Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5359|London, England

Spearhead wrote:

13rin wrote:

what if? what if? what if? 

GTFO.  Obama is a fuck.  His policies fail as hard as your post.

PS.  Obama is on the same time line as Bush set. sooo... more fail by you. gg.
Hey Mr. Fuck, trying addressing what rec actually said, lol

The answer is the only response the neocons have to any foreign policy crisis in the world is a full ground invasion.
Please research what the word neocon means, you sound like a tard. Hint: they were liberal hawks that left the democrats after they embraced the peace movement. This is why Medicare Part D was their signature domestic achievement. They're more like you than the tea party.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|6691|Tampa Bay Florida
Nixon's southern strategy was a much bigger influence than the peace movement, but thanks for the history lesson.

Now address what reciprocity said instead of ignoring it.

Last edited by Spearhead (2012-08-12 18:55:48)

AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6154|what

Jay wrote:

-Whiteroom- wrote:

Will anyone vote for the government who would get the US out of debt?
Nope. Since FDR our national politics have hinged on patronage rather than issues. Too many loud vested interests and people like AR yelling about poor people dying in gutters if any part of the government is trimmed (except of course, the military, a little).
I'd rather be yelling about the poor people who require government assistance than yelling that the rich should get a tax break because they want one.

I'm not under the misguided impression that giving them tax cuts will somehow allow them to shower everyone else with jobs and solve the economic issues.

If the above were true Romney wouldn't have hidden so much into offshore accounts in an attempt to avoid the already low taxes he was supposed to be paying.

Or does that transfer of wealth create jobs somehow?
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5359|London, England

Spearhead wrote:

Nixon's southern strategy was a much bigger influence than the peace movement, but thanks for the history lesson.

Now address what reciprocity said instead of ignoring it.
Address what? A bunch of what ifs?

Look, the neocons you're all bitching about make up like 5% of the Republican party. They're just vocal and visible, and McCain is anything but a neocon. He might mouth the words, just like Romney is doing, but thats just rhetoric to rile up the redneck base that will undoubtedly be ignored after taking office. Obama did the same shit on his way to the white house. Gay rights, drug liberalization, path to citizenship etc. He repealed a largely useless thing in DADT and spent the rest of his time collecting new campaign donations on another set of empty promises. Don't fool yourselves, he has no convictions, he doesn't care about you beyond your vote.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5359|London, England

AussieReaper wrote:

Jay wrote:

-Whiteroom- wrote:

Will anyone vote for the government who would get the US out of debt?
Nope. Since FDR our national politics have hinged on patronage rather than issues. Too many loud vested interests and people like AR yelling about poor people dying in gutters if any part of the government is trimmed (except of course, the military, a little).
I'd rather be yelling about the poor people who require government assistance than yelling that the rich should get a tax break because they want one.

I'm not under the misguided impression that giving them tax cuts will somehow allow them to shower everyone else with jobs and solve the economic issues.

If the above were true Romney wouldn't have hidden so much into offshore accounts in an attempt to avoid the already low taxes he was supposed to be paying.

Or does that transfer of wealth create jobs somehow?
You just proved my point. You deflected criticism of entitlement costs and tried to turn it into a class warfare argument instead. The rich! The rich! Get the rich! Did you know that if you stripped Warren Buffet of all of his wealth and handed it to Americans as checks, everyone would get a one time check for $133.33? Clearly his wealth prevents the rest of us from being wealthier
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6154|what

Jay wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Jay wrote:


Nope. Since FDR our national politics have hinged on patronage rather than issues. Too many loud vested interests and people like AR yelling about poor people dying in gutters if any part of the government is trimmed (except of course, the military, a little).
I'd rather be yelling about the poor people who require government assistance than yelling that the rich should get a tax break because they want one.

I'm not under the misguided impression that giving them tax cuts will somehow allow them to shower everyone else with jobs and solve the economic issues.

If the above were true Romney wouldn't have hidden so much into offshore accounts in an attempt to avoid the already low taxes he was supposed to be paying.

Or does that transfer of wealth create jobs somehow?
You just proved my point. You deflected criticism of entitlement costs and tried to turn it into a class warfare argument instead. The rich! The rich! Get the rich! Did you know that if you stripped Warren Buffet of all of his wealth and handed it to Americans as checks, everyone would get a one time check for $133.33? Clearly his wealth prevents the rest of us from being wealthier
If middle income earners suddenly have an extra $133.33 they'll spend it on goods and services or pay off debt. The money flows through the economy and creates demand and thus jobs.

