Does he get it??

[RaceBookJoe]

http://blip.tv/davidhorowitztv/bill-whittle-6444929 This is about 15 minutes, well worth the viewing.

[NJ Stinks]

No, he doesn't get it. Paying $60M in taxes doesn't mean squat. What means something is how much Romney earned in his lifetime vs. the percentage he did pay in taxes in his lifetime. Anything else is BS. In short, just because Romney's numbers are bigger doesn't mean he's exempt from paying his fair share.

As for Obama not being in the military or running a business, so what? Is there a job description for being president that I missed?

The rest is BS for the live audience that paid him to be there. :sleeping:

[thaskalos]

Monday morning quarterbacking is pretty easy. The trick is to get your message across when it counts...

Where were all these smart guys BEFORE the election?

[boxcar]

http://blip.tv/davidhorowitztv/bill-whittle-6444929 This is about 15 minutes, well worth the viewing.

He's one of the few.

What we must logically infer from that little message of his is that Romney and all RINOs like him are two-bit hypocrites who [really] cannot speak out on what they claim to believe. All these RINOs and elitists are as shallow as mud puddles and aren't capable of defining Constitutional Conservatism and pointing out the stark differences between that and insipid socialism. I stated this often many months ago and I used to rattle BigMack when I did. I said that Romney doesn't have it in him. He was incapable of carrying the Conservative message to the American people. And because he didn't, that is why he lost the election.

But the problem is worse than this -- much worse. In order for Constitutional Conservatism to work, it must be grounded in morality. Our form of government was made for a moral society. This was the presumption. But so many conservatives (so called) in the electorate don't want to speak out on moral issues. They don't want their elected representatives to speak out either. They shrink back. They think it's a losing strategy. So, as long as these "conservatives" are content to only tinker around the edges of this nation's problems -- and be content to focus on merely the symptoms, the socialists in this country will continue to make inroads. Socialism will spread like the deadly cancer it is.

Boxcar

[JustRalph]

Who gets to decide "fair share" is the problem

[elysiantraveller]

doesn't mean he's exempt from paying his fair share.

47% don't pay federal income taxes... is 0% their fair share?

I ask this not to be smug but don't you feel everyone should at least be made to contribute something? Even just 1 or 2%... or is that unfair?

Rhetoric aside don't you think everyone should pay at least some Federal Income taxes?

[RaceBookJoe]

No, he doesn't get it. Paying $60M in taxes doesn't mean squat. What means something is how much Romney earned in his lifetime vs. the percentage he did pay in taxes in his lifetime. Anything else is BS. In short, just because Romney's numbers are bigger doesn't mean he's exempt from paying his fair share.

As for Obama not being in the military or running a business, so what? Is there a job description for being president that I missed?

The rest is BS for the live audience that paid him to be there. :sleeping:

Obviously not with this clown having the job :)

[boxcar]

No, he doesn't get it. Paying $60M in taxes doesn't mean squat.

Make certain, therefore, that you email your boy BamBam and insist that the U.S. government return that mere pittance to Rom. I'm sure he'd be happy to have it back.

Boxcar

[johnhannibalsmith]

Who gets to decide "fair share" is the problem

Worse yet, who even has the nerve to spout the catch-phrase "fair share" unless he or she is addressing elementary students or a rabid crowd of Demoratic voters?

Come on Stinko, "fair share" is something that only dopes say. Idiotic phrase that means nothing, but naturally, plays well with the "Women in binders" crowd. You mean "unfair share", anyway - a non-level playing field. Step it up a notch por favor.

[NJ Stinks]

47% don't pay federal income taxes... is 0% their fair share?

I ask this not to be smug but don't you feel everyone should at least be made to contribute something? Even just 1 or 2%... or is that unfair?

Rhetoric aside don't you think everyone should pay at least some Federal Income taxes?


No I don't. Why should somebody who makes lttle or nothing pay something?

People should pay based on their earnings. Look at it like property taxes. If you live in a valuable home, you pay a lot in property tax. If you live in a shack or in your car, you pay little or no property tax.

It's only common sense.

[PaceAdvantage]

Where were all these smart guys BEFORE the election?Oh, they were around...they were just ignored by the most influential media voices...

[thaskalos]

Oh, they were around...they were just ignored by the most influential media voices...

