Screw politics and think sensibly...

I'm a middle of the road person .
If a politician says something, I immediately tag it as smart or dumb and I don't base it on political leanings of the person that said it.

Even my unbiased philosophies can't hide the utter stupidity of what the Republicans want. Let's take these bit by bit and see what we can come up with:

Republicans want to:
Cut educational support in the form of either the Dept. of Education and/or cut funding for education itself (improving something by taking away support for it...Really????) Can we improve a table by taking away a leg?

Raise the defense spending (even though all the messes our military are in these days are based on us invading and bombing them...I mean show me Syrian troops in Tennessee trying to take over Nashville by bombing the Batman building!)

Tell you who you should and should not marry (We in the GOP want government out of people's lives but we--in government--will tell you who to marry)

Not have the wealthy pay their share of taxes (This new bitch-fest of mine is so obviously stupid it's not political) If you earn more you should pay more. What's wrong with that?

Middle of the road. lol.

TheNextPrez2012 wrote:Republicans want to:
Cut educational support in the form of either the Dept. of Education and/or cut funding for education itself (improving something by taking away support for it...Really????) Can we improve a table by taking away a leg?

We've been over this time and again. Dbl has provided you with facts proving that the federal involvement in education has turned it into a bigger mess than it's worth. That facts show that the longer the fed is involved, the ore fucked up it gets. Yet, you never stick around to debate this point (or the past debate in another thread). You "hit and run" with this.

TheNextPrez2012 wrote:I'm a middle of the road person .Not have the wealthy pay their share of taxes (This new bitch-fest of mine is so obviously stupid it's not political) If you earn more you should pay more. What's wrong with that?

Ya mean the fact that they already pay more isn't enough? Is that it?

How is it that they pay this in 2008?


And even less during the Clinton years?


You see, I can do this all day.... provide factual proof from the IRS that the wealthy pay far more than their "fair" share. It's all out there to find.

What it is now is that it isn't enough. If we taxed the rich right now at 100%, it would fund our gov't for only 6 months! Six fucking months! That taking everything that the rich make and applying it to the gov't!

It's done nothing but come down to wealth envy and that's it. The cat is out of the bag. There's nothing middle of the road about that at all.

TheNextPrez2012 wrote:I'm a middle of the road person .

Yeah, sure.

Nuff said... you've handled it quite nicely Tex.

I wonder if the GOP is truly against the Buffet Rule or is it just a matter of not wanting to change (part of) the tax code system and just simply finding a reason to not want to change it.
Are they honestly against it or do they not want to go through the hassle of changing things?

As I said it's rather easy to figure out:
This isn't like nobody pays taxes and we are asking a group of people to be the only ones to put forth a portion of their earnings. If you work you pay taxes. People that earn more during work should pay more taxes.

TheNextPrez2012 wrote:I wonder if the GOP is truly against the Buffet Rule or is it just a matter of not wanting to change (part of) the tax code system and just simply finding a reason to not want to change it.
Are they honestly against it or do they not want to go through the hassle of changing things?

As I said it's rather easy to figure out:
This isn't like nobody pays taxes and we are asking a group of people to be the only ones to put forth a portion of their earnings. If you work you pay taxes. People that earn more during work should pay more taxes.

Groan. Apparently you don't research things like this. Romney makes most of his money from investments, not wages or salary (just like Warren Buffet). Because of this, his income is really taxed twice.... once at the corporate rate of 35%, then again at a 15% rate when it's passed through to him as dividends or by capital gains from the sale of stock.

If the corporate tax rate were raised to 60% from today's 35% and the dividend and capital gains tax were cut to zero, it would look like business owners were getting away with paying no federal tax at all. Of course, you'd know this if you'd research on this. Why do you care anyway? I sure don't. Buffet does the same thing and I could give a shit less.


Also.......


Between 1968 and 1972 rates increased by 10 percentage points and revenues fell 21%.

In 1978 the rate fell by 15 points from 35% to 20% and revenues increased by 46%.

In 1986 the rate was raised by 8 points to 28% and by 1991 15% less revenue was being raised.

In 1996 the rate was reduced by 8 points to 20% again and by 2000 revenues had grown by some 50%

In 2003 the rate was cut to 15% and revenues grew by 45% over the following three years.

http://www.adamsmith.org/sites/default/files/resources/CGT-II.pdf



First off, I request that you post something that clarifies what you said above. An actual quote would be nice. Otherwise, the bit from above will be deleted for the assumption that you're trying to instigate a flame war by misrepresenting what Santorum said or didn't say.

Your choice.

So much for being "middle of the road" huh?

TheNextPrez2012 wrote:I wonder if the GOP is truly against the Buffet Rule or is it just a matter of not wanting to change (part of) the tax code system and just simply finding a reason to not want to change it.
Are they honestly against it or do they not want to go through the hassle of changing things

As I said it's rather easy to figure out:
This isn't like nobody pays taxes and we are asking a group of people to be the only ones to put forth a portion of their earnings. If you work you pay taxes. People that earn more during work should pay more taxes.

*Sigh*

Yeah... Karl Marx said the very same thing. He had an equal disdain for private property rights as you display here.

But that's neither here nor there. The real problem here is that you are being lied to and you don't even know it! You are completely ignorant of the lie being perpetrated by Obama, Buffet and the MSM and you have taken the bait, hook, line and sinker!

