Obama speaks, makes no sense.......

[Tom]

Remember in those years, in 2001 and 2003, Congress passed two of the most expensive tax cuts for the wealthy in history. And what did it get us? The slowest job growth in half a century.
---Obama 12/6/11

So let me get this straight. The tax were bad, but recently, it was urgent that we EXTENDED them. and now, with the payroll withholding about to expire, it once again URGENT that we extend it. But I thought - an libs, feel free to jump in here - that lower taxes was bad and raising taxes was good.

Wassup wit dis?

The repubs want to extend it, but also want to PAY for it. Buy oh no, Obama refuses to act responsibly and cut spending to go along with tax cuts. Sound like HE is the party of NO, seeing how repubs are willing to do both.

[Tom]

Today, manufacturers and other companies are setting up shop in the places with the best infrastructure to ship their products, move their workers, communicate with the rest of the world. And that's why the over 1 million construction workers who lost their jobs when the housing market collapsed, they shouldn't be sitting at home with nothing to do. They should be rebuilding our roads and our bridges, laying down faster railroads and broadband, modernizing our schools -- (applause) -- all the things other countries are already doing to attract good jobs and businesses to their shores.
----Obama 12/6/11

Uh, Mr. President, you already got a trillion dollar porkulous bill passed that was supposed to just that, with all those shovel-ready jobs.

Wassup wit dis?

If they are not building, it is YOUR fault, stupid...YOU had the money to get the ball rolling, and you dropped it. And btw, just where is the money you did not spend to get it done?

[BlueShoe]

If and when he ever says anything that makes sense or that will actually help the nation, someone let me know. Whenever he pops up on the tube my right thumb is on automatic switch channel mode on the remote. Given a choice, would rather watch an infomercial for colon cleanser rather than suffer through one of his spiels.

[Tom]

That is the height of unfairness. It is wrong. (Applause.) It's wrong that in the United States of America, a teacher or a nurse or a construction worker, maybe earns $50,000 a year, should pay a higher tax rate than somebody raking in $50 million. (Applause.) It's wrong for Warren Buffett (http://www.latimes.com/topic/economy-business-finance/financial-business-services/warren-buffett-PEBSL000005.topic)'s secretary to pay a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett. (Applause.)
---Obama 12/6/11

This has been proven to be a lie long ago, yet he keeps trying to pass it off as a fact. His secretary and he pay different kinds of taxes. You can't compare capital gains taxes to income taxes.

Wassup wit dis?

The president lies and people are too dumb to question it? He never let facts get his way, the Lying Kenyen.

[ArlJim78]

I hope Newt makes sure to clobber Obama on that speech over and over.
It was full of lies and utter nonsense. Of course if you're a statist you merely have to claim to be about "fairness", then you have a green light to do anything. lie, avoid responsibilty, steal, etc. they all do it in the name of fairness, the children, or the environment. what it's really about is power, ideology and amassing wealth for their cronies.

[bigmack]

Let's see how genuine he is about postponing his vacation until they pass these tax extensions for his bestest buddies, The Middle Class, while R's tie the Canadian pipeline to the extensions.

I see Michelle is going on schedule, with or without BHouseinO.

http://www.barack-obama-photos.com/michelle_fires_up_crowd.jpg

[NJ Stinks]

This has been proven to be a lie long ago, yet he keeps trying to pass it off as a fact. His secretary and he pay different kinds of taxes. You can't compare capital gains taxes to income taxes.

Wassup wit dis?

The president lies and people are too dumb to question it? He never let facts get his way, the Lying Kenyen.






OK, Professor. Explain to the class why you think capital gains should be taxed at a lower rate than other income. In short, explain why income isn't really income.

[IBCNU]

Amen Tom! Capital gains is taxed at a lower rate because it is REMAINING income on which TAXES HAVE ALREADY BEEN PAID! (applause). Increasing this would hamper investment (which is where the goverment gets its tax revenue) .........not even the mafia can loan shark like this.

[IBCNU]

Capital gains are usually associated with the sale or exchange of property characterized as capital assets or any financial instrument. The amount of gain is measured as the difference between the amount received by the taxpayer on the sale less the original purchase price, adjusted through the date of the sale.

These assets or intruments on the whole are purchased with income that that has already gone through the tax grinder. Also....there is usually LARGE INHERENT RISK! A secretary pays taxes on her salary wich her employer goes through the daily risk of paying (business failing, etc). SHE has NO risk other than unemployment whereas the man/woman who risks money to generate a profit is the reason government has any money to tax and we have jobs!

[bigmack]

OK, Professor. Explain to the class why you think capital gains should be taxed at a lower rate than other income. In short, explain why income isn't really income.
How's that explanation for ya?

Now, Professor, give us why YOU think they should be taxed the same rate?
(This should be good)

[NJ Stinks]

Two things, IBCNU:

1. Does not the deductiblility of capital losses or the offsetting of capital losses against capital gains mitigate the risk?

2. Hasn't any dollar spent anywhere on anything already been taxed on somebody?

[NJ Stinks]

How's that explanation for ya?

Now, Professor, give us why YOU think they should be taxed the same rate?
(This should be good)

I'm OK with 28%. So was Ron Reagan.

[IBCNU]

Two things, IBCNU:

1. Does not the deductiblility of capital losses or the offsetting of capital losses against capital gains mitigate the risk?

2. Hasn't any dollar spent anywhere on anything already been taxed on somebody?

A lot of those deductions are on the chopping block to fund obamacare among other programs. I make markets in fixed income debt for a living. I can only ask that you believe me when I say that capital will always find a home where the cost of doing business is reduced. The whole purpose in a low capital gains tax is to encourage investment. I have opened six businesses in my life with four failing until one produced a profit. You can be sure I would not have taken that risk if my silent partner wanted 1/3 or more of my profits when i'm successful and is nowhere to be found when i am not.

[NJ Stinks]

I can only ask that you believe me when I say that capital will always find a home where the cost of doing business is reduced. The whole purpose in a low capital gains tax is to encourage investment. I have opened six businesses in my life with four failing until one produced a profit. You can be sure I would not have taken that risk if my silent partner wanted 1/3 or more of my profits when i'm successful and is nowhere to be found when i am not.

I believe you. I understand the concept of takeout.

My problem is the super rich paying at a 15% rate. My argument can be likened to Republicans saying a means test should apply before one receives Social Security benefits.

[bigmack]

I'm OK with 28%. So was Ron Reagan.
Stop embarrassing yourself with this Reagan talk. One of the cornerstones to Reaganomics was lowering capital gains tax.