Are you sure they were around?

I don't remember many from the Republican brass criticizing Romney for his election campaign strategy, especially after the first presidential debate.

All I recall are Republicans rubbing their hands together in anticipation of a Romney victory.

[elysiantraveller]

No I don't. Why should somebody who makes lttle or nothing pay something?

I'm not talking about people who don't make anything... they pay zero taxes... that's fine...

I'm talking about 47% of people in this country not paying a single dime in federal income tax.

People should pay based on their earnings. Look at it like property taxes. If you live in a valuable home, you pay a lot in property tax. If you live in a shack or in your car, you pay little or no property tax.

If you live in a home you pay taxes... period...

The premise in your example is false.

[NJ Stinks]

Worse yet, who even has the nerve to spout the catch-phrase "fair share" unless he or she is addressing elementary students or a rabid crowd of Demoratic voters?

Come on Stinko, "fair share" is something that only dopes say. Idiotic phrase that means nothing, but naturally, plays well with the "Women in binders" crowd. You mean "unfair share", anyway - a non-level playing field. Step it up a notch por favor.

OK, Senor Jacko. Let's give fair share a little more clarity with dopey illustration.

Seven guys are playing poker and decide to order two pizza pies. The pies get delivered and the seven guys toss in $4 each to pay for them including the tip. There are 16 pieces of pie altogether.

Two guys wolf down four pieces each in no time. Three guys eat two pieces each and the other two guys are left with a slice each.

Do you think it fair that everybody paid the same $4? Or did some guys benefit more than others and therefore should have paid more toward the cost of the pies?

Put another way, what is everyone's fair share when it comes to paying for these pies?

[johnhannibalsmith]

OK, Senor Jacko. Let's give fair share a little more clarity with dopey illustration.

Seven guys are playing poker and decide to order two pizza pies. The pies get delivered and the seven guys toss in $4 each to pay for them including the tip. There are 16 pieces of pie altogether.

Two guys wolf down four pieces each in no time. Three guys eat two pieces each and the other two guys are left with a slice each.

Do you think it fair that everybody paid the same $4? Or did some guys benefit more than others and therefore should have paid more toward the cost of the pies?

Put another way, what is everyone's fair share when it comes to paying for these pies?



That would be a hell of an example if the taxpayers were using the benefits provided by federal government in ways that disproportionately benefit those that earn more money.

In other words, there isn't a parallel to be found between your example and reality - if there was - the tax burden would probably shift in completely the other direction more often than not.

[elysiantraveller]

OK, Senor Jacko. Let's give fair share a little more clarity with dopey illustration.

Seven guys are playing poker and decide to order two pizza pies. The pies get delivered and the seven guys toss in $4 each to pay for them including the tip. There are 16 pieces of pie altogether.

Two guys wolf down four pieces each in no time. Three guys eat two pieces each and the other two guys are left with a slice each.

Do you think it fair that everybody paid the same $4? Or did some guys benefit more than others and therefore should have paid more toward the cost of the pies?

Put another way, what is everyone's fair share when it comes to paying for these pies?

It depends on what they make per year according to you... :rolleyes:

Your examples are horrible tonight, I'd stop.

10 guys get together for pizza. 5 of them end up buying all the pies and 5 end up eating for free. They all eat. Then when the pizza is run out the 5 guys who didn't pay anything ask the ones who did to buy more...

That's a better allegory to what you subscribe to.

[NJ Stinks]

That would be a hell of an example if the taxpayers were using the benefits provided by federal government in ways that disproportionately benefit those that earn more money.

In other words, there isn't a parallel to be found between your example and reality - if there was - the tax burden would probably shift in completely the other direction more often than not.

Of course there is. The more you have the more you have to lose. Therefore, you benefit a lot more than most if you have an expensive house on the beach or invested in a business or have lots of money in the bank. The U.S. military is protecting what you own. So are the local cops and firemen. You should bear more of the cost for their services because you stand to benefit more from law and order.

