head s-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o deep? :)

[Tom]

Post 137....nowhere near as deep as yours.
Screw your biased websites - cough up the only facts that matter.....Post 137.

Or would that be an Inconvenient Truth?
Like your GW guru who just sold out to Big Oil.........:lol::lol::lol::lol:

[soupan]

Post 137....nowhere near as deep as yours.
Screw your biased websites - cough up the only facts that matter.....Post 137.

Or would that be an Inconvenient Truth?
Like your GW guru who just sold out to Big Oil.........:lol::lol::lol::lol:

What a joke you are. Oh, your web-site link isn't biased?

Look at the "Top Stories" on the right hand side of the page:

1) How Government handouts foster dependancy.

2) The EPA pushes the envelope, again

3)Django unchanged and the latest smear against Clarence Thomas

4)Barack the unmerciful


:lol:

[Tom]

Why don't YOU try answering post 137, Soup bone-head?
Or is facts above your pay grade?

[mostpost]

Why don't YOU try answering post 137, Soup bone-head?
Or is facts above your pay grade?
I will be happy to answer post 137, even though I am not Soup bone-head.
Post 137 by Tom:
Make this really simple - how much did we spend in 2010?
How much did we spend in 2011?
How much did we spend in 2012?

Get back to me with reality........
You can't handle reality.
Spending in 2010 was 1.7% below spending in 2009.
Spending in 2011 increased by 4.2% over 2010.
Spending in 2012 increased by 0.7% over 2011*
Estimated spending in 2013 will be 1.3% lower than in 2012.
You can find those numbers here:
http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-05-22/commentary/31802270_1_spending-federal-budget-drunken-sailor
Scroll down to: Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget. and click.

*The estimated numbers at OMB indicate a 5.3% increase, but later numbers give the 0.7% number.

How do Obama's spending increases compare to those of George W. Bush?
2003 +7.4%
2004 +6.3%
2005 +7.8%
2006 +7.4%
2007 +2.8%
2008 +9.2%
2009 +32%.

In only one year, 2007, were Bush's numbers lower than Obama's highest number. And yes, Bush does own the 2009 increase of 32%. It was his budget. He passed the Tarp bailout. Bush policies made the stimulus necessary and caused the sharp decline in revenue. Revenues went down in 2001, 2002 and 2003. They also dropped in 2008 and 2009 and although they have increased in 2010, 2011 and 2012, they are still 5% below what they were in 2007.

Put succinctly, your theories are full of crap. Our recent deficits are caused much more by a lack of revenue than by too much spending. That is not to say that there are not places where we can cut and trim. But making massive, irresponsible cuts is not the answer.

[Tom]

You can't handle reality.
Spending in 2010 was 1.7% below spending in 2009.
Spending in 2011 increased by 4.2% over 2010.
Spending in 2012 increased by 0.7% over 2011*

OK, then show me where hcap's trillion+ spending decrease is?
I don't see it in there.

[hcap]

OK, then show me where hcap's trillion+ spending decrease is?
I don't see it in there.

Post # 135

Take your freakin' head out of the sand (or wherever :) :) ) and stop complaining. For 4 years all you have done and the next 4, all you guys are going to do is bitch and moan, and create monumental paranoia about the deficit when it was primarily George W Bush and his tenure that was the cause and slavishly bow down to the "Maker/Taker" Ayn Rand crapola.

Gee, I wonder if you really have time to think about these obvious issues, watching your back, making sure your boss does not catch you posting, and not working :lol: :lol: :lol:

That could explain much of your non compos mentis and all your misspellings :cool: :cool:

[Tom]

Post 135 is bogus - where are the spending per year numbers to back it up?
mostie has offered more here than you have.


Is my spelling all you have to offer - just another doge when you can't back up your outlandish claims? :lol:

Your really are pathetic.
You show up to a gun fight with a knife.

[hcap]

You are in denial. My comment about your spelling was not about your spelling per se. It was more about your inability to think at work, watching your back, in case your boss catches you posting SO DAMN MUCH! :lol:

First read this.
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/budget/news/2013/01/08/49137/the-deficit-reduction-we-have-achieved-so-far/

The original source about Obamas'' deficit reduction based on REAL data. Not Drudge or Faux.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_United_States_federal_budget

.................................................. ..

Then the numbers
From Wiki

2010

Submitted February 2009
Submitted by Barack Obama
Submitted to 111th Congress
Passed Passed [1]
Total revenue $2.381 trillion (requested)
$2.165 trillion (enacted)[1]
Total expenditures $3.552 trillion (requested)
$3.721 trillion (enacted)[1]
Deficit $1.171 trillion (requested)
$1.267 trillion (enacted)[1]
Debt $14.078 trillion (requested)
Website http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy10/index.html US Government Printing Office

2011

Submitted February 1, 2010
Submitted by Barack Obama
Submitted to 111th Congress
Passed April 15, 2011 (Pub.L. 112-10)
Total revenue $2.567 trillion (requested)[1]
$2.314 trillion (enacted)[2]
Total expenditures $3.834 trillion (requested)[1]
$3.630 trillion (enacted)[2]
Debt payment $0.25 trillion (requested)
Deficit $1.56 trillion (requested)
Website http://thomas.loc.gov/home/approp/app11.html Library of Congress