Take 30 seconds out of your life and drink-in this chart showing US tax rates over the years.
http://ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-individual-1.html

You want to talk about fair share. Look at the VAST difference in rates for the last 100 years. :eek:
//

Have you given much of case for why capital gains should be treated the same as income yet?

[NJ Stinks]

Have you given much of case for why capital gains should be treated the same as income yet?

Never said it should be.

[ArlJim78]

Tom, next time you don't have to say "makes no sense" after you say "Obama speaks". its redundant.

[ArlJim78]

even the beloved Washington Post takes the time to point out the fiction (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-kansas-speech-some-suspect-facts/2011/12/06/gIQAUU45aO_blog.html)of his speech. although I question the 'three Pinocchio' rating. that seems low.


Finally, Obama blames the Bush tax cuts for “massive deficits.” It is certainly true that the Bush tax cuts helped blow a hole in the budget. But they did not do it all by themselves. We looked at length (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/revisiting-the-cost-of-the-bush-tax-cuts/2011/05/09/AFxTFtbG_blog.html) at this issue earlier this year, assisted by new Congressional Budget Office data (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-inside-story-of-tax-cuts-revenue-projections-and-the-nations-debt/2011/05/04/AFfp9trF_blog.html).
The data showed that the biggest contributor to the disappearance of projected surpluses was increased spending, which accounted for 36.5 percent of the decline in the nation’s fiscal position, followed by incorrect CBO estimates, which accounted for 28 percent. The Bush tax cuts (along with some Obama tax cuts) were responsible for just 24 percent

[IBCNU]

I guess the best rationale I can give is this. When any business, corporation (group of people getting together to limit thier risk/loss) or what have you sees their costs reduced and their bottom line grow, their immediate reaction is to expand and reinvest those monies. In times like this they would try and preserve capital. My point is that whichever occures, that money finds its way back into our economy. Even when its tucked away, the institution holding it invests it broadly so that it can pay the minimal interest due to the account holder. Buy a fancy car...someone had to build it....

When Reagan reduced capital gains, it was like injecting b-12 right into the arm. When government increases its tax burden, investment drops and capital finds a friendlier place or stays stagnant until the enviroment changes. Bureaucracies are like any other animal....their first priority is to survive and grow past the point when they kill their host when left unchecked. Reduce the cost of business and you will create more.

[bigmack]

Never said it should be.
What the hell was this?

OK, Professor. Explain to the class why you think capital gains should be taxed at a lower rate than other income. In short, explain why income isn't really income.

[NJ Stinks]

What the hell was this?

That was me asking Tom to do something more than moan.

[bigmack]

That was me asking Tom to do something more than moan.
He did his fair share of moaning during the Bush years. Thing is, he has BIG faith in the people of this country and it pisses him off to see punkass politicians, of either persuasion, sabotage one of the all time great countries.

Speaking of which, when do you think you or mosty will be able to muster up ANY criticism of BO? Mosty is so busy carrying water, he almost has an excuse. What's yours; hyperpartisanship?

[mostpost]

Stop embarrassing yourself with this Reagan talk. One of the cornerstones to Reaganomics was lowering capital gains tax.

Take 30 seconds out of your life and drink-in this chart showing US tax rates over the years.
http://ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-individual-1.html

You want to talk about fair share. Look at the VAST difference in rates for the last 100 years. :eek:
//

Have you given much of case for why capital gains should be treated the same as income yet?

Look at the difference in rates and compare it to the difference in income.
A few examples:
1940......poor tax rate-4.4%...rich tax rate-81.1% rich rate is 18 times the
poor rate.
Poor income is $4000.....Rich income starts at $5,000,000. 1250 times as much

1950..............Rich income is 100 times as much as poor
Rich tax rate is only 5.2 times the poor rate.

2010 ..............Rich income is 22 times poor.
rich tax rate is 3.5 times poor

Of course we must keep in mind that the definition of rich varies widely from year to year; from $38,000 to $5,000,000. The point is the difference in tax rates is not unreasonable when looked at in context of the difference in earnings.

[fast4522]

"Obama speaks, makes no sense.......", was the start of the thread.
Today Obozo said he is looking forward having a horse rib dinner at The White House, defend that Mosty, I have to agree with the start of the thread.

[badcompany]

I believe you. I understand the concept of takeout.

My problem is the super rich paying at a 15% rate. My argument can be likened to Republicans saying a means test should apply before one receives Social Security benefits.

My problem is with Socialists continually trying to take Capital out of the hands of the Michael Jordans of Entrepreneurship, the Steve Wynns, the Jeff Bezos' and putting it in the hands of Politicians and Bureaucrats.

[bigmack]

The point is the difference in tax rates is not unreasonable when looked at in context of the difference in earnings.
No, the point is, you & your comrades are incessantly whining about "fair share." I don't see a lot of protests saying high end tax rates are not unreasonable.

No one in their right mind could look at that chart and say the wealthy haven't ponied up their fair share for a very long time.

[mostpost]

"Obama speaks, makes no sense.......", was the start of the thread.
Today Obozo said he is looking forward having a horse rib dinner at The White House, defend that Mosty, I have to agree with the start of the thread.
You're taking a quote from The Weekly World News and posting it here as fact.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
If I ever accused you of being dumber than a box of rocks, I apologize to the box of rocks.

[mostpost]

So let me get this straight. The tax were bad, but recently, it was urgent that we EXTENDED them. and now, with the payroll withholding about to expire, it once again URGENT that we extend it. But I thought - an libs, feel free to jump in here - that lower taxes was bad and raising taxes was good.

Wassup wit dis?

The repubs want to extend it, but also want to PAY for it. Buy oh no, Obama refuses to act responsibly and cut spending to go along with tax cuts. Sound like HE is the party of NO, seeing how repubs are willing to do both.




We extend the payroll tax cut because that is a tax that is being paid primarily by the middle class. The payroll tax , that is the Social Security and Medicare tax, is capped at $110,000. Extending the cuts gives a typical middle class family $1000 to $1500 more to spend in 2012. Middle class families will spend that money because they have to. Spending stimulates the economy.

We end the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy because they won't spend the money. They have had those cuts for ten years. Ten years with the worst record of job growth in decades. Time to start increasing revenues.

[newtothegame]

We extend the payroll tax cut because that is a tax that is being paid primarily by the middle class. The payroll tax , that is the Social Security and Medicare tax, is capped at $110,000. Extending the cuts gives a typical middle class family $1000 to $1500 more to spend in 2012. Middle class families will spend that money because they have to. Spending stimulates the economy.