Anyway, I could say the same thing about stuff like roads and bridges - some benefit from this infrastructure more than others. In short, the more you benefit the more you pay. It's the American Way. :ThmbUp:

(Ely, I'll just assume you don't like this one either. ;) )

[elysiantraveller]

Of course there is. The more you have the more you have to lose. Therefore, you benefit a lot more than most if you have an expensive house on the beach or invested in a business or have lots of money in the bank. The U.S. military is protecting what you own. So are the local cops and firemen. You should bear more of the cost for their services because you stand to benefit more from law and order.

Anyway, I could say the same thing about stuff like roads and bridges - some benefit from this infrastructure more than others. In short, the more you benefit the more you pay. It's the American Way. :ThmbUp:

(Ely, I'll just assume you don't like this one either. ;) )

I don't like your examples because anyone with a semester of high school debate can thrash them. None of your premises are unique to your argument.

People benefit from services in different ways but everyone who lives here benefits by living here... on that we can agree no?

I'm not against progressive taxes... I've outlined a rate of 7.5, 12.5, and 20 before on here... I'll even add a 2% for the poorer just for arguments sake.

You then argue about people contributing their fair share and I agree with that... What I am asking is how you arrive at 47% percent contributing zero as being "fair?"

[JustRalph]

You can't mix Federal and local taxes in the same discussion.

Flat tax at the Federal level. local taxes are decided locally.

[thaskalos]

You then argue about people contributing their fair share and I agree with that... What I am asking is how you arrive at 47% percent contributing zero as being "fair?"

Wouldn't we have to know what these 47% make, before we can decide whether they should pay federal income tax or not?

[elysiantraveller]

Wouldn't we have to know what these 47% make, before we can decide whether they should pay federal income tax or not?

Do they earn an income? Last I checked unemployment was around 8%.

To be honest I don't even know why it's called a federal income tax, calling it a wealth tax would be more appropriate.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Of course there is. The more you have the more you have to lose. Therefore, you benefit a lot more than most if you have an expensive house on the beach or invested in a business or have lots of money in the bank. The U.S. military is protecting what you own. So are the local cops and firemen. You should bear more of the cost for their services because you stand to benefit more from law and order.

Anyway, I could say the same thing about stuff like roads and bridges - some benefit from this infrastructure more than others. In short, the more you benefit the more you pay. It's the American Way. :ThmbUp:

...

Uggghhh... I know better than to keep trying when I can see its hopeless... but...

Are you really saying that a guy that has four homes, and the one valued at $2.7M in Beverly Hills burns downs, so now he has lost more than the guy that makes $36,240 and his $77,354 house which also burned down?

Come on. The guy that has more can afford to lose what he has a lot less painfully than the guy with a lot less. That's obvious. If two guys lose something significant to each of them, the pain of the loss isn't measured by which of those two things is worth more, but by how much the loss affects that individual. I can make my own point a hundred different ways, but I figured I'll just use your own HIGHLY flawed analysis to make at least one of those points. :D

[mostpost]

You then argue about people contributing their fair share and I agree with that... What I am asking is how you arrive at 47% percent contributing zero as being "fair?"
Equal is not fair. Nor is proportionate fair. Here is how I define fair. A person's first obligation is to provide for himself and for his family. By that I mean provide a secure and proper domicile; enough nourishment to ensure a healthy life, savings sufficient to deal with emergencies; an occasional and reasonable family day or night out and a family vacation once a year even if only for a long weekend.

Those are not my original thoughts. They are a paraphrase of a speech given by Republican president Theodore Roosevelt.

So if a person is earning $25,000 a year and if that is not enough to provide the items above (And it is not!!!!) then even one dollar of taxes is unfair.

What is really a shame is that we ask other individual taxpayers to assume this burden when the problem in many cases is that wages are simply too low.

I heard some statistics on radio and TV today. (Burger boy, if you're lurking these are from Ed Schultz.) In the last year, corporate profits have risen 18%. This under that business hating president Barack Obama. On the other hand since 2001, wages have dropped from 49% of GDP to 43.5% of GDP. So long as these trends continue, I have no problem with the poor paying no taxes, Give them jobs and pay them fairly, then they should pay taxes.

[elysiantraveller]

...

You know, mosty, kudos to you for at least attempting to answer the question. I disagree with absolutely everything you wrote. Economically its flawed and it can be used to essentially bolster the takers/makers argument people of your political persuasion rail against but at least you gave a thought out response.

Do you think 47% of people shouldn't have to pay anything into the system?