2012

Submitted February 14, 2011
Submitted by Barack Obama
Submitted to 112th Congress
Passed
November 18, 2011 (Pub.L. 112-55)
December 23, 2011 (Pub.L. 112-74 and Pub.L. 112-77)
Total revenue $2.627 trillion (requested)
$2.469 trillion (enacted)
Total expenditures $3.729 trillion (requested)
$3.796 trillion (enacted)
Deficit $1.101 trillion (requested)
$1.327 trillion (enacted)
Website http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/pagedetails.action?packageId=BUDGET-2012-BUD US Government Printing Office

[hcap]

More news on why the national debt may not be the end all of western civilization

We need Jobs right now.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3885

...In addition, the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) revised economic and budget projections in August 2012 show a more sanguine outlook for the coming decade than its earlier projections. Those updated projections reduced estimated deficits under current policies by about $750 billion over the coming decade, relative to CBO’s March 2012 baseline, and by about $1.5 trillion relative to its August 2010 forecast, which the Bowles-Simpson and Rivlin-Domenici commissions used for their reports of late 2010.

In calculating that another $1.4 trillion in deficit savings will stabilize the debt, we start with a budget baseline that assumes that the tax policy now in place (after the fiscal cliff deal) will remain so (except as described in this paragraph); that policymakers will cancel “sequestration” (without offsetting the $1.1 trillion cost over ten years, which includes interest costs); that they will offset the costs of any extension of the so-called “tax extenders” (a total cost of $416 billion, including interest, if the full package of extenders is continued throughout the decade[3] ); and that they won’t allow the scheduled cuts in reimbursements for Medicare physicians to take effect (without offsetting the $250 billion cost, including interest).


http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms/1-9-13bud2-f1.jpg

The vertical axis measures the projected ratio of federal debt to GDP. The blue line at the top represents the projected path of that ratio as of early 2011 — that is, before recent agreements on spending cuts and tax increases. This projection showed a rising path for debt as far as the eye could see.

And just about all budget discussion in Washington and the news media is laid out as if that were still the case. But a lot has happened since then. The orange line shows the effects of those spending cuts and tax hikes: As long as the economy recovers, which is an assumption built into all these projections, the debt ratio will more or less stabilize soon.

[Tom]

You believe anything, don't you? :lol:

[Tom]

You are the most gullible person alive. Even mostie is smarter than you are! :lol::lol::lol:

[hcap]

You asked for the info on spending for 3 years that backs up our contention that Obama is controlling spending. You have shut your peephole on that issue. WHY is that bunky?

Now you have nothing of substance to say on the recent article.

You continue burying your head where the sun don'tshine

[Tom]

Go read the post again.
Better yet, have someone read it to you - you seem to having trouble with it.

I asked for several simple figures.
In a number format....HOW MUCH? WHAT TOTAL? ADD IT UP.

[hcap]

Go read the post again.
Better yet, have someone read it to you - you seem to having trouble with it.

I asked for several simple figures.
In a number format....HOW MUCH? WHAT TOTAL? ADD IT UP.

What a bumbler. You lose and blame me for giving you to much information that proves my case. Give it up. :)

[Tom]

Answer the question - stop dodging it. :lol:

[Actor]

DEFINE FAIR SHARE:

wasn't it on another thread that 50% of the population pay no taxes at allI thought it was 47%? Or are you rounding up?

[hcap]

Answer the question - stop dodging it. :lol:

From Wiki

2010

Submitted February 2009
Submitted by Barack Obama
Submitted to 111th Congress
Passed Passed [1]
Total revenue $2.381 trillion (requested)
$2.165 trillion (enacted)[1]
Total expenditures $3.552 trillion (requested)
$3.721 trillion (enacted)[1]
Deficit $1.171 trillion (requested)
$1.267 trillion (enacted)[1]
Debt $14.078 trillion (requested)
Website http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy10/index.html US Government Printing Office

2011

Submitted February 1, 2010
Submitted by Barack Obama
Submitted to 111th Congress
Passed April 15, 2011 (Pub.L. 112-10)
Total revenue $2.567 trillion (requested)[1]
$2.314 trillion (enacted)[2]
Total expenditures $3.834 trillion (requested)[1]
$3.630 trillion (enacted)[2]
Debt payment $0.25 trillion (requested)
Deficit $1.56 trillion (requested)
Website http://thomas.loc.gov/home/approp/app11.html Library of Congress

2012

Submitted February 14, 2011
Submitted by Barack Obama
Submitted to 112th Congress
Passed
November 18, 2011 (Pub.L. 112-55)
December 23, 2011 (Pub.L. 112-74 and Pub.L. 112-77)
Total revenue $2.627 trillion (requested)
$2.469 trillion (enacted)
Total expenditures $3.729 trillion (requested)
$3.796 trillion (enacted)
Deficit $1.101 trillion (requested)
$1.327 trillion (enacted)
Website http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/pag...BUDGET-2012-BUD US Government Printing Office


Ok, Tom here is the info one more time. But in order for it to make any sense at all, yolu must not do this.....

http://www.addictinginfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/11.30.2012.Obama_Fiscal_Cliff_Ostrich.jpg

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Tom]

So we are still spending more than we take in.

