| Author | Post |
|---|
DavidB
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 416 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 30th, 2008 03:23 am |
|
TheBigShow wrote: I don't get where you people are getting your sliding scale from.
Did you happen to watch the Obamamercial tonight? It seems the 250 has slipped down to 200 in his own words. Biden says 150, which is closer to the statistical 95 percent he claims will receive tax cuts. Don't supporters of this guy even care that he is changing the game before he even gets in office? Isn't that disturbing at all to you?
|
TheBigShow
Member
| Joined: | Sat Feb 11th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1133 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 29th, 2008 11:48 pm |
|
| Gambling money that people need to meet the basic needs when you retire is foolish regardless of percentage. If it pays off, great. If it doesn't, then you're got a world of hurt. Problem with this mentality is the markets are cyclical. If you need the money in a good part of the cycle, you're covered. But imagine that 10% in the market now. Considering that over 1 trillion dollars of wealth has recently been lost, it's easy to point to that idea as one of the truly dumb ones to come out of Washington. I'm glad seniors were smart enough to see through this and say hell no.
|
qclars
Member
| Joined: | Fri Mar 31st, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 127 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 29th, 2008 11:36 pm |
|
TheBigShow wrote: I recall a certain President just 3 years ago wanting to privatize social security. Think the old timers would like living on cat food when the stock market went belly up?
Hey guys and gals!
The privatization of social security was to be voluntary and limited to a small percentage of the total social security contribution (less than 10%). It's not like you could bet and then lose the farm because the stock market tanked. Besides, based on what the social security fund could have earned in the stock market since its inception as compared to the pittance it earned from the general fund, all of us who collect or expect to ever collect anything from social security should be IRATE!
I think you are all beating the wrong drum here.
|
TheBigShow
Member
| Joined: | Sat Feb 11th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1133 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 29th, 2008 05:13 pm |
|
| If I had kids, my HDTV would probably end up in their dorm room....sorry couldn't resist.
|
DavidB
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 416 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 29th, 2008 05:10 pm |
|
TheBigShow wrote: For those of us who either choose to not have kids or physically can't have them, giving a tax cut to those that can is hardly the definition of fair. That's like giving me a tax break for buying an HDTV. It's a choice unless people are now having immaculate conceptions.
We too chose not to have kids, but I don't complain about tax credits for people who choose to. Just as I don't complain when my tax dollars are spent on schools that my non-existant children will never attend. America's children are its future and that is worth investing in even if the children are not our own.
I think the analogy fails because you don't have to send an HDTV to college.
|
DavidB
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 416 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 29th, 2008 05:06 pm |
|
| I'm qouting Biden himself. Watch the video man.
|
TheBigShow
Member
| Joined: | Sat Feb 11th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1133 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 29th, 2008 05:01 pm |
|
| You're quoting a blog? Oh man, here we go again.
|
DavidB
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 416 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 29th, 2008 04:55 pm |
|
TheBigShow wrote: I don't get where you people are getting your sliding scale from.
From the horse's a... uhh... mouth:
http://heroesforhillary.wordpress.com/2008/10/28/another-biden-slip-of-the-tongue/
|
TheBigShow
Member
| Joined: | Sat Feb 11th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1133 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 29th, 2008 04:49 pm |
|
I don't get where you people are getting your sliding scale from. The only number I've ever heard was 250k. And yes to me that's rich. It seems to be the common thought that when you get on top, the government should do whatever it takes to keep you there including lower your taxes and put the burden elsewhere. Less than 5% of small businesses would see a tax increase under Obama's plan. Go look it up, I did.
As far as McCain giving a bigger tax break to people who choose to have kids, please Jeff don't complain about fairness. For those of us who either choose to not have kids or physically can't have them, giving a tax cut to those that can is hardly the definition of fair. That's like giving me a tax break for buying an HDTV. It's a choice unless people are now having immaculate conceptions.
|
DavidB
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 416 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 29th, 2008 04:42 pm |
|
TheBigShow wrote: Besides, none of you make enough to have to pay more taxes, why do you give a d**n if rich people do?
That is awfully presumptuous - and wrong. I am already talking with my CPA to figure out how to tax as much money as possible this year before the possibility of this lunatic getting voted into office. Yeah, that's really helping me grow my business.