We end the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy because they won't spend the money. They have had those cuts for ten years. Ten years with the worst record of job growth in decades. Time to start increasing revenues.

Wrong!!! It does NOT give them MORE.....it allows them to keep what is already in place. That's why the term "extending".
Next, it wont stimulate the economy as the money is already in use. Now, on the other hand, if it were an ADDITIONAL, it would help the economy. But, of course you knew that...right???
And you called someone as "dumb as a box of rocks"...laughable!

[mostpost]

Amen Tom! Capital gains is taxed at a lower rate because it is REMAINING income on which TAXES HAVE ALREADY BEEN PAID! (applause). Increasing this would hamper investment (which is where the goverment gets its tax revenue) .........not even the mafia can loan shark like this.


Before I retired, I was taxed on the income I earned. (Still am actually). Then when I used that money to buy something I was taxed again. (Sales tax.) If I bought property I was taxed again. (Property tax.) And that one repeats every year even though I bought no new property. So quit crying about being taxed twice on the same income. You're not.

You're being taxed on the gains you make. So if you earn $100,000 working at a real job, you are taxed on that $100,000. Now if you take $20,000 of the remaining money and invest it in stocks that earn you $6,000, that $6,000 is new money to you and should be taxed as ordinary income.

It doesn't matter if the money you invest was earned in the market. Your profit is still new money to you.

[Tom]

Dumb as a box of pet rocks.

Sic 'em! :lol:

[mostpost]

Wrong!!! It does NOT give them MORE.....it allows them to keep what is already in place. That's why the term "extending".
Next, it wont stimulate the economy as the money is already in use. Now, on the other hand, if it were an ADDITIONAL, it would help the economy. But, of course you knew that...right???
And you called someone as "dumb as a box of rocks"...laughable!

More than they would have had if the cuts were not extended. We are talking about a new year here, and the fact that those families will not have $1500 that they had in 2011. That will hurt the economy.

[newtothegame]

More than they would have had if the cuts were not extended. We are talking about a new year here, and the fact that those families will not have $1500 that they had in 2011. That will hurt the economy.

Well at least you're changing your tune now.....it will hurt if not EXTENDED but won't help if it is.
Things will keep on as they are as it's ALREADY in place!
Now what were you saying about a box....ohh never mind! lol

[cj's dad]

Would this be an "oxymoron".

[Tom]

No, a Kenyan moron.

[IBCNU]

Before I retired, I was taxed on the income I earned. (Still am actually). Then when I used that money to buy something I was taxed again. (Sales tax.) If I bought property I was taxed again. (Property tax.) And that one repeats every year even though I bought no new property. So quit crying about being taxed twice on the same income. You're not.

You're being taxed on the gains you make. So if you earn $100,000 working at a real job, you are taxed on that $100,000. Now if you take $20,000 of the remaining money and invest it in stocks that earn you $6,000, that $6,000 is new money to you and should be taxed as ordinary income.

It doesn't matter if the money you invest was earned in the market. Your profit is still new money to you.

Please refer to my earlier posts...I dont want to be redundant and bore everyone. No one was disputing that they were gains....but the manner in which they were obtained on revenues already taxed. You salary is a income stream that does not change much thereby not carrying investment risk. The money you have left over that you decide to invest and therefore actually carries risk is and should be taxed differently. "So if you earn $100,000 working at a real job"....this is what you say; interesting choice of words. That "real" job was possible because someone took an INVESTMENT RISK. If you tax this as regular income you will emulate that other upteen failed socialist experiment called the EU. Their tax burden on investment coupled with the bloated, impossible to fund bureaucracy is the reason they are melting away.

[badcompany]

Please refer to my earlier posts...I dont want to be redundant and bore everyone. No one was disputing that they were gains....but the manner in which they were obtained on revenues already taxed. You salary is a income stream that does not change much thereby not carrying investment risk. The money you have left over that you decide to invest and therefore actually carries risk is and should be taxed differently. "So if you earn $100,000 working at a real job"....this is what you say; interesting choice of words. That "real" job was possible because someone took an INVESTMENT RISK. If you tax this as regular income you will emulate that other upteen failed socialist experiment called the EU. Their tax burden on investment coupled with the bloated, impossible to fund bureaucracy is the reason they are melting away.

It's not that Mostpost doesn't have the intelligence to understand what you're saying. His Marxist blinkers prevent him from doing so.

In our world, the Entreprenuer/Risk taker is the nucleus of the economy. In the Socialist world, he's the problem.

[IBCNU]

Ha. Thanks Bad C......for the record, wasn't questioning anyone's intelligence....just trying to get the philosophical gist of where his argument was....

[mostpost]

Please refer to my earlier posts...I dont want to be redundant and bore everyone. No one was disputing that they were gains....but the manner in which they were obtained on revenues already taxed. You salary is a income stream that does not change much thereby not carrying investment risk. The money you have left over that you decide to invest and therefore actually carries risk is and should be taxed differently. "So if you earn $100,000 working at a real job"....this is what you say; interesting choice of words. That "real" job was possible because someone took an INVESTMENT RISK. If you tax this as regular income you will emulate that other upteen failed socialist experiment called the EU. Their tax burden on investment coupled with the bloated, impossible to fund bureaucracy is the reason they are melting away.

You chose to work in the investment field. You chose to take those risks for the larger reward. Don't expect me to subsidize you if your investments don't work out. Because that is what I am doing if you are allowed to pay less tax on your earnings because they are given the fancy name "Capital gains."

You are taxed on capital gains, but you are also credited for capital losses, so your tax is based on the overall behavior of your investments.

I note that you subscribe to the conservative dogma that investment creates jobs. Good Luck to me in convincing you that is wrong. :rolleyes:

The "real job" is possible because someone needs the product or service it is providing and has the money to pay for that product or service. Without that demand, no amount of investment would "create" a single job. Of course investment is a necessary part of the equation, but the attitude here is that it is the be all and end all of business. Capital and labor are both important, but capital is by no means most important.

[bigmack]

Capital and labor are both important, but capital is by no means most important.
Wrap this around your thick skull. NO job/business is created without capital. Capital is what drives jobs. Try finding capital to start Mosties Mail Shop. Then try and find workers. See which one you'll have a boatload of and which one you'd be hard pressed to find any.

Do keep in mind that's, Realworldville. Not, Inyourdreamsland where you reside.

[JustRalph]

Mostie, serious question. Do you own a home? Ever ?

Ever run a business ? Ever have any capital gains?

never mind......... :bang:

[mostpost]

It's not that Mostpost doesn't have the intelligence to understand what you're saying. His Marxist blinkers prevent him from doing so.