Buffet is subject to the EXACT SAME tax rates as his secretary. THE EXACT SAME TAX RATES!

Now, let's leave aside that Buffet's secretary earns $200,000+ dollars a year in salary (not counting the capital gains income on her investments) which makes her a member of that hated 1% the Occutards have such a problem with.

The fact remains that if Buffet were working for a salary or wages he would be subject to the same INCOME tax rates as everyone else, including his secretary.

But Buffet is not an employee working for a salary or wage, those days are long behind him, he is now an employer and investor. He was smart and took that money he earned and paid INCOME taxes and he RISKED losing it all and invested it! And lo and behold, that RISK paid off! And now Buffet lives on the CAPITAL GAINS his investments make for him and on which he pays the capital gains tax rate of 15% - the same rate his secretary pays on her capital gains!

But Obama's lie goes even deeper than this simple deception - a deception that anyone familiar with our tax code would have spotted - so we know the MSM are covering for Obama.

To illustrate this deeper lie, I will cite an article that appeared in the International Business News this past Wednesday:

Consider an individual, who owns a share of stock of a particular company. We'll call this person Mitt. This means that Mitt owns a part of that company. In effect, he owns a share of the profit of that company. Let's also say this company has an employee. We'll call him Barack. He represents the working class.

After all expenses but tax, the company has earned some amount of money. Let's say that Mitt's share of the pretax earnings is $1 (based on the fact that he owns one share of the stock). There are two scenarios. First, the company could use the dollar to pay Barack additional compensation, the way that most working-class Americans derive their income. Alternatively, Mitt could receive the money as a dividend distribution. Let's look at how the taxes play out under each scenario.

If Barack receives the $1 as compensation, the company won't have to pay taxes on the dollar. Paying employees is a pre-tax expense for businesses. However, Barack will have to pay ordinary income taxes on this money. Let's say that his marginal tax rate is 35% (that's probably a high estimate, but we'll err on the side of conservatism). That means Barack will pay $0.35 in income tax and he will get to keep $0.65.

Now let's consider the scenario where the company decided to pay a dividend with this pre-tax dollar. In this case, the company would have to pay taxes on the dollar. Let's say the company's marginal tax rate is 35%. The company will pay $0.35% in corporate taxes and Mitt will receive $0.65 in dividends. However, Mitt will still have to pay a 15% tax on the dividend. Therefore, he will have to pay almost $0.10 of additional tax and will be left with only $0.55.

In summary, if the company paid Barack $1 of compensation, he would get to keep $0.65 after tax. If the company used the same pre-tax dollar to pay Mitt a dividend, he only gets $0.55 after tax, because the money is taxed both at the corporate level and at the individual level.

Although Mitt's tax rate looks to be 15%, the government actually nets almost 30% more money ($0.45 instead of $0.35)! So, if the taxes that the company paid on Mitt's share of the earnings are added to the 15% that Mitt paid personally, the effective tax rate was actually 45% compared to Barack's effective tax rate of 35%!

So Obama's lies are exposed, and YOU, NP, blindly accept and even parrot the lie like all good myrmidons do. You are a willing tool of leftists like Obama who could care less about your well being and simply view you as a useful idiot.

You could change that if you would but open your eyes and do some responsible research, and the DailyKos or watching Bill Maher doesn't count as reasearch.

You ought to give it a try. You could start by reading this post thoroughly and wrapping your wits around the fact that Obama is BLATANTLY lying to you and all Americans.

But I won't be holding my breath.

See... I knew I was right not to hold my breath.

Leftists just HATE it when someone shows up with facts.

"The Buffet Rule"

90% of Americans agree with it. Economic experts in Davos, Switzerland agreed with the idea during the World Economic Forum
Those that don't agree with it...a few wealthy folks.

It seems like Obama is trying to say that we need to rework the taxing code so that you pay more if you get more...AND IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW YOU GET IT.
Whether it's salary or investments, it is YOUR money. It goes to you. You can buy a home, a car, or a pack of chewing gum with it.
If it's your money and it's part of your "account" then pay more taxes.

The more posts I read on this site, the more I realize that the country doesn't want to improve.
They're just happy with everything and don't want REAL change. It's been lied to for so many years by politicians from both sides that it cringes when real change is offered (and that's not even talking about the Obama change he promised--which is merely more political rhetoric)

How can you keep saying that if you make more that you should pay more? I've set the facts from the IRS on what the wealthy pay. I've posted that so many times that I should just create a thread and sticky it because I get tired of repeating it over and over.

'Middle of the road' is an easy position to claim but one hard as all get-out to hold on to.

I know... I tried it. I discovered that I am not so middle as I am inclined to disavow rigid party platform over common sense. If I had my way, I think I would find a means to dissolve parties... not by law, but by popular choice of the voters.

We need leaders who don't always follow brittle political doctrine. We need free thinkers to enable a free society and a free market to be more free, not less.

Riding the fence posts is fine if that is where you're at... but don't mistake the word 'centrist' for 'independent'. They are two different critters

TexasBlue wrote:How can you keep saying that if you make more that you should pay more I've set the facts from the IRS on what the wealthy pay. I've posted that so many times that I should just create a thread and sticky it because I get tired of repeating it over and over.

He's incapable of critical thought Tex. You may as well be conversing with a bag of hammers.