The Obama definition of 'rich' keeps sliding down the scale with every week. It's down to 150K now and falling. Bear in mind this is the BS campaign promise. He'll be socking it to everyone in short order, don't kid yourself.
Look, this country was made great by the incredible work ethic and drive of the American entrepreneur. Without it, we are just another average socialist economy like most of the rest of the mediocre economies of the world.
Let me tell you a little story about Dave the Programmer. You see, back in high school, when Dave's friends were goofing off, getting into trouble, and otherwise wasting away their lives, Dave was holed away in a room learning and creating software programs. Dave made a conscious decision to skip on the fun times during his youth so that he could build a life for himself. Dave had no help financially or otherwise. He made close to nothing for money and made many sacrifices in order to achieve long term success.
So Dave spends the next 20 years working 60-80 hour weeks to achieve the goals he has set for himself in life. He gets serious repetitive stress injuries from mashing keyboards and mice. Now, after 20 years of very hard work, and only after he has built a business that helps other businesses succeed and provides 25+ GOOD jobs, he is harvesting some of the fruits of his labor. Now, along comes Obama and basically says "Hey Dave, thanks for busting your butt to help our economy on many levels. Now I'm going to reward you by taking what you have earned and give it to the guys you went to high school with who did nothing with their lives. After all, they NEED it more than you do."
If the Obamanation is allowed to do what he intends to do with our tax policy, he will KILL the spirit in the next generation of people like me. I mean, what is the point of killing yourself to build something great, when you know that in the end, it will all be redistributed anyway. This climate fosters a populous of mediocrity and stifles innovation and risk taking. I wonder if there are enough government jobs for all of us. Because there won't be many business left that will be creating them.
In large part, the people that support Obama and his redistribution plan are the ones I went to school with that were do nothings. They are still do nothings and want a handout from people like me who payed my dues. Sorry, but that really, really makes me angry.
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3503 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 29th, 2008 04:34 pm |
|
Here's the real problem. Those people you speak of that will get all those tax Credits....they do them no good if they don't have a job....when their stream of income stops, credits are not much help. That means close to a million people who are currently unemployed, would have a wonderful credit, but of no present benefit. A wonderful credit for health insurance, but will have to go to the emergency room as no money is available to pay a doctor....just a credit. "Hey Doc." "Will you take this "credit" for payment?"  The same goes for the suggestion that McSame has made about refinancing those mortgages.....what good does that do, if during the time of application to recast that mortgage, you answer the lender's question when he asks you "How much income to you make?" And the reply is...."None. I lost my job." Why do you think he wasn't making the payments in the first place? Find a job first, (lot's of luck), then recast the mortgage. Without a job, he does not qualify for a recast of his current mortgage. No income; no mortgage. Now there goes the house at half the price they bought it at. If you file bankrupcy, you're out of the housing market for about 5 years or so.
The trickle should start at the bottom and trickle up.....not start at the top and trickle down, which is what is happening with this bailout and the current mentality. Nothing is trickling down. There needs to be a "Reversal of Fortune".
|
clu
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 4th, 2005 |
| Location: | TOQC |
| Posts: | 515 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 29th, 2008 04:23 pm |
|
TheBigShow wrote: Besides, none of you make enough to have to pay more taxes, why do you give a d**n if rich people do? I sure don't. They lived pretty well in the last 8 years. So if they have to pay more in taxes, I'm really not going to cry about it. Not sure why all of you are.
And so now those who do have the ambition to make a lot of money are stifled even more in achieving these basic "life, liberty, and happiness" principles.
And really, 250k is rich? Dream on. If you really want to tax the rich, tax those folks with multiple vacation houses, yachts, exotic sports cars, mansions, etc. Those are the rich folk, do you agree?
|
QCVillager
Member
|
Posted: Wed Oct 29th, 2008 04:13 pm |
|
TheBigShow wrote: Besides, none of you make enough to have to pay more taxes, why do you give a d**n if rich people do? I sure don't. They lived pretty well in the last 8 years. So if they have to pay more in taxes, I'm really not going to cry about it. Not sure why all of you are.
you can't say that BigShow. firstly... what is "Rich" ? i don't consider myself rich and yet, i will pay more under Obama's plan then under McCain's. here, i'll even use something Bambi posted on Oct 24th at 12:47PM according to the table ( http://www.newszapforums.com/view_topic.php?id=69605&forum_id=27&jump_to=390240#p390240 ) ... my family would pay $xx00.00 more under Obama's plan then under McCain's.