In our world, the Entreprenuer/Risk taker is the nucleus of the economy. In the Socialist world, he's the problem.

Ha. Thanks Bad C......for the record, wasn't questioning anyone's intelligence....just trying to get the philosophical gist of where his argument was....

Badcompany has an obsession with Marxists. So much so that everyone who disagrees with him is a Marxist. I'm not afraid to say that Marx had a few things right and a lot of things wrong.

He was right that the contributions of workers were undervalued. He was wrong to say that the workers contributions were the only contributions. Both labor and capital are required.

Certainly the solution espoused by Marx and by the communist was not the right one. It merely transferred power from capitalists to communists; from business to politicians. In both cases the workers, the individual workers, had no power.

We, in the United States, were on out way to the proper system. A capitalist system with balancing strength from labor. The wealthy had plenty of money. (Although apparently not enough for the greedy SOBs, the middle class was thriving, and the poor were less numerous than ever and much less numerous than now.

Then Ronald Reagan came to power. He cut taxes, especially on the highest levels, without cutting spending. He increased military spending far beyond what was necessary. He began the war on unions, diminishing their power to fight for their members.

The results? Look around you.

[IBCNU]

[QUOTE=mostpost]You chose to work in the investment field. You chose to take those risks for the larger reward. Don't expect me to subsidize you if your investments don't work out. Because that is what I am doing if you are allowed to pay less tax on your earnings because they are given the fancy name "Capital gains."

You are not subsidizing me.....investors make it possible for labor to have jobs....the private sector subsidizes government and labor.

[IBCNU]

I note that you subscribe to the conservative dogma that investment creates jobs. Good Luck to me in convincing you that is wrong. :rolleyes:

The gov. cannot pay anyone one thin dime without first taxing it away from some one who actually produced it.....What exactly creates jobs then?

[badcompany]

Badcompany has an obsession with Marxists. So much so that everyone who disagrees with him is a Marxist. I'm not afraid to say that Marx had a few things right and a lot of things wrong.


Actually, you're the only, here, I've called a Marxist, and, I do so because you continually spout the Labor Theory of Exploitation, which is the bedrock of Marxist Economic Theory. It's the same if someone here were to continually use the n-word. I would call that person a racist.

Then Ronald Reagan came to power. He cut taxes, especially on the highest levels, without cutting spending. He increased military spending far beyond what was necessary. He began the war on unions, diminishing their power to fight for their members.

The results? Look around you.

You conveniently leave out that Reagan won office because the Keynesian big government model hit the wall in the 70s, or, to paraphrase Margaret Thatcher, the Keynesians ran out of other people's money to spend.

This scenario has taken place in many countries. Free market Capitalism builds tremendous wealth, but, eventually the government grows to the point where the life is sucked out the economy.

Of course, in your world, it was the Government programs that created the wealth:lol:

[lsbets]

I note that you subscribe to the conservative dogma that investment creates jobs. Good Luck to me in convincing you that is wrong. :rolleyes:

The gov. cannot pay anyone one thin dime without first taxing it away from some one who actually produced it.....What exactly creates jobs then?

In mosty's world union members magically gather and start using equipment that just appeared out of nowhere using a supply of magic materials to produce a finished product. Then some greedy sob shows up and claims to be in charge and takes the profits away from the union workers.

[johnhannibalsmith]

... Don't expect me to subsidize you if your investments don't work out. ...

Actually sounds like a great argument for shrinking government and obliterating the current state of the federal income tax.

[badcompany]

In mosty's world union members magically gather and start using equipment that just appeared out of nowhere using a supply of magic materials to produce a finished product. Then some greedy sob shows up and claims to be in charge and takes the profits away from the union workers.

Makes you wonder why Unions don't start their own companies.

[bigmack]

Then Ronald Reagan came to power. He cut taxes, especially on the highest levels, without cutting spending. He increased military spending far beyond what was necessary. He began the war on unions, diminishing their power to fight for their members.

The results? Look around you.
If we wanted a myopic, simpletons view of things we could just tune into BigEd.

Reagan you say? Not anything to do with unions and Dems? Did you read JustRalphs post about the layoffs in Ohio?

In one of the many debates you scurried from I factually showed the blueist of blue states are the ones in financial shambles. Know why? Dems cut deals with unions that will break the backs of states.

Corporate greed? What a laugh. Union greed and their money in politics is a MAJOR cause for much malaise.

Oh, by the way, those same states have the highest tax rates in the nation.

Just more & more facts that go unnoticed by you. Weird.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by mostpost
Capital and labor are both important, but capital is by no means most important.


Capital is the ONLY thing important. No capital, no business.
No labor, you get some.
No capital, you vote democrat.

[Tom]

In mosty's world union members magically gather and start using equipment that just appeared out of nowhere using a supply of magic materials to produce a finished product. Then some greedy sob shows up and claims to be in charge and takes the profits away from the union workers.

You just accurately described the last 2-3 years here. :D

[Tom]

Originally Posted by mostpost
Then Ronald Reagan came to power. He cut taxes, especially on the highest levels, without cutting spending. He increased military spending far beyond what was necessary. He began the war on unions, diminishing their power to fight for their members.

The results? 30+ years of unprecedented economic growth. The unprecedented military that took apart Iraq in a matter of days when it was needed. A better society where people who wanted to work were not forced to pay tribute to organized crime for the privilage to have a job. Look around you.

FTFY

[ArlJim78]

the reviews of his speech continue to pour in.

• It "sounded like what you'd expect to hear in Caracas or Buenos Aires. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203413304577084292119160060.html)"
• "Those who pride themselves on belonging to the party of smart people should be embarrassed. (http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/obamas-thing-gruel-osawatomie/247271)"
• The speech "was deceitful, inaccurate, revisionist, and demagogic... a recreation, a fabrication if you will, of history, economics, and philosophy into a Pandoran construct of collectivist statism whereby society can demand the individual’s obedience and obeisance (http://dailycapitalist.com/2011/12/08/the-osawatomie-speech-a-defining-moment-in-history/)."
• The speech was "a thick coat of whitewash layered all over it, and the failure of the last three years lies underneath. (http://blog.heritage.org/2011/12/09/morning-bell-whitewashing-history-obama-style/)"
• The "elected president of the United States said in Osawatomie, Kansas, trying to be Teddy Roosevelt, that the United States of America has never worked. That is a quote, 'has never worked.' (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2011/12/07/president_obama_s_osawatomie_speech_was_a_marxist_ attack_on_america)"
• A "Marxist attack on America (http://conservativebyte.com/2011/12/president-obamas-osawatomie-speech-was-a-marxist-attack-on-america/)."