[johnhannibalsmith]

....

So if a person is earning $25,000 a year and if that is not enough to provide the items above (And it is not!!!!) then even one dollar of taxes is unfair.

...

Cool, then our tax system is patently unfair. Ask Stinky, he can attest to the fact that I paid more than one dollar and made less than half that amount. Fact is, they need all of those people like me to kick in a grand a lot more than they need the many fewer in the upper tiers to kick in a little more.

[JustRalph]

Equal is not fair. Nor is proportionate fair. Here is how I define fair. A person's first obligation is to provide for himself and for his family. By that I mean provide a secure and proper domicile; enough nourishment to ensure a healthy life, savings sufficient to deal with emergencies; an occasional and reasonable family day or night out and a family vacation once a year even if only for a long weekend.

Those are not my original thoughts. They are a paraphrase of a speech given by Republican president Theodore Roosevelt.

So if a person is earning $25,000 a year and if that is not enough to provide the items above (And it is not!!!!) then even one dollar of taxes is unfair.

What is really a shame is that we ask other individual taxpayers to assume this burden when the problem in many cases is that wages are simply too low.

I heard some statistics on radio and TV today. (Burger boy, if you're lurking these are from Ed Schultz.) In the last year, corporate profits have risen 18%. This under that business hating president Barack Obama. On the other hand since 2001, wages have dropped from 49% of GDP to 43.5% of GDP. So long as these trends continue, I have no problem with the poor paying no taxes, Give them jobs and pay them fairly, then they should pay taxes.

Here we go again. You and the government get to decide what's fair. Picking winners and losers is not the role of government. You really do believe that you or government can tell people what a "reasonable night out" is? Or dictate the length of their vacations ?

They have words for that philosophy .........why don't you just admit who and what you are?

[vegasone]

What is fair.....??

The guy that doesn't bother to finish high school (assuming he is capable) and doesn't bother to learn a skill and then decides he wants to have x(you put in a number) number of kids and then wants his fair share and a "living" wage so he can support his family and the good things in life?

Is it really a right to be able to do what you want with your life and expect someone else to front you the money so you can be comfortable?

A lot(most) of this is the fault of politicians(all) that decided we are going to be a "service" economy and let a lot of the decent paying jobs wander off somewhere else. Also our lack of immigration policy in order to beef up the social security system and quest for cheap labor which isn't so cheap when you count the cost of government support hasn't helped. Lowering our wage base hasn't helped very many people.


So what to do....Who knows.

[NJ Stinks]

I don't like your examples because anyone with a semester of high school debate can thrash them. None of your premises are unique to your argument.

People benefit from services in different ways but everyone who lives here benefits by living here... on that we can agree no?

I'm not against progressive taxes... I've outlined a rate of 7.5, 12.5, and 20 before on here... I'll even add a 2% for the poorer just for arguments sake.

You then argue about people contributing their fair share and I agree with that... What I am asking is how you arrive at 47% percent contributing zero as being "fair?"

Sorry I never took debate in high school. :rolleyes:

OK. Who is the 47% Romney talked about? See paste below.
________________________________

At a secretly taped, closed-door fundraiser in May, Mitt Romney said 47 percent Americans don’t pay income tax and are unlikely to vote for him in November.

Romney was close — 46 percent paid no federal income taxes in 2011.

Half of those nonpayers earn too little to pay any taxes, and half of them get there through tax deductions and exemptions, according to the Tax Policy Center (http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/2011/07/27/why-do-people-pay-no-federal-income-tax-2/). Of the latter half, 44 percent use tax deductions designed to help the elderly, and 30 percent use tax deductions that aid the working poor or children.

The Tax Policy Center uses a family of four earning less than $26,400 as an example. After the $11,600 standard deduction and four $3,700 exemptions, they have no taxable income.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81326.html#ixzz2E3rMBn00 (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81326.html#ixzz2E3rMBn00)

__________________________

So who among this 47% do we want paying federal income tax? Nobody sounds like a reasonable answer to me. Unless it can be proven that some in the 47% are taking fictitious deductions and unwarranted tax credits in order to avoid paying federal income tax.

