GOP will sooner see our nation collapse than agree to Clinton-era taxes on wealthy

[azbob]

Misquided people like trampled can't help but, to show their idiotic perspective when they get in a debate.

His first comeback to ssd is "some people aren't that lucky."

Their view is that we all just sit around and because some are white, or educated or driven, it is really only luck that separates us from the lower class and because it is merely luck, we should all share in whatever is to be divided regardless of contribution.

For the truly needy or those that face obstacles, there are churches, charities and telethons every other week that all seem to gain millions of dollars to help. For the scammers and fiends and those that play the system, why should I continue to pay to make their life one bit better?

Besides all of that, we all pay unemployment taxes so if some working people lose their job and need help, they are merely getting back what they put into the system. Same with social security which is not an entitilement program...for those who work, just take a look at your check stub to understand that.

 

[Trampled Underfoot]

Misquided people like trampled can't help but, to show their idiotic perspective when they get in a debate.

His first comeback to ssd is "some people aren't that lucky."

Their view is that we all just sit around and because some are white, or educated or driven, it is really only luck that separates us from the lower class and because it is merely luck, we should all share in whatever is to be divided regardless of contribution.

For the truly needy or those that face obstacles, there are churches, charities and telethons every other week that all seem to gain millions of dollars to help. For the scammers and fiends and those that play the system, why should I continue to pay to make their life one bit better?

Besides all of that, we all pay unemployment taxes so if some working people lose their job and need help, they are merely getting back what they put into the system. Same with social security which is not an entitilement program...for those who work, just take a look at your check stub to understand that.

I know it's a shocker that some people are born with greater advantages than others. :facepalm:

 

[Trampled Underfoot]

For the truly needy or those that face obstacles, there are churches, charities and telethons every other week that all seem to gain millions of dollars to help.

Are you serious? :mj07:

This is what we are up against. People like this are seriously taking this country down.

 

[Duff Miver]

er is to be divided regardless of contribution.

For the truly needy or those that face obstacles, there are churches, charities and telethons every other week that all seem to gain millions of dollars to help. For the scammers and fiends and those that play the system, why should I continue to pay to make their life one bit better?

Say there, azbob, maybe you can help out. I know this young woman, mid-twenties. Her husband was recently killed in a traffic accident, caused by a uninsured driver who has no assets. Husband had only a crappy little life insurance policy of $15,000.

So she's now a widow, with three children, the oldest is six. And, after funeral expenses, no money.

She needs about $30K/year to get her children and her through the next 15 years on a minimal living standard.

How about posting an address or telephone for one of those charities which will pony up $450K?

 

[azbob]

Trampled you are seriously making this too easy...after saying that people are just lucky the next rationalization for your misguided views is always the inability to escape their environment because of disadvantages which, of course, can never be overcome.

Please don't reply because there is no doubt what your next excuse will be.

Duff...let me give you two answers since you seem to be seeking a way to help.

First...her family chose to have three children by the time she was only 25 or so and then her husband chose to have a "crappy little insurance policy." An unfortunate situation but, now the family is facing consequences as the result of those choices.

Secondly, print the city and state she lives in and within minutes, using only the internet and not relying on any knowledge of that city, that state, her family, friends, professional associations, bowling leagues, unions, churches, school groups, etc, I bet I can find at least 10 agencies that could assist her.

That is not to mention that until her three kids are (at least 18) each will receive social security payments at the expense of the taxpayer since neither parent (apparently) had paid that much into the system. She has the choice of going to work but, if not, she will recieve food stamps, aid to pay her rent, transportation aid, state Medicaid and, depending on the state a variety of other options of assistance.

Finally, if you happen to personally know this woman, remind her of the reason for insurance.

 

[Trampled Underfoot]

Trampled you are seriously making this too easy...after saying that people are just lucky the next rationalization for your misguided views is always the inability to escape their environment because of disadvantages which, of course, can never be overcome.

I see you are having trouble understanding the difference between advantages and being lucky. Why am I not surprised? :facepalm: :facepalm:

 

[Duff Miver]

Trampled you are seriously making this too easy...after saying that people are just lucky the next rationalization for your misguided views is always the inability to escape their environment because of disadvantages which, of course, can never be overcome.

Please don't reply because there is no doubt what your next excuse will be.

Duff...let me give you two answers since you seem to be seeking a way to help.