What does Buffet or Mitt do? Keep it offshore and untaxed and unspent. What a great job creating system that is...
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5359|London, England

AussieReaper wrote:

Jay wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

I'd rather be yelling about the poor people who require government assistance than yelling that the rich should get a tax break because they want one.

I'm not under the misguided impression that giving them tax cuts will somehow allow them to shower everyone else with jobs and solve the economic issues.

If the above were true Romney wouldn't have hidden so much into offshore accounts in an attempt to avoid the already low taxes he was supposed to be paying.

Or does that transfer of wealth create jobs somehow?
You just proved my point. You deflected criticism of entitlement costs and tried to turn it into a class warfare argument instead. The rich! The rich! Get the rich! Did you know that if you stripped Warren Buffet of all of his wealth and handed it to Americans as checks, everyone would get a one time check for $133.33? Clearly his wealth prevents the rest of us from being wealthier
If middle income earners suddenly have an extra $133.33 they'll spend it on goods and services or pay off debt. The money flows through the economy and creates demand and thus jobs.

What does Buffet or Mitt do? Keep it offshore and untaxed and unspent. What a great job creating system that is...
Oh christ. Ok dude, whatever you say. American citizens can't even open bank accounts with Swiss banks anymore. Tax avoidance isn't nearly the problem that the left have made it out to be, but it makes a good talking point among people who have read John Grisham books Again, keep deflecting.

And no, $133.33 won't do shit for the economy.

Last edited by Jay (2012-08-12 21:06:38)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Hurricane2k9
Pendulous Sweaty Balls
+1,538|5703|College Park, MD
Y'know, the more I think about it, the more I realize US politics are totally fucked. Does anyone think it's ever going to get better?
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/36793/marylandsig.jpg
RTHKI
mmmf mmmf mmmf
+1,736|6738|Oxferd Ohire
politics*
https://i.imgur.com/tMvdWFG.png
-Whiteroom-
Pineapplewhat
+572|6660|BC, Canada
dickface may have it right there.
Reciprocity
Member
+721|6582|the dank(super) side of Oregon
I'm still wondering how obama is the "war starter"?  Dropping a few bombs on Libya?  Letting SF guys play around in the Congo?  funneling AKs into syria?  Where are all these wars?
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|6691|Tampa Bay Florida

Jay wrote:

You just proved my point. You deflected criticism of entitlement costs and tried to turn it into a class warfare argument instead. The rich! The rich! Get the rich! Did you know that if you stripped Warren Buffet of all of his wealth and handed it to Americans as checks, everyone would get a one time check for $133.33? Clearly his wealth prevents the rest of us from being wealthier
Well Buffet pays lesser taxes than his own secretary and still gets social security checks. 

You know what's funny?  Without the Bush tax cuts/hike in spending after 9/11 we were on our way to pay off the ENTIRE deficit by 2011.  Tax rates have little to no effect on the boom/bust cycle (but you already knew this) and are undeniably the lowest they've ever been.  The entire GOP economic philosophy is based on this principle being the key to economic growth.  Also, the TED guys point needs repeating : if rich people's earnings led to job growth, we'd be back to full employment by now.  The median income in this country is stuck at 1980's levels.  If they had earned income PROPORTIONALLY over the past 30 years, the median income would be almost twice it is now.  This is not "class warfare". 


Reciprocity wrote:

I'm still wondering how obama is the "war starter"?  Dropping a few bombs on Libya?  Letting SF guys play around in the Congo?  funneling AKs into syria?  Where are all these wars?
People who dislike Obama need to justify it by saying he's the same as Bush, even if he's not.  He inherited the worst foreign policy situation since Nixon, and the worst economic crisis since the 1930's.  The righties have no choice but to ignore this fact, so much that it's become Obama's campaign slogan.

Last edited by Spearhead (2012-08-12 23:28:29)

Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|6000|...

AussieReaper wrote:

Jay wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

I'd rather be yelling about the poor people who require government assistance than yelling that the rich should get a tax break because they want one.

I'm not under the misguided impression that giving them tax cuts will somehow allow them to shower everyone else with jobs and solve the economic issues.

If the above were true Romney wouldn't have hidden so much into offshore accounts in an attempt to avoid the already low taxes he was supposed to be paying.