[badcompany]

At this point, class warfare is probably his best bet to win re-election.

Obviously, the Keynesian recession remedy, touted by Obama's advisors has failed miserably to the point where recommending more Government spending is seen as a radical position.

So, he can't run on the economy, which is the number one issue. That leaves him with scapegoating the rich and promising to wipe the arses of those who are struggling, largely as a result of his policies.

[rastajenk]

I'm surprised there hasn't been more commentary on the site selection, and the connection to Roosevelt's "New Nationalism." I thought nationalism was a bad concept, at least when R's talk about pride and patriotism; that's the language of xenophobic racists who hate the rest of the world. But when The One talks the talk, he has "finally" found his campaign voice. :confused:

A few nights ago, one of the History Channels had something on concerning the rise of Hitler and Nazism. Hitler's speeches sounded chillingly like The One's, full of demonization of subgroups, a strong "I'm one of you" thematic tone, a promise of state-engineered greatness. We have seen this kind of populism play out in other societies, and it never has a good end. Why this President not only gets a pass, but is cheered on, by our media for spouting this un-American nonsense is incredible.

I think Hank Jr. deserves an apology of sorts.

[ArlJim78]

I think the site selection has less to do with Roosevelt and more to do with Obama's comrades and mentors in the Weather Underground. people seem to consider it a trivial matter that Obama has strong ties to people who plotted to overthrow the US from within. I don't.

http://www.trevorloudon.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Osawatomie_page_01.jpg

[mostpost]

• The "elected president of the United States said in Osawatomie, Kansas, trying to be Teddy Roosevelt, that the United States of America has never worked. That is a quote, 'has never worked.' (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2011/12/07/president_obama_s_osawatomie_speech_was_a_marxist_ attack_on_america)"

It is obvious that you did not listen to the speech, or if you did listen, did not hear. It is obvious that you did not read the speech, or did not comprehend. What was in the speech was so far from what was portrayed by Limbaugh as to be unrecognizable. Let's start with a few excerpts the drugster totally ignored.
They believed in an America where hard work paid off, and responsibility was rewarded,

It was here in America that the most productive workers, the most innovative companies turned out the best products on Earth. And you know what? Every American shared in that pride and in that success – from those in the executive suites to those in middle management to those on the factory floor.

Today, we're still home to the world's most productive workers. We're still home to the world's most innovative companies.

Are those the statements of someone who does not believe in the American economic system?

Obama did not say the system has never worked, though those words are in his speech. Rush got it wrong again. Obama recognized the strengths of the America system, but he also recognized its flaws and how it could be subverted. Competition is good; an absolute free market without controls is horrific.

An absolute free market has never worked. It failed in Chile under Pinochet. It failed in Argentina after the fall of Peron. It failed in Russia after the fall of communism. Sure a few people got very wealthy in those countries, but the majority fell into severe poverty.

In the United States an absolute free market failed in the early twentieth century. It failed disastrously in the '20s. When we went away from the absolute free market; when we began to place reasonable regulations on business; when we refused to allow people to do whatever they wanted without regard to others, we launched the longest best era of prosperity in our history.

Unfortunately there are selfish, insecure people in this country who are not satisfied with having more than anyone else. They are not satisfied with having much more. They are only satisfied with having everything.

Those are the people who have controlled all or most of the government for the past 30 years. No amount of "do whatever I want" will be enough for them. The smallest amount of fairness and concern for others will be too much.


When Obama said, "has never worked" he referred to the idea that anyone could do anything without consequence. He was right.

[Tom]

When Obama said, "has never worked" he referred to the idea that anyone could do anything without consequence. He was right.

Yes, and his legacy will the the consequences for all the liberal BS legislation he got passed. It has already begun.

Try this one, mosite. Simple math.

I make $100,000 in a year and pay $30,000 taxes.
I now have $70,000 left, and of that, I make three investments.
Each portfolio get $10,000.

Investment A - I do good, and make $7,000 profit over the year.
Investment B - I break even.
Investment C - I really screw up, losing all of it.

Question - should I pay tax on the $7,000 profit?

[mostpost]

30+ years of unprecedented economic growth.
Unprecedented growth??? Are you serious???
Looking at growth in GDP:
Between 1980 and 2010 GDP growth exceeded 4% nine times. One or those nine times it exceeded 7%
Between 1950 and 1979 GDP growth exceeded 4% 15 times.
Growth was between 4.0 to 4.9% three times
From 5.0 to 5.9% five times.
Between 6.0 and 6.9% four times
between 7.0 and 7.9% three times
and 8.7% once.
Now tell me again how we had unprecedented economic growth.
I can provide similar comparisons on wages between the two eras.

I understand that the stock market went up more in the second period, but that is just one indicator of prosperity.

The unprecedented military that took apart Iraq in a matter of days when it was needed.
Again. Are you kidding me???? The Irqai army barely fired a shot. It took us seven years to quell the insurrection, if we even did it now. Compare that to WWII where we engaged and defeated multi million man armies, navies and air forces.



A better society where people who wanted to work were not forced to pay tribute to organized crime for the privilage to have a job.

The privilege to have a job flipping burgers. The privilege to have a job that payed less than it was worth. The privilege to have a job that might be shipped overseas at any time. Thanks for that privilege.

[mostpost]

Yes, and his legacy will the the consequences for all the liberal BS legislation he got passed. It has already begun.

Try this one, mosite. Simple math.

I make $100,000 in a year and pay $30,000 taxes.
I now have $70,000 left, and of that, I make three investments.
Each portfolio get $10,000.

Investment A - I do good, and make $7,000 profit over the year.
Investment B - I break even.
Investment C - I really screw up, losing all of it.

Question - should I pay tax on the $7,000 profit?
I will answer your question with a question-for NJ Stinks.
NJ,
Are you not allowed to deduct capital losses against your capital gains taxes?
It seems I read that while researching capital gains. Maybe I did not understand it.

If you could make your answer specific to Tom's example.

[Greyfox]

Are you not allowed to deduct capital losses against your capital gains taxes?
.

You can at the race track if you cash a big ticket and can prove those losses.
But if you don't have that big ticket, those losses are of no value.

Maybe Tom's question would have been better if all three of his investments had lost money?

[Tom]

The privilege to have a job flipping burgers. The privilege to have a job that payed less than it was worth. The privilege to have a job that might be shipped overseas at any time. Thanks for that privilege.

What about people who are challenged by that job description?
What value a Big Mac flipper?
Life has only one guarantee - you don't survive it. Life with it.

[IBCNU]

We alll have rights guaranteed by our constitution. They all involve a right to a course of action regarding free speech and protections of private property. They do not involve a right to any goods or any services produced by another. Yes....any job given to you ia a privelage. Period. Your skill sets are worth what someone else is willing to pay for them and what the market will bear in terms of supply and demand. They are not yours by virtue of your simply existing.

[jognlope]

Newt's or was it Romney's ideas for jobs now was "expensing 100% equipment in first year." Excuse me, that was Obama's idea last year. Energy alternatives, also Obama's idea. The payroll tax cut is a bandaid and we need a bandaid and since the top 1% (or top 0.1% some say) are now making over 250 times what the average middle class pay is, then why the heck can't they pay a little more tax? But I do agree to get firms back from overseas need a new tax code with flat tax that is slightly lower than they get overseas. That's just basic.

[badcompany]

Newt's or was it Romney's ideas for jobs now was "expensing 100% equipment in first year." Excuse me, that was Obama's idea last year. Energy alternatives, also Obama's idea. The payroll tax cut is a bandaid and we need a bandaid and since the top 1% (or top 0.1% some say) are now making over 250 times what the average middle class pay is, then why the heck can't they pay a little more tax? But I do agree to get firms back from overseas need a new tax code with flat tax that is slightly lower than they get overseas. That's just basic.

I keep hearing about much that dreaded top 1% MAKES but you never hear about how much Government TAKES.

The Federal Government TAKES in 2.1 TRILLION dollars a years. That's the entire GDP of England, and, yet, it's still not enough.

[jognlope]

Will someone please tell me how Reagan, Clinton, Bush Sr. got all the tax increases the deficit needed, when the top 1% made about 100 times less? Please explain, I'd love to know.

[mostpost]

I keep hearing about much that dreaded top 1% MAKES but you never hear about how much Government TAKES.

The Federal Government TAKES in 2.1 TRILLION dollars a years. That's the entire GDP of England, and, yet, it's still not enough.
Talk about false equivalency! England has one sixth the population of the United States.

In the United States, taxes are 26.9% of GDP. In England they are 39% of GDP. The United States ranks tied for 57th place in taxes as a % of GDP, and below all other developed countries. So stop crying, :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[boxcar]

We extend the payroll tax cut because that is a tax that is being paid primarily by the middle class. The payroll tax , that is the Social Security and Medicare tax, is capped at $110,000. Extending the cuts gives a typical middle class family $1000 to $1500 more to spend in 2012. Middle class families will spend that money because they have to. Spending stimulates the economy.

We end the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy because they won't spend the money. They have had those cuts for ten years. Ten years with the worst record of job growth in decades. Time to start increasing revenues.
(emphasis mine)

Talk about talking out of both sides of your mouth! Only middle class schlubs spend their "disposable" income, eh? A middle class guy gets a Grover Cleveland in his pocket and it instantly burns a hole in it, eh? You're so without a clue. A party of 12 wining and dining at the Ruth Chris Steak House in Palm Beach can, without much effort, drop a $1,000. in one visit -- before the tip!

Here's a real clue: The more money people take home from their pay, the more disposable income they have to spend -- at all income levels! And the more stimulated the economy will become.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

the reviews of his speech continue to pour in.

• It "sounded like what you'd expect to hear in Caracas or Buenos Aires. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203413304577084292119160060.html)"
• "Those who pride themselves on belonging to the party of smart people should be embarrassed. (http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/obamas-thing-gruel-osawatomie/247271)"
• The speech "was deceitful, inaccurate, revisionist, and demagogic... a recreation, a fabrication if you will, of history, economics, and philosophy into a Pandoran construct of collectivist statism whereby society can demand the individual’s obedience and obeisance (http://dailycapitalist.com/2011/12/08/the-osawatomie-speech-a-defining-moment-in-history/)."
• The speech was "a thick coat of whitewash layered all over it, and the failure of the last three years lies underneath. (http://blog.heritage.org/2011/12/09/morning-bell-whitewashing-history-obama-style/)"
• The "elected president of the United States said in Osawatomie, Kansas, trying to be Teddy Roosevelt, that the United States of America has never worked. That is a quote, 'has never worked.' (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2011/12/07/president_obama_s_osawatomie_speech_was_a_marxist_ attack_on_america)"
• A "Marxist attack on America (http://conservativebyte.com/2011/12/president-obamas-osawatomie-speech-was-a-marxist-attack-on-america/)."

Jim was this infamous speech BO gave recently in Kansas? Or more specifically in Osawatomie, KS? Anyone?

Boxcar

[bigmack]

In the United States, taxes are 26.9% of GDP. In England they are 39% of GDP. The United States ranks tied for 57th place in taxes as a % of GDP, and below all other developed countries. So stop crying, :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
That's right, Dr. Brain. We're WAY behind those enviable countries like Zimbabwe @ 50, Cuba @ 45 & Kiribati @ 70.

After you get done licking yourself over how proud you are for bringing such earth shattering data, we'll get a 6th grader in to explain how those countries have very little in the way 'product' so of course their % of GDP is in taxes.

Don't these things ever occur to you while you're trying to figure out if HI is part of Asia?

You use data more dishonestly than hcap with his GW scam.

[jognlope]

Trickle down hasn't worked. The Bush tax cuts should have expired like they were supposed to. The rich would weegle their way out of them anyway and w would have had nearly a trillion more to bring down the deficit. I saw a guy ask at a town meeting "please raise my taxes to that we can afford pell grants for community colleges." He was begging to be taxed more and do his fair share.

[bigmack]

I saw a guy ask at a town meeting "please raise my taxes to that we can afford pell grants for community colleges." He was begging to be taxed more and do his fair share.
Similarly, I saw some rotund girl go up to Jarad of Subway 'fame' and say she couldn't lose weight because she couldn't afford to eat Subway everyday. :bang:

Odd, how you would gravitate towards such a lamebrain comment. But it does involve higher taxes for people unlike yourself so I guess I sorta get it. :rolleyes:

[jognlope]

higher taxes for someone like myself. And who is myself. Tell me about myself bigmack. You know I have been living with this for some time now, guys hating women who have a thought in their head.

[bigmack]

higher taxes for someone like myself. And who is myself. Tell me about myself bigmack. You know I have been living with this for some time now, guys hating women who have a thought in their head.
Trust me when I say I don't hate women. I love 'em. The brighter the better. Nice try though.