Duh.

[Tom]

Is Obama care off to a poor start?
Is this just another Solyndra?


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/11/business/electronic-records-systems-have-not-reduced-health-costs-report-says.html?_r=0



Optimistic predictions by RAND in 2005 helped drive explosive growth in the electronic records industry and encouraged the federal government to give billions of dollars in financial incentives to hospitals and doctors that put the systems in place.

“We’ve not achieved the productivity and quality benefits that are unquestionably there for the taking,” said Dr. Arthur L. Kellermann, one of the authors of a reassessment by RAND that was published in this month’s edition of Health Affairs, an academic journal.

[hcap]

So we are still spending more than we take in.

Duh.

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2012-10-10-chart_spending_growth.jpgDeficit spending was practiced by many rethugs too. But at least Obama has made an effort to sloe it down

Duh!

[mostpost]

So we are still spending more than we take in.

Duh.
No, we are still taking in less than we spend.

[badcompany]

No, we are still taking in less than we spend.

Emphasis on "Taking."

[Tom]

Hey hcap....even mostie gets it! :lol:

[hcap]

Hey hcap....even mostie gets it! :lol:Mostie can kick your butt any day of the week. :cool:

[Tom]

No, but he could kick a hole in the ground.
Think about it.......

[hcap]

The only hole in the ground is where you bury it when you refuse to see the obvious.

[Tom]

Not even close.
BTW, if I had my head in the ground, I would be looking for a good fracking site..

[hcap]

Not even close.
BTW, if I had my head in the ground, I would be looking for a good fracking site..For a good fracking site check directly behind you. An ostrich can smell his butt close up if he wants too! :)

[hcap]

A couple of weeks ago the Wall Street Journal ran a story explaining the details of the fiscal cliff tax increases.


http://www.motherjones.com/files/blog_wsj_tax_increase.jpg

The original image except for their tax amount increase(s) in the yellow balloons added..

BOY DO THEY LOOK PISSED!! :lol:
Rich folks have a HELL of a time didn't you know? :cool:

[fast4522]

A few members of the House of Representatives are trying to get a bill going to do away with the fiscal cliff in essence elimination of the need to vote every time to raise the debt limit. The problem is that this country is out of control with its spending, and not one of the left leaning posters here will talk of this as it is being a huge problem. The whole concept of class warfare is a flawed because bankrupt is exactly where the liberals have put us all.

[Tom]

If the rich were to truly pay their fair share, all it would take is a tax cut.

[Tom]

And yet another Obama lie.....it might be easier to keep track of when he isn't lying.

We will NOT default just because we do not increase the debt ceiling.
Pure BS.

As long as we pay the interest, we will not default.

Here' hoping the repubs play this one to the max - just because they can.

[hcap]

And yet another Obama lie.....it might be easier to keep track of when he isn't lying.

We will NOT default just because we do not increase the debt ceiling.
Pure BS.

As long as we pay the interest, we will not default.

Here' hoping the repubs play this one to the max - just because they can.YOU ARE CERTIFIABLE.


http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2013/01/debt_ceiling_showdown_what_happens_if_congress_and _president_obama_don_t.html

[classhandicapper]

YOU ARE CERTIFIABLE.


http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2013/01/debt_ceiling_showdown_what_happens_if_congress_and _president_obama_don_t.html

He is certifiably correct.

If we didn't raise the debt ceiling, the United States could still make its interest payments to foreign creditors (which is the only thing that really matters to them). The government would just have to gut about a trillion dollars of other spending the same way that a company that is trying to stave off bankruptcy makes major cuts so it can pay creditors.

Now you can argue that wouldn't be a wise thing to do politically and it would have extremely negative consequences for people that are truly in need and others that were FOOLISH enough to expect that government programs will be there for them as long as they live, but that's a different issue than default.

[Tom]

I fed him once, Class, threw him a dirty old bone, I did.
Now I can't get rid of the mangy mutt. He follows me everywhere, drooling and barking like a banshee. I'd put him down,but they took me guns, they did.

[dartman51]

Here's another way to look at the debt ceiling.
Let's say, you come home from work and find there has been a sewer backup in your neighborhood, and your home has sewage all the way up to your ceilings. What do you think you should do, RAISE THE CEILINGS, OR REMOVE THE SHIT???? I guess you Libs would just raise the ceilings, and live with the shit. :ThmbUp:

[badcompany]

Here's another way to look at the debt ceiling.
Let's say, you come home from work and find there has been a sewer backup in your neighborhood, and your home has sewage all the way up to your ceilings. What do you think you should do, RAISE THE CEILINGS, OR REMOVE THE SHIT???? I guess you Libs would just raise the ceilings, and live with the shit. :ThmbUp:

Unfortunately for Liberals, the Sh!t is their beloved Welfare State which they can't admit is a failure.

[Actor]

The debt ceiling law is obviously unconstitutional since it conflicts with the 14th amendment. If Congress does not increase the ceiling the President has the authority to continue to pay the bills.