Or does that transfer of wealth create jobs somehow?
You just proved my point. You deflected criticism of entitlement costs and tried to turn it into a class warfare argument instead. The rich! The rich! Get the rich! Did you know that if you stripped Warren Buffet of all of his wealth and handed it to Americans as checks, everyone would get a one time check for $133.33? Clearly his wealth prevents the rest of us from being wealthier
If middle income earners suddenly have an extra $133.33 they'll spend it on goods and services or pay off debt. The money flows through the economy and creates demand and thus jobs.

What does Buffet or Mitt do? Keep it offshore and untaxed and unspent. What a great job creating system that is...
So basically if we tax the rich more it will (help) solve the crisis, yeah?

Then why did all western countries with high tax rates for the rich get caught in the recession and why doesn't anyone seem to have enough money to fix it despite low/high tax rates for this group?

The problem and its solution have nothing at all to do with tax rates. That's just the class warfare argument which Jay was talking about. You're getting caught up in it a bit too easily.

Last edited by Shocking (2012-08-12 23:43:17)

inane little opines
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|6691|Tampa Bay Florida
There are also countries with high tax rates that are doing completely fine.  What aussie said is technically correct.
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|6000|...
There are also countries with low tax rates that have seen and are seeing lots and lots of growth.
inane little opines
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|6691|Tampa Bay Florida
That's right.  Why not lower them to zero?
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|6000|...
Why heighten them?
inane little opines
Reciprocity
Member
+721|6582|the dank(super) side of Oregon

Jay wrote:

Look, the neocons you're all bitching about make up like 5% of the Republican party. They're just vocal and visible
let's just ignore foreign policy between 2001 and 2008 and pretend conservatives have always been a pack of tea party patriots which is of course why Ron Paul is the republican candidate for president and not some guy who's sole foreign policy experience is jerking off Israelis.  that's an impressive 5%.
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6154|what

Jay wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Jay wrote:


You just proved my point. You deflected criticism of entitlement costs and tried to turn it into a class warfare argument instead. The rich! The rich! Get the rich! Did you know that if you stripped Warren Buffet of all of his wealth and handed it to Americans as checks, everyone would get a one time check for $133.33? Clearly his wealth prevents the rest of us from being wealthier
If middle income earners suddenly have an extra $133.33 they'll spend it on goods and services or pay off debt. The money flows through the economy and creates demand and thus jobs.

What does Buffet or Mitt do? Keep it offshore and untaxed and unspent. What a great job creating system that is...
Oh christ. Ok dude, whatever you say. American citizens can't even open bank accounts with Swiss banks anymore. Tax avoidance isn't nearly the problem that the left have made it out to be, but it makes a good talking point among people who have read John Grisham books Again, keep deflecting.

And no, $133.33 won't do shit for the economy.
Swiss? Try Bermuda. Romney has.

And $133.33 does exactly what stimulus spending is supposed to do, stimulate the economy.

How the Republicans can argue that cutting taxes for the rich will increase jobs is still amazing. The Bush tax.cuts haven't done shit, why not let them expire?
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6717
how about cutting taxes for everyone
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6107|eXtreme to the maX

Jay wrote:

You just proved my point. You deflected criticism of entitlement costs and tried to turn it into a class warfare argument instead. The rich! The rich! Get the rich! Did you know that if you stripped Warren Buffet of all of his wealth and handed it to Americans as checks, everyone would get a one time check for $133.33? Clearly his wealth prevents the rest of us from being wealthier
So whats your plan?
Keep the Bush tax cuts which unbalanced the budget in the first place and then cut tax further?
Its very hard to get out of 'entitlement spending' once a govt is locked into it, then again the budget was destabilised by Bush and I don't remember him as handing out cash to the stupid and lazy - except for military workfare obviously - so I don't know what your point is.

'The Rich' are almost irrelevant to the economy, they don't create jobs and the wealth they hoard is almost irrelevant.
But I still wait to hear an argument as to why they should receive tax cuts in preference to the real backbone of the economy - small and medium size businesses and their owners and employees.

So lets hear it.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
globefish23
sophisticated slacker
+334|6325|Graz, Austria

Dilbert_X wrote:

'The Rich' are almost irrelevant to the economy, they don't create jobs and the wealth they hoard is almost irrelevant.
You have to understand that by giving the economically irrelevant rich some tax cuts, gives them incentives to fund your political escapades with loads of money.
Tanks, jets and bombs for land invasions cost money.
As do body bags medals for the cannon fodder soldiers.

Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6107|eXtreme to the maX
And fund political campaigns in the first place, in return for huge handouts from govt once in office - paid for by taxes on the average citizen.

So really the average politician taxes the little guy to fund his lavish political lifestyle and to transfer the wealth of the nation to his small group of elite friends. Someone remind me why did they revolt against the British?

Jay fell for it I suppose.

Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5359|London, England
I don't even know where to start, honestly. I've made all these arguments before, multiple times...

There seems to be a lack of understanding regarding 'the rich' and what they do with their money. Most people don't seem to be able to see the world outside of the boundaries they currently live in. "If they raise my taxes I won't be able to buy a new flat screen tv, so they should tax the rich instead because their houses are already big enough and they don't need more money" ok, well, that's inaccurate. They may have more money than they know what to do with, but it's not coming at the expense of the little guy by any means.

Other people scoff at the notion that rich people provide jobs. Well, many of them don't do it directly. They're not buying new factories and staffing them with unemployed people picked up off the street. Why? Because it's a pretty shitty investment to do so. You're competing against established players and against Chinese labor. The odds of failure would be high.

So we come to the crux of the matter, the thing most people fear, hate, loathe, because of ignorance: investment. But they don't really hate it, they just listen to the left wing media rail against the excesses of Wall Street and how Main Street is suffering because of it. Whatever. Most people would like to start their own small business, be their own boss, make their own hours, build something with their own two hands, and ultimately have success. Millions of people do it every year, and a lot fail, most due to incompetence regarding how investment works. But we as a country and a globalized world absolutely need these people to take the risk every year. Without them, our economies would face negative growth.

The other form of investment is indirect investment, which 'the rich' do. I put 'the rich' in quotes, because every pension fund in the country does this as well, and most intelligent middle class citizens. If I go out and buy a bunch of municipal bonds today do you know how much I would pay in taxes on the interest? Zero. Say I bought a 20 year bond at 4% for Doesn'tmatter City, USA for $10,000. 10000(1+.04)^20 (compound interest is this easy to calculate, trust me, you can do it too) =  $21,911.23 after 20 years. So I've doubled my money, less inflation, and paid no taxes. Why? Why am I not asked to pay taxes? Because when I bought that bond, Doesn'tmatter City was able to build a new road, or a new school, or pay for a new football stadium. Doesn't matter. Without floating that bond, DC wouldn't have been able to raise the cash to build that new thing. They offer the tax free bit because municipal bonds pay less interest than other forms of investment, it keeps DC's borrowing costs down, and because there is always the risk that DC will default on the bonds and the holders will be left with nothing.

When Warren Buffett says that he has a lower tax rate than his secretary, he's not lying, but he is being an ass. He pays himself $100,000 a year in salary for being the CEO of Berkshire-Hathaway. If his secretary is single and paid <$86k a year, she'll be in the 28% bracket while he is in the 25% bracket as a married man. But he's not talking about his salary, he's talking about his investments. Buffett is a long term holder of stock. When he invests, he is going to hold his stock for at least a few years before he does anything else with it. Because he generally does well on his investments, and because he holds long term, he ends up in the 10% capital gains tax bracket. If he's holding municipal bonds, his taxes compared to his income are even lower.

Why? Why does the government allow this to happen? Why haven't they rushed out the Buffett Rule and forced it through Congress like they did with Obamacare? Because investment drives the economy, and the lower tax rate encourages people to invest rather than seek higher salaries. Those investments come with the risk of stock market crashes, defaults on bonds, bankruptcies, acts of god, whatever, there is no investment option that is entirely risk free. Hell, the US government came within a few hours of default last year and millions of people would've had their treasury bonds become worthless.



So yes, the rich are worthless, we should tax them at a 90% rate and kill their children while we're at it too. All investment should be funneled through Congress so that 'the people' have their say in how all businesses run because
corporations are evil, not people.

And fyi, the democrats are laughing at all of you because they'll trade ten grand a year in taxes for your vote happily. They're invested like Buffett and can just hold another fundraiser to make up the loss. Vote blue!

Last edited by Jay (2012-08-13 07:26:46)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Hurricane2k9
Pendulous Sweaty Balls
+1,538|5703|College Park, MD
slowclap.gif
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/36793/marylandsig.jpg

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard