Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Um...the country elects and pays politicians for them to do a job. Yes, I expect them to handle and take care of certain problems.
Then you really don't understand the socialist movement. Unfortunately, because you'd rather experiment than research, it'll be too late by the time you discover the truth.
Quote:
If you honestly want to live somewhere where there is no government go live in a rain forest somewhere. If you hate this country so much why are you even here?
Government doesn't mean redistributing wealth to complete a socialist agenda and hating oppression isn't hating ones country.
Quote:
I'm not the one crying and complaining...you are. I'm simply showing you that I have far more reason to pity myself than you do yet I don't. You have your tail end so firmly planted on the pity pot it's not even funny.
The difference between your problems is that you had a choice. That's freedom. In my case, I'm opposed to the oppression supported by you that the government is carrying out.
FYI: When Frederick Douglass was upset that he was a slave, the person who owned him took offense just like you do that someone would be opposed to oppression at their hands. Your indifference to the suffering of the oppressed isn't new.
Quote:
I blame Bush for making it easier for corporate crooks to get all the benefits of doing business in the US while avoiding all the responsibility.
You mean they didn't pay tariffs? Besides tariffs, what do they owe you? What responsibility do they have for you?
Quote:
This time I actually like Obama.
I know, because you'll sell your liberty for a little comfort.
Quote:
Had we focused our efforts in Afghanistan and along the Pakistan border where bin Laden actually is we would have captured him by now and we most likely would have been out of Afghanistan but for a few troops.
Actually, we'd have suffered the same consequences as the Russians. Just like the Soviets, the U.S. could not fight on that terrain. Instead, a more favorable battlefield was chosen and we've won.
Please read history before forming an opinion.
Quote:
My EX husband started using and selling drugs because he chose to.
Are you suggesting that your behavior doesn't affect the behavior of others? Kind of like you live in a vacuum?
Quote:
I know that the last 8 years has left not only the poor but the middle class really hurting.
In what way that the government would be responsible for? How do you know?
Quote:
I know that John McCain shares the same core beliefs
Really? You do understand that McCain's opposed to earmarks while Bush has turned a blind eye? They're used to buy votes for bad bills. What "core beliefs" do they share that would make a difference?
Quote:
I know that to some people change is a very frightening thing. You are afraid.
No ma'am. I'm angry. I'm angry that old people steal my income at a rate of 17% and that's going to rise because they didn't adequately fund their retirement. I'm angry that they used the money for their retirement to fund projects for their government and I'm expected to pay them for it.
I'm not frightened in any way. I'm sick and tired of the oppression. I'm sick and tired of morons infringing on my life without the faintest clue that what they get from the government comes from someone else.
That's not fear. That's anger... anger that morons support a socialist because he's a good salesman and they're too stupid to understand socialism.
Last edited by One Thousand; 10-16-2008 at 01:25 PM..
it is always the people who pay little or no taxes who want more taxes! we have a country that has to create income instead of spending more or it will implode! obama will spend more and everyone knows it! there is no defense for spending more now!! you even said that we have to pay our bills. do you want to forgive the rest of the world's debts? do you want to double foreign aid? do you want warren buffett controlling the flow of money in this country?!
No...we should ELIMINATE foreign aid. It's okay to forgive the rest of the world's debts, because our country plans to default on our debts to other countries anyhow.
Anyway, I'm a proponent of the FLAT tax. No exemptions. Everyone pays 10-15% of their income up front. You make a $1000, you pay $100 to $150. You make $10,000, you pay $1000-$1500. You make 10,000,000....
You PAY according to your ability to PAY. If you have disposable income, then it's YOUR money they're going to come for first. Want to get out of paying taxes? Stop having income.
Then you really don't understand the socialist movement. Unfortunately, because you'd rather experiment than research, it'll be too late by the time you discover the truth.
Government doesn't mean redistributing wealth to complete a socialist agenda and hating oppression isn't hating ones country.
The difference between your problems is that you had a choice. That's freedom. In my case, I'm opposed to the oppression supported by you that the government is carrying out.
FYI: When Frederick Douglass was upset that he was a slave, the person who owned him took offense just like you do that someone would be opposed to oppression at their hands. Your indifference to the suffering of the oppressed isn't new.
You mean they didn't pay tariffs? Besides tariffs, what do they owe you? What responsibility do they have for you?
I know, because you'll sell your liberty for a little comfort.