What does the President have to do in order to continue to pay the bills. The answer is nothing. If no one does anything then the computers will continue to pay the bills automatically. All the President need do is instruct his people to do nothing, in particular, don't reprogram the computers. Everybody gets their money via direct deposit. The T-bill holders, the Social Security recipients (me), the troops, the military contractors, government employees. Forget about the trillion dollar coin. Just stand back and let the computers shuffle the electrons.

[fast4522]

The debt ceiling law is obviously unconstitutional since it conflicts with the 14th amendment. If Congress does not increase the ceiling the President has the authority to continue to pay the bills.

What does the President have to do in order to continue to pay the bills. The answer is nothing. If no one does anything then the computers will continue to pay the bills automatically. All the President need do is instruct his people to do nothing, in particular, don't reprogram the computers. Everybody gets their money via direct deposit. The T-bill holders, the Social Security recipients (me), the troops, the military contractors, government employees. Forget about the trillion dollar coin. Just stand back and let the computers shuffle the electrons.

Correct, but only with the money coming in.
In short 30 Billion to service the current debt, and all other expenses like social security, Defence, Section 8 housing assistance, Welfare, and much more gets in line. When it is gone he has to wait another year. Forced spending cuts.

Who likes hind tit? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[hcap]

Government Accountability Office Report 2/22/11].....

The debt limit does not control or limit the ability of the federal government to run deficits or incur obligations. Rather, it is a limit on the ability to pay obligations already incurred. While debates surrounding the debt limit may raise awareness about the federal government's current debt trajectory and may also provide Congress with an opportunity to debate the fiscal policy decisions driving that trajectory, the ability to have an immediate effect on debt levels is limited. This is because the debt reflects previously enacted tax and spending policies.

From the NYT...

http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/subjects/n/national_debt_us/index.html

The 2011 debt ceiling fight was later believed to have contributed to the slowing of the economic recovery that fall, as well as leading to a first-ever downgrade of the federal government’s credit rating. Economists warned that a default in 2013 could set off an unpredictable financial panic that would plunge not only the United States but much of the world back into recession.


From the article I linked. Specifically the effect on global markets.

The economic problem here is a financial market meltdown. A great deal of the global financial system is based on the idea that U.S. government debt is not only safe, but unquestionably safe. Anything that raised substantial legal questions about the status of various payments would ruin that. At first blush it seems logical that the government could perhaps respond by simply choosing which bills to pay and which not to pay, but there’s no legal authority to do this either, and Treasury’s computers aren’t set up to do it. On an average day about 2 million separate invoices come in.

Treasury’s official line is that instead of trying to prioritize they’ll simply delay. When not enough money comes in from daily tax revenue, nobody will get paid. Then, when tax revenue leaves the Treasury flush, they’ll pay some old bills. That means the global economy won’t necessarily turn into a pumpkin the minute the clock strikes midnight, but it does mean that with each passing week the government will be further and further behind on all its bills. The money taken directly out of the economy would amount to a hit of about 7 percent of GDP.

That’d be almost as bad as the worst quarter of the Great Recession. But the real cost would be the risk of broader chaos in the financial system. If the government can’t pay its bills on time, then some of the people to whom it owes money—whether that’s a construction company, a grandma on Social Security, a doctor treating Medicare patients, a public school expecting Title I funding, a student awarded a Pell Grant, whatever—won’t be able to pay their bills on time. That’s going to mean a rise in missed payments on mortgages, car loans, and credit cards. That means bank failures and sharply reduced credit availability even for people who aren’t specifically counting on a check from Uncle Sam. Debt financed investment—construction projects, vehicle purchases, small business expansions—will likely grind to a halt as nobody wants to lend out new money until they’re sure they’re getting paid what they’re already owed. That will create a secondary collapse in incomes, and an additional wave of business and citizens unable to pay their bills.

A total disaster, in other words. And a very avoidable one. Congressional Republicans want to cut spending. And just a few weeks after we hit the debt ceiling, existing appropriation bills will expire, which will give them a golden opportunity to appropriate less money that Obama wants. Or to agree to match Obama’s discretionary spending requests if he’ll agree to cuts in entitlement programs. Or whatever it is they want to do. A shutdown over appropriations bills would be annoying and problematic in many ways, but survivable. What they’re talking about doing now—forcing the government into non-payment of bills it’s already accrued—would be a catastrophe. Corny as it sounds, they really ought to consider the option of just doing the right thing, raising the debt ceiling, and moving on to fighting about appropriations.


http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/01/17/1465231/paul-ryan-prioritization-debt-ceiling/

Jan 17, 2013

Republicans anxious to avoid a debt default without actually raising the nation’s debt limit have proposed a scheme that would, in their eyes, allow the government to prioritize debt payments, paying off holders of U.S. bonds first and other programs after. The Bipartisan Policy Center has called such a plan “essentially impossible,” noting that Treasury’s computers aren’t capable of prioritizing payments and that, even if they could, such a scheme would prevent the government from making large portions of its payments, which is still a default on legally owed obligations.

.................................................. ...........

Give it up guys. It is just a matter of time until you cave. All the polls show support for Obama and the blame for default to fall on the republicans if it happens

[fast4522]

So Hcap, what you are saying is there will be no way to fund Obama care because it would get hind tit?

[Tom]

I already posted before Obama lies through his teeth about the debt ceiling.
I guess that means more than 64% of the people who agree with hcap are blithering idiots! :lol:

You know, hcap, Charlie McCarthy was a much more independent thinker that you are! :lol:

[hcap]

So Hcap, what you are saying is there will be no way to fund Obama care because it would get hind tit?The entire economy would get the "hind tit" Credit downgrade, higher interest rates guaranteed.

You may argue that some rating organizations (Fitch) have warded that the debt and deficits will get us downgraded, but we have at least a year to deal with that. But if we default now, it happens now.

[Tom]

No default is a certainty.
Pay attention.
And speaking of high intersst, what' another trillion or so opn top of the interest we are alrady paying and adding onto.

Did you know that all the money we borrow, we have to pay back?
With interst?

Well, our grandkids and thier kids, ytou klnow, those little people Obama abused for political theater the other day? Ironic, he used them to try to take away the 2nd amendment, while, in effect HE was holding a gun to thier heads, as he SOLD THEM into slavery.

And YOU applaud it!

[hcap]

I already posted before Obama lies through his teeth about the debt ceiling.
I guess that means more than 64% of the people who agree with hcap are blithering idiots! :lol:

You know, hcap, Charlie McCarthy was a much more independent thinker that you are! :lol:And who exactly owns the hand up your butt?

http://s4.hubimg.com/u/1938071_f520.jpg

[Tom]

I read you weak replies, and I am tempted......

[Actor]

Correct, but only with the money coming in.Not necessarily.

If a private citizen's income is not enough to pay his bills but he writes the checks anyway, then some of those checks are going to bounce. The bank will send them back and charge him a penalty. In extreme cases he could go to jail.

But the government's bank is the Fed. It doesn't have to bounce any check. All it has to do is accept a negative reserve, effectively loaning the government the money from funds gotten out of thin air. I know it's counter intuitive but it's quite doable from an accounting standpoint. It works as long as no one objects to the red ink.

What if the House of Representatives objects to this scheme and impeaches the President? Well, it takes 67 votes in the Senate to convict, and the G.O.P. is 22 votes short.

At this point the President and the Secretary of the Treasury realize that, although they can't legally print money without Congressional approval, they can write hot checks to their heart's content. Moreover, having demonstrated that they can borrow money out of thin air, they pay off the national debt by simply writing a $16 trillion check.

Who likes hind tit? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:The Supreme Court has ruled that Social Security gets the hind tit (Flemming v. Nestor, 1960).

[badcompany]

But the government's bank is the Fed. It doesn't have to bounce any check. All it has to do is accept a negative reserve, effectively loaning the government the money from funds gotten out of thin air. I know it's counter intuitive but it's quite doable from an accounting standpoint. It works as long as no one objects to the red ink.
.

Actually, the term for this is "counterfeiting."

[Actor]

Actually, the term for this is "counterfeiting."No, that term refers to currency.

With checks it's called "kiting."

[fast4522]

The entire economy would get the "hind tit" Credit downgrade, higher interest rates guaranteed.

You may argue that some rating organizations (Fitch) have warded that the debt and deficits will get us downgraded, but we have at least a year to deal with that. But if we default now, it happens now.

Do you read lips, Speaker John Boehner said F%&* You, while we all will bleed a little, liberals will bleed to death with mandatory cuts that will never happen any other way.

[hcap]

Good luck Rethugs!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/17/republican-party-approval-rating_n_2499934.html

Republican Party Approval Rating: Poll Finds High Negative Marks For GOP

The Republican Party's approval rating has sunk amid wrangling over the fiscal cliff and looming debt ceiling, according to a NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released Thursday.

The poll found that 49 percent of respondents have a negative view of the GOP, the highest negative marks for the party in the poll since 2008. Just 26 percent said they have a positive view of the Republican Party.

In contrast, 44 percent of adults surveyed said they have a positive view of the Democratic Party, while 38 percent have a negative one.

The Tea Party also found earned strong negative marks, with 47 percent viewing the movement unfavorably.

Recent polls have showed similar trends in the weeks since the fiscal cliff agreement between the White House and Congress. A Washington Post/ABC poll released last week found that most Americans disapproved of how House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) handled the deal, while a Pew survey found "abysmal" marks for the GOP, with just 19 percent approving of how Republicans handled the fiscal negotiations.

The NBC/WSJ poll, which surveyed 1000 adults between January 12 and 15, also found that many Americans have mixed expectations for Obama's second term, marking a reversal from the high hopes surrounding the president's first inauguration. While 51 percent said they were optimistic or hopeful about Obama's second term, 48 percent of respondents said they were uncertain or pessimistic about the next four years

[fast4522]

Hcap get your crayons and make a few graphs.

[delayjf]

Latest gallup poll give Obama a 49% approval rating. Does anyone recall the House approval rating under Pelosi??

[hcap]

Latest gallup poll give Obama a 49% approval rating. Does anyone recall the House approval rating under Pelosi??Seven hours ago Pew

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2013/01/obamas-approval-ratings-soar-advisers-work-on-campaign-orgs-legacy.html

Mr. Obama has a 52 percent job approval rating in the poll, conducted of 1,502 adults Jan. 9 through last Sunday.

However, just so you know......"The Pew poll found that politically, Mr. Obama has an advantage over Republican leaders on Capitol Hill. The GOP has fallen to 33 percent favorability, the lowest point in the last two decades of Pew surveys."

[Mike at A+]

Seven hours ago Pew

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2013/01/obamas-approval-ratings-soar-advisers-work-on-campaign-orgs-legacy.html

Mr. Obama has a 52 percent job approval rating in the poll, conducted of 1,502 adults Jan. 9 through last Sunday.

However, just so you know......"The Pew poll found that politically, Mr. Obama has an advantage over Republican leaders on Capitol Hill. The GOP has fallen to 33 percent favorability, the lowest point in the last two decades of Pew surveys."
Would love to drill down in that poll and others like it to get the breakdown by race, education level and income.

[hcap]

Would love to drill down in that poll and others like it to get the breakdown by race, education level and income.Whatever your so-called "research" reveals, it"s obvious that free ObamaPhones are NOT the reason your boys lost by a big time ass whipping. And it's also unlikely the rethugs have any chance of impeaching him.

[Mike at A+]

Whatever your so-called "research" reveals, it"s obvious that free ObamaPhones are NOT the reason your boys lost by a big time ass whipping. And it's also unlikely the rethugs have any chance of impeaching him.
I'm just a spectator enjoying the show. Unemployment in many red states looks a lot better than in some big blue states. And there seems to be a big underground push to refrain from hiring certain groups because of their politics and proclivity for criminal behavior. The end game should be very interesting because hunger makes people take drastic measures that will sometimes get them filled with lead if they pick the wrong place to rob. And those prosperous red states seem to dismiss charges against people defending their livelihoods from the thug wing of your party. Al Sharpton won't be around forever to stand up for the rights to mug and steal. Hey, maybe those red states took 0bama's advice seriously - to PUNISH their enemies. The income disparity in blue states will get bigger and bigger while those attractive red states will be humming along with near full employment. The second Civil War won't be fought with guns. It will be fought with prosperity. What's that old saying? Living well is the best revenge? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[hcap]

I'm just a spectator enjoying the show. Unemployment in many red states looks a lot better than in some big blue states. And there seems to be a big underground push to refrain from hiring certain groups because of their politics and proclivity for criminal behavior. The end game should be very interesting because hunger makes people take drastic measures that will sometimes get them filled with lead if they pick the wrong place to rob.You are a delusional spectator at best.

One graph is worth a thousand words. For those of you that have missed my colorful and spiffy graphs......

http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/the_reckoning/2012/10/non-payers-by-state.jpg/_jcr_content/renditions/original

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_reckoning/2012/10/25/blue_state_red_face_guess_who_benefits_more_from_y our_taxes.html

Top Ten Moochers (Source: Tax Foundation):

1. New Mexico Indian reservations, military bases, federal research labs, farm subsidies, retirement programs

2. Mississippi Farm subsidies, military spending, nutrition and anti-poverty aid, retirement programs.

3. Alaska Per capita No 1 recipient of federal benefits; infrastructure projects, DOT and pork projects.

4. Louisiana Disaster relief, farm subsidies, anti-poverty and nutrition aid, military spending.

5. W. Virginia Farm subsidies, anti-poverty and nutrition aid.

6. N. Dakota Farm subsidies, energy subsidies, retirement and anti-poverty programs, Indian reservations.

7. Alabama Retirement programs, anti-poverty and nutrition aid, federal space/military spending, farm subsidies.

8. S. Dakota Retirement programs, nutrition aid, farm subsidies, military spending, Indian reservations.

9. Virginia Civil service pensions, military spending, veterans benefits, retirement, anti-poverty aid.

10. Kentucky Retirement programs, nutritional and anti-poverty aid, farm subsidies.







The bottom ten states, from 41-50 in average income
OK
SC
NM
LA
TN
AL
KY
AR
WV
MS


Percentage of adults 25-34 with at least a college degree, as of 2010
the bottom 10:

ID 32.7
TX 32.2
MS 32.1
AL 31.5
OK 30.8
LA 30.3
WV 24.5
NM 28.7
AR 28.6
NV 28.4


States with obesity rates >30% :

AL
AR
IN
KY
LA
MI
MS
MO
OK
SC
TX
WV

Percentage of Households in poverty (Total US is 12.6% households)

Bottom 10
SC 15.0
AZ 15.2
WV 15.4
OK 15.6
AR 15.9
TX 16.2
AL 16.7
NM 17.9
LA 18.3
MS 20.1

[Tom]

Seek help, old man, while you can.

[hcap]

Seek help, old man, while you can.Whatsa matta Froggy?

Getting tired of my graphs I guess. :lol: :lol:

[NJ Stinks]

Whatsa matta Froggy?

Getting tired of my graphs I guess. :lol: :lol:

Hcap, these guys live in fantasyland.