2) Obama's dollar figure seems to be a moving target. first it was no tax increase for anyone at $250k or higher, then $200k. lately, $150k. and even one time $90k was used. all of the spending increases for his liberal social agenda will have to come from somewhere. and the scale will slide considerably.
3) a lot of those you would call rich are small business owners who don't file as a corporation. when you hit them with additional taxes, they can't expand and can't create new jobs. this is a negative trickle down effect on the economy
4) what about fairness ? the top percentages of wage earners in the US are already paying the lion's share of the taxes. when is enough enough ? when do you figure out that you are deincentivizing job creation and discouraging success ?
5) when do we wise up and remember that tax receipts were highest in the Reagan years when rates/percentages were least ?
6) McCain's proposal is to increase Child exemption from $3500 to $7000 instantly for families with taxable income less than $50k. for those families with income greater than $50k, it rises more slowly and yet the Obama tax calculator is only looking at 2009 taxes... this means that the difference for a family like mine with a greater than $50k taxable... the calculator isn't showing the differences in later years - which will be even more substantial. in later years the differences will make McCain's plan for my family even better than the $xx00.00 less that i would pay in year 1 under Obama.
Last edited on Wed Oct 29th, 2008 04:17 pm by QCVillager
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3503 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 29th, 2008 03:48 pm |
|
QCVillager wrote: Bambi wrote: Speaking about change. MSNBC posted a statement made by Sarah Palin while governing Alaska, concerning the "spreading of wealth". She was referring to the fact that the resources of the State belong to the people, therefore the people deserve the benefits of those resources, therefore the Alaskan Government, will request that those Oil Companies who lease their land for the purpose of profit, shall pay the State of Alaska enough money so the State can "spread the wealth" among it's citizens.
Therefore, each citizen receives a check.
Now, see a resemblance to Palin's (and McCain) accusations of Obama's taking from the rich and sharing it with the citizens and her giving each citizen a percentage of the Corporation's revenue for the benefit of all? Share/spread the wealth.
biting my tongue, biting my tongue, biting my tongue...
aaaggghhhhh...
not a good analogy. if you want to compare Obama's plan to the State of Alaska, then you need to have State of Alaska take NOT the common resources of the entire populace... but instead the State of Alaska would take the PRIVATE property or the resources from that PRIVATE property and spread it among the entire population. that would be the apples/apples comparison.
Joe Plumber put up a post about Obama not being like Robin Hood since at least Robin Hood gave back to the poor only that which was theirs in the first place. he didn't take the fruits of someone else's labor and simply give it to others.
How's that tongue doing ? Still biting it? I'm not comparing Obama's plan. I am stating what McCain Campaign is stating....they say Obama wants to take from the rich and spread that wealth. Exon is the Rich guy....the Business that paid for all that infrastructure to be installed in Alaska; who paid their employees good pay to install it; who pay to maintain it; pay their taxes; Just pay all the overhead for that business. Now, using Palin's theory, that Corp./business, must give back some of that profit to the people....they need to take from their pocket and put it in the people's pocket. It's the "mentality". Now, because of that, the Oil Business will have to cut jobs to make up for it....another subsequent mentality.
An Analogy?: Obama wants to spread the wealth/Robin hood wanted to spread wealth...even more than what was due back....that's the mentality: Palin doesn't call it, yet it works in many fashions for her. Is not Palin "spreading the wealth" of a Rich Oil Business that already pays taxes to the State of Alaska and giving it to the people as a fair gesture of their share of the accumulated wealth of that business? Isn't the word "Sharing the wealth?" It's the mentality that makes it socialistic in some minds. The mentality of taking from the rich (Oil business) to give to the "people.". She took some of the wealth the oil company made off their resources and spread it amongst the people. Using that same mentality, Arizona should ask for a piece of the action of all the mining industries in the state, and distribute it amongst the residents of the State as their fair share of the resources. When you buy a piece of land in Arizona, you do not inherit the mineral rights....it belongs to the State, unless the deed says otherwise or other arrangements have been made. So technically, those are our minerals.
That is a very one sided view of the Robin Hood tale in my opinion. I've, in fact always viewed Robin Hood as a thief. It was this Robin Hood mentality of stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, that gave us the income tax. Your stated "view" is the "romantic" view of him. In the 12th century, he was also labeled a murderer. At a lavish banquet, using those riches, he asked the people attending (I thought they were starving): "What should I do with this money" and the people yelled back...."Give it to King Richard." Give it back to the Government? Mythology. Mentality.