Actually, we'd have suffered the same consequences as the Russians. Just like the Soviets, the U.S. could not fight on that terrain. Instead, a more favorable battlefield was chosen and we've won.
Please read history before forming an opinion.
Are you suggesting that your behavior doesn't affect the behavior of others? Kind of like you live in a vacuum?
In what way that the government would be responsible for? How do you know?
Really? You do understand that McCain's opposed to earmarks while Bush has turned a blind eye? They're used to buy votes for bad bills. What "core beliefs" do they share that would make a difference?
No ma'am. I'm angry. I'm angry that old people steal my income at a rate of 17% and that's going to rise because they didn't adequately fund their retirement. I'm angry that they used the money for their retirement to fund projects for their government and I'm expected to pay them for it.
I'm not frightened in any way. I'm sick and tired of the oppression. I'm sick and tired of morons infringing on my life without the faintest clue that what they get from the government comes from someone else.
That's not fear. That's anger... anger that morons support a socialist because he's a good salesman and they're too stupid to understand socialism.
One Thousand,
You have absolutely no idea how abusive your post is to Centaurmyst, do you? Typical abusive behavior, blaming her for her husband's behavior and intimating that she is responsible!
For years people would say of an abused woman, "Why don't you leave?" but not once does society ask, "Why doesn't he STOP?"
You are a shameless bully, as well as hopelessly unable to stay on topic.
There but for the grace of God go I
Some day, the ones here on CD who are boo-hoo-ing over a scant increase in taxes will realize how critical it is some day when YOU or your family need help.
Not everyone who benefits from social programs is a scammer. Taxes pay for other things, too - your schools, roads, city/county/state infrastructure, community libraries, art museums, etc.
The anit-tax crowd reminds me so very much of a Twilight Zone episode, some of you may have seen: A grumpy man wishes that everyone in the whole world would just "go away". Next thing you know, *poof* they are gone. He wanders the streets...no barber to cut his hair, no cooks at the diner and no one to pump his gas (1950's). Eventually he becomes overwhelmed with loneliness, i.e., be careful what you wish for...you just might get it!
In short, yes, we can all scream all day long about the "terrible" burden of taxes, but they are a necessary evil. And, by the way, Canada's banking system is now one of the STRONGEST in the world...they have national health care, tax everyone silly (cigarettes are very expensive there!) but yet they have not suffered in this global economic collapse.
We should look to Canada (and maybe also France, Finland and Sweden) regarding how they run their health care/tax structure, because non of those places seem to be hurting right now...we'd be wise to take a cue before it is too late. I am not saying to nationalize health care totally, but we have got to make sure people don't file bankruptcy to pay medical bills. Even with insurance, folks, the next person could be YOU.
Then you really don't understand the socialist movement. Unfortunately, because you'd rather experiment than research, it'll be too late by the time you discover the truth.
There is no socialist movement...instead there is paranoia on the part of those who constantly screech "socialist!", "communist!"
Quote:
Government doesn't mean redistributing wealth to complete a socialist agenda and hating oppression isn't hating ones country.
The current tax base has the people with lower incomes paying almost twice as high a tax rate as those with the highest incomes. Making the wealthiest people pay the same percentage of taxes is not "spreading the wealth around"...it's making the wealthiest people pay their share. Again...the screeching "socialism" is more paranoia. If you honestly feel you are oppressed there are other places you can live. No one is making you stay here.
Quote:
The difference between your problems is that you had a choice. That's freedom. In my case, I'm opposed to the oppression supported by you that the government is carrying out.
Again...I am not the one crying like a lactating wench about how unfair life is. I rarely had any really good choices available to me...and I always made the smartest and best one I could given my situation...and NEVER complained about it. You also have a choice...you can leave and go live somewhere without any government influence. Again...no one is stopping you.
Quote:
FYI: When Frederick Douglass was upset that he was a slave, the person who owned him took offense just like you do that someone would be opposed to oppression at their hands. Your indifference to the suffering of the oppressed isn't new.
Again...if you, or anyone truly feels like a slave to this great country you know where the door is. Majority rules...that is the way it goes. I'm not trying to force anyone to share my views. I honestly don't care if they do or not. If I am in the minority of what the country chooses then I suck it up and deal, knowing that I live in the greatest nation in the world. You can do that as well or again, you can leave...it's your choice.
Quote:
You mean they didn't pay tariffs? Besides tariffs, what do they owe you? What responsibility do they have for you?