[Mike at A+]

Hey little girl, average income doesn't mean much when you consider cost of living and QUALITY OF LIFE (as in small numbers of 0bama people). :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[hcap]

Hey little girl, average income doesn't mean much when you consider cost of living and QUALITY OF LIFE (as in small numbers of 0bama people). :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:Hey big dumbass. Poverty rates are adjusted relative to state. So, Along with little education, rampant obesity and mooching from the blue states, poverty is Not meaningless? What about all the kids living in those states? And I guess this went right over your teeny head..

Top Ten Moochers (Source: Tax Foundation):

2. Mississippi Farm subsidies, military spending, nutrition and anti-poverty aid, retirement programs.

4. Louisiana Disaster relief, farm subsidies, anti-poverty and nutrition aid, military spending.

5. W. Virginia Farm subsidies, anti-poverty and nutrition aid.

6. N. Dakota Farm subsidies, energy subsidies, retirement and anti-poverty programs, Indian reservations.

7. Alabama Retirement programs, anti-poverty and nutrition aid, federal space/military spending, farm subsidies.

8. S. Dakota Retirement programs, nutrition aid, farm subsidies, military spending, Indian reservations.

9. Virginia Civil service pensions, military spending, veterans benefits, retirement, anti-poverty aid.

10. Kentucky Retirement programs, nutritional and anti-poverty aid, farm subsidies.

Where do you think all this nutrition and anti-poverty funding comes from? And if poverty is not such a problem, why would these states ask for it?

Hey big dumbass I doubt you payed any attention to your own stupid biased words. You wrote this about red states. Care to clarify?

"And there seems to be a big underground push to refrain from hiring certain groups because of their politics and proclivity for criminal behavior"
Politics and criminal behavior? So what the F**k does that mean?

[hcap]

Hcap, these guys live in fantasyland.Some are only trolls like Froggy, not worth taking seriously. Some are just plain dumb and almost illiterate politically. And a few are worth reading

[Mike at A+]

Politics and criminal behavior? So what the F**k does that mean?
It means I'd rather live in any of those red states you mention than in a state or city infested with liberals and gang bangers. We can agree to disagree on this, little girl. If we're both happy, it's all good. I love watching those You Tube videos of 0bama supporters behaving badly. I love reading stories about Democrats like Ray Nagin who just got nailed. But what I love most is listening to stupid white people who have to live the lie for their partisan stupidity because they aren't intelligent enough to realize that they are paying for their stupidity in countless ways. They are sell outs and too stupid to realize that they are the ones being sold. But look at it on the bright side. When you get to hell you can hang out with Reid and Pelosi.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by NJ Stinks
Hcap, these guys live in fantasyland.Some are only trolls like Froggy, not worth taking seriously. Some are just plain dumb and almost illiterate politically. And a few are worth readingAs I said NJ, illiterate BUT after Mike at Z-, I will amend that to in more ways than just politically. :)

[Mike at A+]

As I said NJ, illiterate BUT after Mike at Z-, I will amend that to in more ways than just politically. :)
I'm quite happy with my degree, my career, my accomplishments, my business, my family, my friends, my investments and my AWARENESS of what's going on and my ABILITY to avoid the mess (of their own doing) that libs will have to endure.

Plus I just hit a sweet superfecta! Life is good!

[hcap]

http://www.markfiore.com/political-cartoons/watch-obama-debt-ceiling-republicans-gop-congress-animated-video-mark-fiore-animation

Debt-B-Gone

[hcap]

Looks like the rethugs have indeed caved on the debt ceiling stand off.
They had no choice.

[JustRalph]

That's kind of a skewed graph isn't it?

It holds military and veterans benefits against a state?

Amazing how that works..............

[JustRalph]

I'm just a spectator enjoying the show. Unemployment in many red states looks a lot better than in some big blue states. And there seems to be a big underground push to refrain from hiring certain groups because of their politics and proclivity for criminal behavior. The end game should be very interesting because hunger makes people take drastic measures that will sometimes get them filled with lead if they pick the wrong place to rob. And those prosperous red states seem to dismiss charges against people defending their livelihoods from the thug wing of your party. Al Sharpton won't be around forever to stand up for the rights to mug and steal. Hey, maybe those red states took 0bama's advice seriously - to PUNISH their enemies. The income disparity in blue states will get bigger and bigger while those attractive red states will be humming along with near full employment. The second Civil War won't be fought with guns. It will be fought with prosperity. What's that old saying? Living well is the best revenge? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Got an email with a bumper sticker suggestion.

" the value of lead will double when EBT runs out"

[hcap]

That's kid of a skewed graph isn't it?

It holds military and veterans benefits against a state?

Amazing how that works..............That is a point addressed in the article. And in some dispute Hiowever, clearly demonstrable differences are poverty related.

Percentage of Households in poverty (Total US is 12.6% households)

Bottom 10
SC 15.0
AZ 15.2
WV 15.4
OK 15.6
AR 15.9
TX 16.2
AL 16.7
NM 17.9
LA 18.3
MS 20.1

The bottom ten states, from 41-50 in average income
OK
SC
NM
LA
TN
AL
KY
AR
WV
MS

[hcap]

Got an email with a bumper sticker suggestion.

" the value of lead will double when EBT runs out"So what do you "patriots" expect? Food stamp riots and all you armed to the teeth "good guys" defending truth, justice and the American way when the largest contingent of food stamp recipients----CHILDREN---come after your bread? :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Tom]

Maybe we need a few less baby mills.