By the way, McCain wants to privatize Social Security. Back to the Casinos. So now not only a 401k is subject to the market, but S.S. that the elderly depend on, will be subject to that wild ride too, if McCain wins.
Last edited on Wed Oct 29th, 2008 03:56 pm by Bambi
|
Superstition Mountain Man
Member
|
Posted: Wed Oct 29th, 2008 08:20 am |
|
TheBigShow: You are correct in stating the fact that you cannot run a government without taxes. Thank God the privatization of Social Security payments never materialized. That would have been another Bush-Cheney disaster.
Also, so many of these McCain-Bush simpletons never seem to mention any concern for taxpayers when it comes to the huge cost of the illegitimate Iraq war. Additionally, I seem to remember a certain president (a Republican named Bush Sr.) saying the famous line: "Read My Lips No New Taxes"..... Of course he knew that was impossible.
It's funny how some people conveniently forget things like that.
|
TheBigShow
Member
| Joined: | Sat Feb 11th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1133 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 29th, 2008 08:12 am |
|
Not to mention that all 4 debates had a record number of people watching. I gotta hand it to people this time around, they are finally starting to pay attention to the issues and stop this 1 issue voting nonsense.
|
Superstition Mountain Man
Member
|
Posted: Wed Oct 29th, 2008 08:07 am |
|
We need to differentiate between those who, in an honest and ethical way, have succeeded financially through our free enterprise system by taken risks and 'building a better mousetrap' and those such as that Republican 'Dick' (VP Dick Cheney) as well as others who have used the government, corporate lobbyists and campaign contributions to gain their fortune dishonestly.
If we can 'clean up' this country's corrupt corporate-controlled system of government, then the question of spreading the wealth should be non-existent. Both sides have let this cancer grow for too many years and that's why the vast majority of Americans feel they've been screwed big time.
On November 4th, voters will show their disgust and outrage at the polls. According to all forecasters, a record number of Americans will vote. For example, as a prelude to what will happen across the country next Tuesday, just in the state of Georgia alone, people have waited in line for up to eight hours to cast early ballots. That's incredible!
This is going to be big!
|
TheBigShow
Member
| Joined: | Sat Feb 11th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1133 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 29th, 2008 07:55 am |
|
Jeff, can you explain what taxes are for if it's not a redistribution of wealth? Obama's tax plan will return the tax rates back to where they were in the Clinton era. Now since I was alive and well during that time, I recall it being an extremely prosperous time. Were all of you homeless during that time and just couldn't wait for George Bush to save you? In case you haven't noticed, the last 8 years royally sucked under this current joker that many of you voted for and now act like you didn't. Truth is, you can't run a government without taxes. The alternative that keeps getting proposed is privatization. I recall a certain President just 3 years ago wanting to privatize social security. Think the old timers would like living on cat food when the stock market went belly up?
Besides, none of you make enough to have to pay more taxes, why do you give a d**n if rich people do? I sure don't. They lived pretty well in the last 8 years. So if they have to pay more in taxes, I'm really not going to cry about it. Not sure why all of you are.
|
QCVillager
Member
|
Posted: Wed Oct 29th, 2008 05:06 am |
|
Bambi wrote: Speaking about change. MSNBC posted a statement made by Sarah Palin while governing Alaska, concerning the "spreading of wealth". She was referring to the fact that the resources of the State belong to the people, therefore the people deserve the benefits of those resources, therefore the Alaskan Government, will request that those Oil Companies who lease their land for the purpose of profit, shall pay the State of Alaska enough money so the State can "spread the wealth" among it's citizens.
Therefore, each citizen receives a check.
Now, see a resemblance to Palin's (and McCain) accusations of Obama's taking from the rich and sharing it with the citizens and her giving each citizen a percentage of the Corporation's revenue for the benefit of all? Share/spread the wealth.
biting my tongue, biting my tongue, biting my tongue...
aaaggghhhhh...
not a good analogy. if you want to compare Obama's plan to the State of Alaska, then you need to have State of Alaska take NOT the common resources of the entire populace... but instead the State of Alaska would take the PRIVATE property or the resources from that PRIVATE property and spread it among the entire population. that would be the apples/apples comparison.