First...her family chose to have three children by the time she was only 25 or so and then her husband chose to have a "crappy little insurance policy." An unfortunate situation but, now the family is facing consequences as the result of those choices.

Secondly, print the city and state she lives in and within minutes, using only the internet and not relying on any knowledge of that city, that state, her family, friends, professional associations, bowling leagues, unions, churches, school groups, etc, I bet I can find at least 10 agencies that could assist her.

That is not to mention that until her three kids are (at least 18) each will receive social security payments at the expense of the taxpayer since neither parent (apparently) had paid that much into the system. She has the choice of going to work but, if not, she will recieve food stamps, aid to pay her rent, transportation aid, state Medicaid and, depending on the state a variety of other options of assistance.

Finally, if you happen to personally know this woman, remind her of the reason for insurance.

He had a crappy life insurance policy because that's what his employer provided...but wait...I thought you were opposed to taxpayer assisted help. Which side are you on azbob? Do you want to pay taxes to fund government help or not?

azbob: For the truly needy or those that face obstacles, there are churches, charities and telethons every other week that all seem to gain millions of dollars to help. For the scammers and fiends and those that play the system, why should I continue to pay to make their life one bit better?

Which side of your mouth are you talking out of, azbob?

There world is full of assholes. You're one.

 

[THE KOD]

Just a question: If the rich aren't paying their taxes, then just how is it that the Government is collecting about 40% of all income taxes paid from the top 1% of income earners?

Somebody 'splain that to me please.

........................................................................

I talked about this in another thread months ago
\

Ex Gov Sanders Vt

the top 400 richest Americans make more money in one year than 150 million other wage earners.

And there are only about 220 million total Americans collecting a paycheck.

Just think about this.

400 ppl vs 150 million


:facepalm:

I will try to find the link

I am pretty sure that is what he said.

 

[THE KOD]

<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/kpHXok67cvQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


Can't find the link yet but this is pretty good start

 

[THE KOD]

The 400 richest families in America, who saw their wealth increase by some $400 billion during the Bush years, have now accumulated $1.27 trillion in wealth. Four hundred families! During the last fifteen years, while these enormously rich people became much richer their effective tax rates were slashed almost in half. While the highest-paid 400 Americans had an average income of $345 million in 2007, as a result of Bush tax policy they now pay an effective tax rate of 16.6 percent, the lowest on record.



Last year, the top twenty-five hedge fund managers made a combined $25 billion but because of tax policy their lobbyists helped write, they pay a lower effective tax rate than many teachers, nurses and police officers. As a result of tax havens in the Cayman Islands, Bermuda and elsewhere, the wealthy and large corporations are evading some $100 billion a year in U.S. taxes. Warren Buffett , one of the richest people on earth, has often commented that he pays a lower effective tax rate than his secretary.


But it's not just wealthy individuals who grotesquely manipulate the system for their benefit. It's the multinational corporations they own and control. In 2009, Exxon Mobil, the most profitable corporation in history made $19 billion in profits and not only paid no federal income tax?they actually received a $156 million refund from the government. In 2005, one out of every four large corporations in the United States paid no federal income taxes while earning $1.1 trillion in revenue.
........................................................................

can any of this really be true

:scared

 

[azbob]

Nice going Duff...resorting to name calling but, I guess when you are trying to defend your position that's all you can do.

Anyway, I had some extra time today so nice playing with you.

I'll spend tomorrow reaping the rewards of going to school, working hard and doing the right thing...you can sit around and find some new people to curse at so you can feel better about yourself.

 

[Trench]

Say there, azbob, maybe you can help out. I know this young woman, mid-twenties. Her husband was recently killed in a traffic accident, caused by a uninsured driver who has no assets.

I'd say her husband made a poor choice to drive himself. Personally, I only travel by stretch limo, private helicopter or jet, or of course, one of my many yachts. :0003

 

[WhatsHisNuts]

The 400 richest families in America, who saw their wealth increase by some $400 billion during the Bush years, have now accumulated $1.27 trillion in wealth. Four hundred families! During the last fifteen years, while these enormously rich people became much richer their effective tax rates were slashed almost in half. While the highest-paid 400 Americans had an average income of $345 million in 2007, as a result of Bush tax policy they now pay an effective tax rate of 16.6 percent, the lowest on record.