I am speaking of American owned corporations who sell their goods here but send their jobs overseas. They get insane tax breaks while the middle class picks up the tab for the country. They aren't creating jobs in the US because they are too greedy and want that sweatshop labor from 3rd world countries. Americans buy their goods and make them rich while they reward us by moving the jobs overseas. Why, exactly, do you care more about the interests of those corporations than you care about your fellow Americans? YOU are paying their share.
Quote:
I know, because you'll sell your liberty for a little comfort.
My liberty has never been infringed upon. I agree that every society needs a certain level of rules and regulations because every society that has existed without that has failed. But then I am not paranoid about things that will never happen. Doing that would be far too tiring and distracting. I'd much rather enjoy life.
Quote:
Actually, we'd have suffered the same consequences as the Russians. Just like the Soviets, the U.S. could not fight on that terrain. Instead, a more favorable battlefield was chosen and we've won.
No, we wouldn't have because we were not making the same mistakes that Russia did. We utilized friendly Afghanistan people who know the land and terrain. Our troops are the best trained and most capable in the world, and the smartest. A more favorable battlefield? LMAO! Bin Laden is not in Iraq and neither were Al Qaeda. Iraq didn't attack us on 9/11. They were NO threat to us at all. Sure, Saddam was a miserable rotten person who did terrible things...YEARS prior to us going into Iraq. The time to go in there would have been back during the Gulf War when we could have actually stopped ethnic cleansing...but we didn't do it then. Talk about a MASSIVE waste of 10 billion a month while our troops in Afghanistan desperately need more troops to help.
Quote:
Please read history before forming an opinion.
Oh, I know my history quite well thanks. If anyone is missing some key facts on things it is you.
Quote:
Are you suggesting that your behavior doesn't affect the behavior of others? Kind of like you live in a vacuum?
I typically am a very kind person to everyone...unless they give me reason not to be. You get what you give. You are rude and obnoxious towards me so I will return the favor. It's very simple. I don't live in a radical paranoid little vacuum...again you project. I actually live in the real world where the majority who agree are going to decide who our politicians are, regardless of how I may or may not feel about it. Adults realize that this is life and that you pull yourself up by the bootstraps and deal with what God gives you to deal with, like it or not.
Quote:
Really? You do understand that McCain's opposed to earmarks while Bush has turned a blind eye? They're used to buy votes for bad bills. What "core beliefs" do they share that would make a difference?
If you honestly believe that then you don't understand the first thing about earmarks. John McCain will be just as bad as Bush with earmarks, if not worse. He will NEVER get anything done if he doesn't. This country can't afford a president who will not get anything done. The BEST chance for reducing earmarks is to have all branches of government from the same party because there won't be a need to "buy" votes if there are enough votes to be fillibuster proof. A lot can be accomplished to fix this mess that the economy is, too. The people gave the Republicans a chance to get it right for 6 years and they blew it. Now people want to give Democrats a chance.
Quote:
No ma'am. I'm angry. I'm angry that old people steal my income at a rate of 17% and that's going to rise because they didn't adequately fund their retirement. I'm angry that they used the money for their retirement to fund projects for their government and I'm expected to pay them for it.
LMAO...you pay into social security for YOURSELF...so when you are old you get it back and then some. It's not being "stolen"...it comes back to you later. Would you prefer they gave it all to you to put into stocks and see it all wiped out now? That sounds like a really swell plan.
Quote:
No ma'am. I'm not frightened in any way. I'm sick and tired of the oppression. I'm sick and tired of morons infringing on my life without the faintest clue that what they get from the government comes from someone else.
Again...the borders are open...if you hate America so much then just leave. This isn't the United States of One Thousand. It's the United States of America. That means EVERYONE in America has to decide what is best for our great nation. The majority makes that call. Sure, that stinks for the people on the fringe, but no one is making you stay. You can always chip in together and buy an island somewhere and live free of government if you are really that unhappy.
Quote:
That's not fear. That's anger... anger that morons support a socialist because he's a good salesman and they're too stupid to understand socialism.
Again...most people are not paranoid about communism and socialism. Stupid? My IQ is over 150 so I'm far from stupid. Just because you aren't capable of understanding the views of another person it doesn't mean that other person is stupid. It means that you either are incapable of or refuse to see the persepctives of people who don't agree with you.
So if Obama is going to rescind the Bush tax cuts, then does the tax calculator on his website use the present day Bush tax cuts as the basis, or is his tax calculator figuring what your taxes would be if the Bush tax cut were rescinded? Didn't Obama also say that his tax cuts would surpass even those of Reagan? I recall him dropping Reagan's name a few times in that sense. How does that work? Just doesn't seem to wash out.