[Mike at A+]

Maybe we need a few less baby mills.
Or maybe some more conventional families instead of 7 kids with 7 different last names.

[Tom]

Democrats see the solution to that problem as rewarding those who have kids they cannot afford.

The democrat mantra is we want the best food, best education, that other people's money can buy for us.

If you cannot feed your own kids, they should be taken away from you.
Then the mothers would be freed up to be put in work camps.

(THAT should push hcap over the edge! Prepare for a chart onslaught! :lol::lol::lol:)

[hcap]

Democrats see the solution to that problem as rewarding those who have kids they cannot afford.

The democrat mantra is we want the best food, best education, that other people's money can buy for us.

If you cannot feed your own kids, they should be taken away from you.
Then the mothers would be freed up to be put in work camps.

(THAT should push hcap over the edge! Prepare for a chart onslaught! :lol::lol::lol:)You forgot eugenics Froogy.

[Tom]

No, that is the progressives and Mengele.

[delayjf]

That's kind of a skewed graph isn't it?

Hcap - your graph is one way of looking at it, but instead of posting a graph based on percentages, post a graph on actual numbers. For example, 1/3 of the countries welfare recipiants live in CA.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/302148/california-america-s-welfare-queen-nash-keune#

[Tom]

That is not what he wants the graph to say.

[Mike at A+]

That is not what he wants the graph to say.
BINGO!

[hcap]

Are you gentlemen daff? Remember my point was about Non-Payers in red states that mooch off the blue states. From the original article...

http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/the_reckoning/2012/10/non-payers-by-state.jpg/_jcr_content/renditions/original

Is CA red or blue? No matter how much it pays for state welfare, and Brown has recently cut welfare and other social programs to the dismay of many democrats, it still supports itself, and pays MORE to the Feds than it receives from the Feds. Unlike the southern red state moochers

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_reckoning/2012/10/25/blue_state_red_face_guess_who_benefits_more_from_y our_taxes.html

"Now consider the bottom 10, i.e., the ones that give more to the federal government in taxes than they get in return. From 1 to 10, they are:

New Jersey, Nevada, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Illinois, Delaware, California, New York, Colorado.

[fast4522]

You guys do not have a clue who is the friend or the foe. With Hcap posting one fatuous post after another it is a wonder what you believe or post. Catch this story and understand the mentality of this administration.

HTTP://WWW.WND.COM/2013/01/OBAMA-SELLING-OUT-AMERICA-LITERALLY/

[badcompany]

Are you gentlemen daff? Remember my point was about Non-Payers in red states that mooch off the blue states. From the original article...

http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/the_reckoning/2012/10/non-payers-by-state.jpg/_jcr_content/renditions/original

Is CA red or blue? No matter how much it pays for state welfare, and Brown has recently cut welfare and other social programs to the dismay of many democrats, it still supports itself, and pays MORE to the Feds than it receives from the Feds. Unlike the southern red state moochers

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_reckoning/2012/10/25/blue_state_red_face_guess_who_benefits_more_from_y our_taxes.html

"Now consider the bottom 10, i.e., the ones that give more to the federal government in taxes than they get in return. From 1 to 10, they are:

New Jersey, Nevada, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Illinois, Delaware, California, New York, Colorado.


California is not a monolith. For example, Orange County has a pop. of ~3 mil and is largely Republican.

To really make your point, you'd have break the stats down further, but, you don't really want to do that, do you?

[delayjf]

Factor out Military spending and your graph changes immensely.

[hcap]

You guys do not have a clue who is the friend or the foe. With Hcap posting one fatuous post after another it is a wonder what you believe or post. Catch this story and understand the mentality of this administration.

HTTP://WWW.WND.COM/2013/01/OBAMA-SE...RICA-LITERALLY/

Ah!, World NutDaily ! Let the voice of freedom ring!!

:bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang:

[hcap]

California is not a monolith. For example, Orange County has a pop. of ~3 mil and is largely Republican.

To really make your point, you'd have break the stats down further, but, you don't really want to do that, do you? For the sake of this debate, Red Staes vs Blue it is not necessary

Do you on the wonders of Red States?

[hcap]

Factor out Military spending and your graph changes immensely.
Take tht up with the non partisan Tax Foundation. Besides have you run the numbers? If I have time I will see if I can find out. But I will remind you of the following: It is not only the Tax Foundation that points to the red states as the bottom of American economies but there is also the......

Notes and Sources
2011 Data
Number and percentage of people estimated to be living in poverty during a given year. Data are based on the Census Bureau's annual American Community Survey (pre-2005 data is based on the Bureau's Current Population Survey). The U.S. poverty thresholds change annually and are published here.
Data are available at the state level and go back to 1980.

http://data.nationalpriorities.org/mashups/vv1n87jqixw8stsz/?gclid=CMOlj7TN97QCFcp9Ogod5GYAsA

And

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jan/26/blog-posting/red-state-socialism-graphic-says-gop-leaning-state/

"Republican-leaning states get more in federal dollars than they pay in taxes."

http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/rulings%2Ftom-mostlytrue.gif