I typed 'unlike yourself.' You took it to mean like. :bang:

'Thoughts' aren't a problem. Wrong ones are.

[JustRalph]

higher taxes for someone like myself. And who is myself. Tell me about myself bigmack. You know I have been living with this for some time now, guys hating women who have a thought in their head.

it's the quality of the thought that counts.

You realize the guy begging to pay more taxes can just go to the website and give all the money he wants to the general fund............right?

It's explained in several places.......you can donate. You don't have to change the tax laws to be taxed more. Just ante up........

Trickle down works......you have to place yourself in the stream.......

A rising tide et al only works if you are standing in the water and not on the shoreline

[boxcar]

Trickle down hasn't worked. The Bush tax cuts should have expired like they were supposed to. The rich would weegle their way out of them anyway and w would have had nearly a trillion more to bring down the deficit. I saw a guy ask at a town meeting "please raise my taxes to that we can afford pell grants for community colleges." He was begging to be taxed more and do his fair share.

What do you have against the middle class? Don't you realize that the Bush tax cuts were across-the-board for everyone? Why do you think BO insisted on extending them a year ago just before the midterms? (Oh, never mind. I just answered my own question: Midterms.)

Boxcar

[Tom]

Jog, the percentage cut for the bottom bracket was 50%.
Last year, it was Obama who insisted the Bush cuts be extended and now he is insisting the payroll break be extended. Why do you supposes that it, if neither one should work?

[NJ Stinks]

Yes, and his legacy will the the consequences for all the liberal BS legislation he got passed. It has already begun.

Try this one, mosite. Simple math.

I make $100,000 in a year and pay $30,000 taxes.
I now have $70,000 left, and of that, I make three investments.
Each portfolio get $10,000.

Investment A - I do good, and make $7,000 profit over the year.
Investment B - I break even.
Investment C - I really screw up, losing all of it.

Question - should I pay tax on the $7,000 profit?

I will answer your question with a question-for NJ Stinks.
NJ,
Are you not allowed to deduct capital losses against your capital gains taxes?
It seems I read that while researching capital gains. Maybe I did not understand it.

If you could make your answer specific to Tom's example.

Yes, one can deduct capital losses against capital gains.

In Tom's example, he earned $7,000, broke even, and lost $10,000 on his three investments. Excluding commissions or other legit costs that may be added to arrive at Tom's net capital loss, the net capital loss here is $3,000. Tom can deduct this $3,000 on line 13 of his Form 1040 after he fills out Form 1040 Schedule D (Capital Gains & Losses).

FYI, a capital loss deduction is limited to $3,000 in a calendar year. So if Tom lost $5,000 in total in 2011, Tom can deduct only $3,000 in 2011 and the other $2,000 on his Form 1040 for 2012.

(If part of a loss incurred in 2011 was still unused after deducting $3,000 two years in a row , it can be carried over into 2013 and beyond until it is completely used up.)

[Tom]

Thanks, NJ, now the question - do you agree I should have to pay any taxes on that income? Is it fair.

[NJ Stinks]

No, I don't think you should pay any taxes on the net loss. You lost $3,000 in that example. I agree that you should be able to deduct the $3,000 loss against other income on your tax return.

If you had earned $3,000 net, I think you should pay tax on the gain.

[Tom]

Then, in all fairness, should not everyone pay taxes on ALL winnings at horse racing? Even if it is $50 at the end of the year?

[NJ Stinks]

Yea, they should if they are ahead at the end of the year.

But don't get me wrong. The way horseplayers are treated by the tax code is flatout unfair.

[Greyfox]

Then, in all fairness, should not everyone pay taxes on ALL winnings at horse racing? Even if it is $50 at the end of the year?

And NJstinks replied :

"Yea, they should if they are ahead at the end of the year."
:rolleyes:

[NJ Stinks]

And NJstinks replied :

"Yea, they should if they are ahead at the end of the year."
:rolleyes:






If you want to follow the letter of the law, you do. If you don't, you don't.

No use shootin' the messenger. (shrug)

[badcompany]

Trickle down hasn't worked. The Bush tax cuts should have expired like they were supposed to. The rich would weegle their way out of them anyway and w would have had nearly a trillion more to bring down the deficit. I saw a guy ask at a town meeting "please raise my taxes to that we can afford pell grants for community colleges." He was begging to be taxed more and do his fair share.

When someone makes a statement like "Trickle down hasn't worked" they invariably use as a basis for comparison American rich vs American poor. However, America is the richest country in the world and naturally has many of the world's richest people. So, naturally American poor come up woefully inadequate.

But, how do American poor compare to poor in other countries like China, India, Iran, Nigeria, North Korea, Brazil etc.?

Here's a little hint: World GDP per capita is 7K.

[jognlope]

I guess my mistake, Boxcar. I was status post a dumb ass Xmas party. The chicken wings were good though.

[Tom]

Were the right wings better than the left wings? :D:p

[Robert Goren]

Then, in all fairness, should not everyone pay taxes on ALL winnings at horse racing? Even if it is $50 at the end of the year?In theory that is right, but nobody does. Most horseplayers pay only the amount they think the governments knows about. In fairness to the horseplayers, the IRS makes it really tricky to deduct losses. I would say if you took the sport as a whole considering how hard it is to claim losses and how hard it is to show a profit at the end of the year, the government gets more money from horse players than they deserve. But it is probably not a lot more.

[Tom]

So your have a double standard. Horse players get a pass while business don't.

OK, I kinda thought that was it.

[NJ Stinks]

So your have a double standard. Horse players get a pass while business don't.

OK, I kinda thought that was it.

I don't understand your conclusion at all.

1. There is no gambling loss carryover into the next year like there are for capital losses.

2. Gambling profits are taxed as ordinary income but capital gains are taxed at a special lower rate.

3. If you don't itemize your deductions on Form 1040 Schedule A because your standard deduction is higher than the deductions you have on Schedule A, that Form W-2G you got for hitting a $1,000 trifecta (for example) is fully taxable. Even if your net gambling losses for the year are $3,000.

The vast majority of horseplayers lose money over the course of a year. To point to the rare individual good or lucky enough to post a modest profit at year end and can get away without reporting it - and conclude that horseplayers are treated better in the tax code than businesses or individuals who invest in capital assets - is wrong IMO.

And Robert, any extra money the federal government gets from horseplayers in the form of gambling taxes is wrong IMO. Horseplayers are already being taxed heavily on the local level (part of takeout). I would venture a guess and say most countries that have horseracing don't tax winnings on the national level because of the takeout factor. If I'm wrong about that, I'd like to know what countries tax winnings on horseraces at the national level besides the U.S.

[mostpost]

When someone makes a statement like "Trickle down hasn't worked" they invariably use as a basis for comparison American rich vs American poor. However, America is the richest country in the world and naturally has many of the world's richest people. So, naturally American poor come up woefully inadequate.

But, how do American poor compare to poor in other countries like China, India, Iran, Nigeria, North Korea, Brazil etc.?

Here's a little hint: World GDP per capita is 7K.

So this is the new definition of the American Dream? Rich people always deserve more; poor people should be happy as long as they are better off than their counterparts in North Korea.

Your statement that trickle down worked because we have more rich people and they are richer than in other countries is laughable. The point of the trickle down theory is that the poor will benefit as much as the rich. That the percentage of gain in their wealth will be the same as for the rich. The truth is found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States
From 1967 to the present the income of the poor (the bottom 20%) increased by 28.4%. The income of the top 5% increased by 73.8%-2.6 times as rapidly.
Here is a chart:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/United_States_Income_Distribution_1967-2003.svg

Note the yellow line (indicating the incomes of the top 5%) it is continually rising.
Then check the lines below. As you go down each rises at a slower rate than the one above it until you reach the red line (the bottom 10%) which is essentially flat.

Compare that to this chart:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_Income_Distribution_1947-2007.svg
which includes the years 1947 to 2007. From 1947 to 2007 the lines rise almost in parallel. The middle class line especially keeps pace with the top line.
That was before trickle down.

[Robert Goren]

I don't understand your conclusion at all.

1. There is no gambling loss carryover into the next year like there are for capital losses.

2. Gambling profits are taxed as ordinary income but capital gains are taxed at a special lower rate.

3. If you don't itemize your deductions on Form 1040 Schedule A because your standard deduction is higher than the deductions you have on Schedule A, that Form W-2G you got for hitting a $1,000 trifecta (for example) is fully taxable. Even if your net gambling losses for the year are $3,000.

The vast majority of horseplayers lose money over the course of a year. To point to the rare individual good or lucky enough to post a modest profit at year end and can get away without reporting it - and conclude that horseplayers are treated better in the tax code than businesses or individuals who invest in capital assets - is wrong IMO.

And Robert, any extra money the federal government gets from horseplayers in the form of gambling taxes is wrong IMO. Horseplayers are already being taxed heavily on the local level (part of takeout). I would venture a guess and say most countries that have horseracing don't tax winnings on the national level because of the takeout factor. If I'm wrong about that, I'd like to know what countries tax winnings on horseraces at the national level besides the U.S.Actually they aren't. At one time they were, but these days the takeout is 1% or less in most states. 5% or more was the norm when I first started betting in the early 60s. The total takeout was 12% here in Nebraska at that time. Almost none of the money taken these days go to the general revenues of the state. It goes to the regulation of the industry. You can say it poorly spent if you like but that is where it goes.

[NJ Stinks]

Actually they aren't. At one time they were, but these days the takeout is 1% or less in most states. 5% or more was the norm when I first started betting in the early 60s. The total takeout was 12% here in Nebraska at that time. Almost none of the money taken these days go to the general revenues of the state. It goes to the regulation of the industry. You can say it poorly spent if you like but that is where it goes.

I stand corrected, Robert.

[boxcar]

I guess my mistake, Boxcar. I was status post a dumb ass Xmas party. The chicken wings were good though.

But it does sound good to the ears of liberals. Makes for a great conservation piece at those Xmas parties. :)

Boxcar

[boxcar]

So this is the new definition of the American Dream? Rich people always deserve more; poor people should be happy as long as they are better off than their counterparts in North Korea.

Your statement that trickle down worked because we have more rich people and they are richer than in other countries is laughable. The point of the trickle down theory is that the poor will benefit as much as the rich. That the percentage of gain in their wealth will be the same as for the rich. The truth is found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States
From 1967 to the present the income of the poor (the bottom 20%) increased by 28.4%. The income of the top 5% increased by 73.8%-2.6 times as rapidly.

That's because all workers aren't created equal. Fact Number One. Fact Number Two: Neither should they be in the real world.

Boxcar

[Ocala Mike]

More proof that trickle down is working (at least for one family):

http://www.alternet.org/story/153385/6_members_of_walton_family_have_more_money_than_30 _of_americans?page=entire


Ocala Mike

[jognlope]

Boxcar, that's the problem, you open your mouth up here about anything that requires reading or thinking and you can nothing. I guess it's cuz I'm mostly around Moms and they're just tuckered out.

[Greyfox]

Boxcar, that's the problem, you open your mouth up here about anything that requires reading or thinking and you can nothing. I guess it's cuz I'm mostly around Moms and they're just tuckered out.

Whatever you are trying to say in this post is as clear as mud.

[jognlope]

True.

[JustRalph]

Whatever you are trying to say in this post is as clear as mud.

Wow! I read it several times too.........

[PaceAdvantage]

Wow! I read it several times too.........Oh no...it's cause you guys hate women...that's why you can't understand it... :rolleyes:

[Tom]

Oh no...it's cause you guys hate women...that's why you can't understand it... :rolleyes:

wBIC8JTQMMQ

[Valuist]

He's back at it again; trying to drum up populist sentiment because Warren Buffett's secretary (aren't they called administrative assistant's?) pays a higher tax rate than him. Of course he conveniently neglects the fact that one is paying tax on salaried earnings while the other is paying on capital gains. Why let the facts get in the way when the MSM will never call you on anything you say?

[Tom]

Lies are he has to run on.
No hope, no change, no plan, no successes.....a total failure and total liar.
That is all he is.

[boxcar]

Obama: ‘Buffett Rule Won’t do Enough to Close the Deficit’

Really? Who would have ever thought that about 5 Bil more in revenue, which amounts to spit in the ocean, wouldn't quite get the job done? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: But does this fact deter Obama from pushing forward with his idiotic plan? Certainly not. Listen to what pea brain says next:

“There are others who are saying, well, this is just a gimmick. Just taxing millionaires and billionaires, just imposing the Buffett rule won’t do enough to close the deficit. Well, I agree. That’s not all we have to do to close the deficit. But the notion that it doesn’t solve the entire problem doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t do it at all.”

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-buffett-rule-won-t-do-enough-close-deficit

The Party of Stupid should take its cue from these stupendously logical remarks and apply them to their arsenal of arguments for domestic oil drilling. But they won't. Neither will the Rug.

The Republicans have so much ammo to use against Obama, but they can only shoot about as straight as they think. :rolleyes:

Boxcar