Joe Plumber put up a post about Obama not being like Robin Hood since at least Robin Hood gave back to the poor only that which was theirs in the first place. he didn't take the fruits of someone else's labor and simply give it to others.
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3503 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 29th, 2008 03:49 am |
|
Ask, and you will receive the answer. It's everywhere. Obama's website explains the change as well a McCain's website explains his change. I personally lived that time, and I see no comparison or resemblance to Obama's plan for governing and what happened with Castro's takeover. Most of us were enamored by Castro, especially Raul. If you were religious, you saw the takeover as the removal of evil...all the casinos and nightclubs run by a criminal....catering to the Mob and the likes of Myer Lansky and Bugsy Seagal. And Castro did bring free medical and education.....but he is a dictator and not a democratic leader.....that's why it failed. His regime was a military regime, run by a rebel. He'll die soon, and change again....back to the "good" life for the rich and famous as his brother is more favorable to commerce and that type of lifestyle.
Speaking about change. MSNBC posted a statement made by Sarah Palin while governing Alaska, concerning the "spreading of wealth". She was referring to the fact that the resources of the State belong to the people, therefore the people deserve the benefits of those resources, therefore the Alaskan Government, will request that those Oil Companies who lease their land for the purpose of profit, shall pay the State of Alaska enough money so the State can "spread the wealth" among it's citizens.
Therefore, each citizen receives a check.
Now, see a resemblance to Palin's (and McCain) accusations of Obama's taking from the rich and sharing it with the citizens and her giving each citizen a percentage of the Corporation's revenue for the benefit of all? Share/spread the wealth.
I read today about Jefferson. There was a remark in the reading that struck me and made me reflect on just how much we try to bring fairness into the equation at the cost to many. It was Jefferson who stated that the Government needs to make elementary education public and paid by the Public. People called him socialistic for thinking that way. Now we take it for granted and expect it.
One day, if we should live that long, we will have advanced enough to practice the art of self government. We will probably all be tan by then (read the Tan Man) so discrimination based on race, creed, etc. will probably be a thing of the past. Technology and the nano will have propelled us into such a place in Time with such advancements in science, that to look back at our conversations today, may be an example of primitive thinking.  
|
Captain Jack
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 28th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 6 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 29th, 2008 03:28 am |
|
I live in Sussex County Delaware....Joe Biden has an office in Milford, De, my town, but I can tell you I have never seen the man in our town.....it is all for show....we are only a town of about 7000 electric customers ...don't know the exact census number but believe me....nobody I know has seen him.
In the vice presidential debate when Palin talked about getting her information from the other parents at socker games and her local restaurant...Joe had to mention that he goes down to "Katie's" on Union Street in Wilmington, De. This is now a Wings to Go and has not been "Katie's" for at least 8 years. He also said that he goes to Home Depot....nobody who called the local talk radio stations ever remembers seeing him at this store.
He lives in a mansion...is not a middle class Joe.....he is our Senator but has been a career politician all of his life....went to law school....got a number of military deferrments for "alergies" and has done nothing to help the State of Delaware that I am aware of...in fact...in his campaign...it sounds like he is from Scranton, PA!
Last edited on Wed Oct 29th, 2008 03:29 am by Captain Jack
|
CSI_QueenCreek
Member
| Joined: | Tue May 20th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 142 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 29th, 2008 02:53 am |
|
Once upon a time, there was a charismatic and eloquent young leader who decided his nation needed a change and that he was the one to implement it.
The people were receptive and ready for a change.
He spoke passionately when denouncing the existing system, and the media loved him.
Nobody questioned what he believed in or who his friends were.
He would help the poor and bring free medical care and education to all.
He would bring justice and equality.
He said: I am for hope and change and I will bring you both.
Nobody bothered to ask about the change, so by the time the executioner's guns went silent, all personal firearms had been confiscated.
When everyone was finally equal, they were equally poor, hungry and miserable.
Their free education was worthless.
When the change was fully implemented, the country had been reduced to a Third World status.
More than a million people fled in small boats and rafts.
The charismatic young leader was Fidel Castro; the nation, Cuba.
The citizens of the United States would never fall for a charismatic, eloquent young leader who promises hope and change without asking, "What change, and how much will it cost us?" ...would we?
|
Current time is 09:12 pm | |
|
|
|