You have absolutely no idea how abusive your post is to Centaurmyst, do you? Typical abusive behavior, blaming her for her husband's behavior and intimating that she is responsible!
For years people would say of an abused woman, "Why don't you leave?" but not once does society ask, "Why doesn't he STOP?"
You are a shameless bully, as well as hopelessly unable to stay on topic.
There but for the grace of God go I
Some day, the ones here on CD who are boo-hoo-ing over a scant increase in taxes will realize how critical it is some day when YOU or your family need help.
Not everyone who benefits from social programs is a scammer. Taxes pay for other things, too - your schools, roads, city/county/state infrastructure, community libraries, art museums, etc.
The anit-tax crowd reminds me so very much of a Twilight Zone episode, some of you may have seen: A grumpy man wishes that everyone in the whole world would just "go away". Next thing you know, *poof* they are gone. He wanders the streets...no barber to cut his hair, no cooks at the diner and no one to pump his gas (1950's). Eventually he becomes overwhelmed with loneliness, i.e., be careful what you wish for...you just might get it!
In short, yes, we can all scream all day long about the "terrible" burden of taxes, but they are a necessary evil. And, by the way, Canada's banking system is now one of the STRONGEST in the world...they have national health care, tax everyone silly (cigarettes are very expensive there!) but yet they have not suffered in this global economic collapse.
We should look to Canada (and maybe also France, Finland and Sweden) regarding how they run their health care/tax structure, because non of those places seem to be hurting right now...we'd be wise to take a cue before it is too late. I am not saying to nationalize health care totally, but we have got to make sure people don't file bankruptcy to pay medical bills. Even with insurance, folks, the next person could be YOU.
We need to pray for him, not be angry with him. Sadly, he simply doesn't know any better.
I'm with Obama, Joe Biden, and Warren Buffet -- I don't mind giving a little more to fix the country. I can afford it. McCain & his wife should be able to afford it too. After all, they don't pay healthcare premiums (their sweet plan is paid for by us taxpayers). So they could put at least that much in the kitty to help pay down the war debt.
Now I don't blame anyone for not wanting to give any more money to the government, I'm just saying I can live with the taxes as they were under Bill Clinton. And that's a tax increase for me.
Bill Clinton reneged on his similar promise as soon as he took office. People earning as little as $20,000/yr saw an increase of 15% from 11%, resulting in a 36% increase over their original rate.
Due to "Republican Lies" the budged deficit was under-estimated by $18 billion. Even though it was only an ESTIMATE and $18 billion is chump change, all those tax cuts and credits are now out the window. For what it's worth, those plans were based on the deficit being HIGHER than it actually is. Republicans under-estimated, Democrats OVER-ESTIMATED and made their tax cut plans on those figures. Since the Republicans' estimate was wrong, that negates the whole thing. Do you really think the Democrats EVER intended to give tax credits and cuts?
"They voted for Bill Clinton because they believed he was going to submit a program to change the direction of the country, to improve the economy and to create jobs. They will be mad as hell if their taxes go up and there's no genuine commitment to change. But if there is, they will be willing to contribute."
"It is critical," Mr. Greenberg said, that the rich be seen as punished most by Mr. Clinton's tax increases. 'A Very Big Signal'
"This says to voters that this is a President who is not a captive of the wealthiest people but who is instead responsive to the middle class," Mr. Greenberg said. "That is a critical issue. Since they are not going to see the results of economic growth for a long time, it is critical that you send them a very big signal about whose interests are being advanced."
The first challenge in selling Mr. Clinton's plan to raise taxes on the middle class would seem to be overcoming the voluble history of his many specific promises to the contrary.
As candidate, Mr. Clinton promised to offer tax relief to families with incomes of less than $80,000 a year. He said he would raise taxes on only "the wealthiest 2 percent," those with incomes above $200,000 a year, and impose a surtax of 10 percent on those with annual incomes of more than $1 million.
He said that over four years he would squeeze an additional $45 billion out of foreign corporations doing business in the United States. He dismissed as an outrageous falsehood the Republican assertions that his spending programs would mean additional taxes on families making as little as $30,000 a year.
Now, Mr. Clinton proposes to increase income taxes to 36 percent from 31 percent on couples who have taxable income of more than $140,00 a year and on unmarried individuals with taxable income of more than $115,000.
And the "millionaire's surtax" would be imposed on households with taxable income of more than $250,000 a year. As tax experts predicted, the amount expected to be gained from foreign corporations will be only a few billion dollars. And virtually every family making less than $30,000 a year would not bear the costs of the higher taxes. 'He Never Said It'
In interviews on Tuesday, James Carville and Paul Begala, Mr. Clinton's chief political advisers, outlined what would be the central arguments against accusations of political betrayal.
"The first defense is that he never said it," Mr. Carville said. "Clinton never made a George Bush-style read-my-lips pledge. He said that that would be irresponsible to do."
Further, Mr. Begala and Mr. Greenberg said their polls and focus group sessions showed that voters accepted the argument that Mr. Clinton had promised only that he would not raise taxes on the middle class to pay for the new Government programs he would propose. They said the research also showed that voters believed Mr. Clinton when he said he had been forced to reluctantly accept middle-class tax increases when he found out, after the election, that the budget deficit was worse than he had thought.
But Republicans, and others, can be expected to point out just how many examples of disparity there are between Mr. Clinton the campaigner and Mr. Clinton the President.
It is true that, beginning about a month before Election Day, Mr. Clinton took care to say he was not making a read-my-lips pledge on middle-class taxes. He was making the more narrow pledge that he would not raise taxes to pay for his new spending programs. But the overall thrust of what he promised ran in the opposite direction.
Mr. Clinton introduced the promise of a tax cut for the middle class in a speech in November 1991 at Georgetown University. "I will offer middle-income tax cuts," he said. "The average working family's tax bill will go down about 10 percent, a savings of about $300 a year, and I won't finance it with increasing the deficit."
As late as 10 days before the election, Mr. Clinton was still promising a tax cut for families making less than $80,000. On Oct. 24, a reporter asked him if it was true, as advisers were saying, that he might postpone the middle-class tax cut for a year if elected, in the light of gloomy economic projections. "Absolutely not," Mr. Clinton said. "I make the economic decisions in this Administration." The Critical Question
The question of whether the difference between Mr. Clinton's campaign proposals and what he is now proposing is regarded by voters as "a threshold issue," as Mr. Begala put it, that Mr. Clinton must successfully answer to gain acceptance of his plan.
He is doing so successfully right now, Mr. Begala said, adding: "The research is clear on that. Now, to keep things going in the right direction, we have to have the debate focus on two points of view: One, 'I don't want to pay more in taxes because I don't want Bill Clinton's changes.' Or two, 'I am willing to pay more, but he better come through with real changes.' "
To this end, the campaign will play off voters' fears that the nation has reached a crisis point, which, unaddressed, could lead to disaster.
"What I'm trying to get people to focus on is the thought: If you don't do this now, think of what the country will look like in five years," Mr. Carville said.
So if Obama is going to rescind the Bush tax cuts, then does the tax calculator on his website use the present day Bush tax cuts as the basis, or is his tax calculator figuring what your taxes would be if the Bush tax cut were rescinded? Didn't Obama also say that his tax cuts would surpass even those of Reagan? I recall him dropping Reagan's name a few times in that sense. How does that work? Just doesn't seem to wash out.
Basically right now the middle class is paying the majority of the taxes. If you are middle class you pretty much pay almost twice the percentages of taxes that wealthy people pay. Republican politicians are NOTORIOUS for trying to cut taxes for the wealthiest people. Why? Because they are almost always wealthy...they want to pay a lower rate than the middle class. This is part of the reason the economy is such a mess right now. All these tax cuts for the wealthier people has encouraged financially risky behavior and recklessness. When you give wealthy people extra money they usually get hungry for even more money and since they have extra they will make very risky investments. This has set up a reckless culture among CEOs who have carried their bad habits into business...hence all the bank failures and risky mortgages. It was those wealthy reckless CEOs who need the bail out and by God it's them that should have to pay for it out of their taxes instead of pawning it off on the middle class who are already struggling.
Anyhow...back to what I was saying...Obama is the one who wants to give some breaks to "Joe Sixpack". McCain wants to give even more breaks to "Joe Ceo". I don't know about you, but I'm voting on the side of "Joe Sixpack" and against the bailout cost from "Joe Ceo".
I for one am tired of borrowing our futures from the Chinese, a despicable regime.
McCain wants to continue in a war that costs $10 BILLION per month, and doesn't want to leave Iraq despite Iraq practically begging us to leave, then you have to get the money from somewhere.
Do you pay your own family's bills? Or are you also living on credit like this nation.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