[Actor]

Who gets to decide "fair share" is the problemCongress gets to decide. That's what they're working on right now. :lol:

Or should be... :bang:

[hcap]

More from the Tax Policy Center

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3505

Most of the people who pay neither federal income tax nor payroll taxes are low-income people who are elderly, unable to work due to a serious disability, or students, most of whom subsequently become taxpayers. (In years like the last few, this group also includes a significant number of people who have been unemployed the entire year and cannot find work.)

One other thing to note. The recent economic downturn has exasperated the problem

The 51 percent and 46 percent figures are anomalies that reflect the unique circumstances of the past few years, when the economic downturn greatly swelled the number of Americans with low incomes. The figures for 2009 are particularly anomalous; in that year, temporary tax cuts that the 2009 Recovery Act created — including the “Making Work Pay” tax credit and an exclusion from tax of the first $2,400 in unemployment benefits — were in effect and removed millions of Americans from the federal income tax rolls. Both of these temporary tax measures have since expired.

In 2007, before the economy turned down, 40 percent of households did not owe federal income tax. This figure more closely reflects the percentage that do not owe income tax in normal economic times.[4]

[JustRalph]

Congress gets to decide. That's what they're working on right now. :lol:

Or should be... :bang:

Yeah, and with a whopping 8 % approval rating :bang:

[Steve R]

47% don't pay federal income taxes... is 0% their fair share?

I ask this not to be smug but don't you feel everyone should at least be made to contribute something? Even just 1 or 2%... or is that unfair?

Rhetoric aside don't you think everyone should pay at least some Federal Income taxes?
Not necessarily. Federal income taxes are just one of many taxes contributing to the total tax burden. When you fold in state, local and other federal taxes (payroll, property, sales, etc) the total tax burden by income group looks like what you see in the accompanying graphic.

[cj's dad]

47% don't pay federal income taxes... is 0% their fair share?

I ask this not to be smug but don't you feel everyone should at least be made to contribute something? Even just 1 or 2%... or is that unfair?

Rhetoric aside don't you think everyone should pay at least some Federal Income taxes?

I have a novel idea in regards to contributing. How about those on the dole receive less ? Cut all entitlements (except SS) that people have not paid into; i.e. welfare, food stamps, and section 8 by 10 %.

No one can convince me that food shopping extravagances can not be cut by 10%. Section 8 housing, the landlord must accept a 10% cut or lose his qualification for that category. And all cash supplements cut also.

[hcap]

I have a novel idea in regards to contributing. How about those on the dole receive less ? Cut all entitlements (except SS) that people have not paid into; i.e. welfare, food stamps, and section 8 by 10 %.

No one can convince me that food shopping extravagances can not be cut by 10%. Section 8 housing, the landlord must accept a 10% cut or lose his qualification for that category. And all cash supplements cut also.
Why hit the guys that can least afford i? And I don't think you would recoup that much. Instead

Nancy Marshall Genzer: The legislation would impose a quarter-percentage-point tax on large stock transactions. On a million-dollar trade, for example, your tax would be $2,500. There would be a slightly smaller tax on derivatives -- things like credit default swaps -- the investments built on shaky mortgages that helped spawn the economic crisis.

Congressman Peter DeFazio, a Democrat from Oregon, sponsored the bill in the House.

Peter DeFazio: This would help rein in some of this excessive, speculative trading -- the sorts of things that led to the meltdown on Wall Street.

DeFazio says small investors wouldn't be taxed. They could make a $100,000 worth of trades per year, tax free. The tax would be refunded for mutual funds and savings accounts like 401(k)s. DeFazio is aiming at speculators.

Loyola Law school professor Ted Seto thinks the tax would hit its target.

Ted Seto: You actually can make money if your trading program is just a little bit faster than the next guy's. What this would do is make that kind of trading less profitable.



And

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/22/a-sales-tax-on-wall-street-transactions/

"But speculative purchases of stocks, bonds and other financial instruments in the United States go untaxed but for a tiny fee (less than a half-cent) on stock trades that helps finance the Securities and Exchange Commission.

In Britain, by contrast, a 0.5 percent tax on stock transactions raises about $40 billion a year. President Nicolas Sarkozy of France and Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany recently announced plans to introduce a similar tax in the 27 nations of the European Community. "

[hcap]

Eliot Spitzer

http://www.alternet.org/economy/eliot-spitzer-tax-traders-it-would-solve-economic-crisis-and-stop-reckless-activity

Eliot Spitzer: Tax the Traders! It Would Solve Economic Crisis and Stop Reckless Activity

This one is not so new; it has been around for a long time, supported by a wide range of economists, including Nobel laureate James Tobin, as well as advocates, including Ralph Nader in the Washington Post this weekend, and elected officials: a tax on financial transactions. It will give us gobs of revenue. It will fall on a sector that has generated enormous and unwarranted profits for a very few, who at the same time have benefited from huge bailouts and regulatory help and largely escaped any responsibility for their central role in creating the financial cataclysm that we are still struggling with.

[cj's dad]

[QUOTE=hcap]Why hit the guys that can least afford i? And I don't think you would recoup that much.

Obama talks often about shared sacrifice. Why not ask those on some or all sorts of assistance to cut back as in make do with less.

I know that the many times I was laid off my family ate less expensive meals (fried bologna sandwiches come to mind) and sacrificed in other ways. It can be done 'cap with a little effort and "sacrifice".

Maybe this will wake up some that you do not have to live under the govmt's thumb.

[RaceBookJoe]

Eliot Spitzer

http://www.alternet.org/economy/eliot-spitzer-tax-traders-it-would-solve-economic-crisis-and-stop-reckless-activity

Eliot Spitzer: Tax the Traders! It Would Solve Economic Crisis and Stop Reckless Activity

This one is not so new; it has been around for a long time, supported by a wide range of economists, including Nobel laureate James Tobin, as well as advocates, including Ralph Nader in the Washington Post this weekend, and elected officials: a tax on financial transactions. It will give us gobs of revenue. It will fall on a sector that has generated enormous and unwarranted profits for a very few, who at the same time have benefited from huge bailouts and regulatory help and largely escaped any responsibility for their central role in creating the financial cataclysm that we are still struggling with.

0bama has tried that with mutual funds already, didnt pass. Probably will in europe though, hopefully the financial lobbyists here will help strike any financial transition tax down. Govt will just waste any added revenue anyways.

[thaskalos]

Not necessarily. Federal income taxes are just one of many taxes contributing to the total tax burden. When you fold in state, local and other federal taxes (payroll, property, sales, etc) the total tax burden by income group looks like what you see in the accompanying graphic.

The silence is deafening...as I expected.

[PaceAdvantage]

The silence is deafening...as I expected.Yeah, we're all just a bunch of idiots.

Steve R for PRESIDENT!

Thaskalos for Treasurer!

Now where did I put my emergency cyanide capsule? :lol:

[hcap]

Yeah, we're all just a bunch of idiots.

....Now where did I put my emergency cyanide capsule? :lol:I believe there was a mournful ceremony at the Rove's. Dick Morris attended.
Check with Mrs Morris his survivor and heir :cool:

[thaskalos]

Yeah, we're all just a bunch of idiots.

Steve R for PRESIDENT!

Thaskalos for Treasurer!

Now where did I put my emergency cyanide capsule? :lol:

Stop being so sensitive...it isn't always warranted.

Nowhere did I imply that you are "all just a bunch of idiots"...

I has simply alluding to the fact that Steve R's post did not get any sort of response...

But hey...this is your show. Please feel free to continue making things up every time it suits you.

[JustRalph]

The silence is deafening...as I expected.

You're forgetting one thing. Some of us don't read some people. I am sure there are plenty of people who see my name and move on.......Sorry SteveR, if you get past a couple lines........I missed it.

[thaskalos]

You're forgetting one thing. Some of us don't read some people. I am sure there are plenty of people who see my name and move on.......Sorry SteveR, if you get past a couple lines........I missed it.

That's why I try to keep my posts brief...in the off-topics at least. :)

[elysiantraveller]

I has simply alluding to the fact that Steve R's post did not get any sort of response...

But hey...this is your show. Please feel free to continue making things up every time it suits you.

To be honest I simply lost interest.

The conversation was never about sales tax, state income or any other tax but federal income tax. So while you may think its a great point it simply a redirect...

If people on here are okay with almost half of all Americans not contributing anything to our main revenue source there is simply nothing left to discuss...

I just ask we call it what it is then.... a wealth tax.... not to mention blatant social engineering....