Last year, the top twenty-five hedge fund managers made a combined $25 billion but because of tax policy their lobbyists helped write, they pay a lower effective tax rate than many teachers, nurses and police officers. As a result of tax havens in the Cayman Islands, Bermuda and elsewhere, the wealthy and large corporations are evading some $100 billion a year in U.S. taxes. Warren Buffett , one of the richest people on earth, has often commented that he pays a lower effective tax rate than his secretary.

SSD/AZBOB?TURFGRASS: Is this fair?

 

[smurphy]

Republicans' no-tax purity problem
By Gloria Borger, CNN Chief Political Analyst
July 12, 2011 4:11 p.m. EDT


Washington (CNN) -- So all the congressional leaders and the president are locked in a room. They all have one goal: raising the debt ceiling. They all agree it's important. They also agree that it's urgent, because by August 2, the United States will have run out of money to pay its bills.
So, as the president asked, "if not now, when?"
He might also have asked: "if not us, who?"
Alas, the "who" part is the real problem. The Republican party has evolved, before our very eyes, into a purist, anti-tax troupe that cares more about its no-new-taxes mantra than deficit reduction. It has defined itself downward, to borrow Pat Moynihan's phrase: from a big-tent, fiscally conservative party into a coalition narrowly and blindly carved to fit a political bumper sticker.
How else to explain the GOP's refusal to even consider a potential deal cooked up by the president and House Speaker John Boehner? When the Democratic president even considers a $4 trillion plan that counts $3 in spending cuts for every $1 of tax increases, serious-minded GOP deficit cutters would normally rejoice.
Instead, Republicans balked at Boehner. The speaker then had to disown his own work, which was formidable in theory: new revenues, yes, but in exchange for reforming the tax code to lower top rates. It's the obvious deal, but it could not be made.
That's because Republicans have moved beyond politics and into theology: Offered an exchange of billions in taxes for trillions in deficit cuts, they could not see their way beyond their no-tax religion. A definitional moment, to say the least.
It comes as no surprise, but it disappoints all the same. More than 230 House Republicans -- along with 40 GOP senators -- all signed a no-tax pledge. Back in 2008, John McCain refused to sign one, rightly arguing that no president should lock himself into that box.
But this time, most GOP presidential candidates are anything but pledge-averse. In fact, they've fine-tuned the business of fiscal pledging. Mitt Romney, for instance, has signed the "cut, cap and balance" pledge--a hydra-headed monster: opposition to raising the debt ceiling until there are spending cuts, caps on spending and (why not?) congressional passage of a balanced budget amendment. As for Michele Bachmann, she's holding out until the pledge also calls for repeal of health care.
How about this pledge? "I won't commit to anything that will at all anger, upset or endanger my base of support. And I hate taxes, and promise to fight against them forever and ever."
But how about a pledge to keep the country running, not to mention a pledge to try and reduce the deficit? Whatever happened to that? Republicans are fond of claiming that Obama does not pay homage to the notion of American exceptionalism. But how can you level that claim when your party is happy to let the nation default on its debts? (Or, as GOP presidential wannabee Tim Pawlenty put it, "I hope and pray and believe they should not raise the debt ceiling.") Is that what Tim Pawlenty really prays about?
Pawlenty continued, according to The New York Times: "These historic, dramatic moments where you can draw a line in the sand and force politicians to actually do something bold and courageous are important moments."
That much is true. But, sad to say, the moment has been hijacked by the purists and stolen from the rest of us.

 

[pd1]

If (R) want to cut entitlement programs and not raise taxes then make the (R) cut defense spending a proportionate amount.

In December, the Bush tax rates were extended. We were told at that time, raising taxes with the economy in its current state would not be prudent. Fast forward to today. The economy is not better and I would argue in worse shape but now it is OK to raise taxes? What happened to the argument from December?[/QUOTE]

Hands down the best quotes I have read here. If the tax cuts were going to work they would be working by now.

A hedge fund operator makes 4.9 billion in one year. WTF is up with that. Nobody should make that kind of money.

Raise taxes on any income above 1.000,000. I would guess most problems solved.

Republicans would rather take it from the social security people, and the people who least can afford it, rather than the multimillionaires.

 

[pd1]

Just a question: If the rich aren't paying their taxes, then just how is it that the Government is collecting about 40% of all income taxes paid from the top 1% of income earners?

Somebody 'splain that to me please.

Show me something that will back that up, please.


I also have a degree in turfgrass science and culture.

 

[Chadman]

Just a question: If the rich aren't paying their taxes, then just how is it that the Government is collecting about 40% of all income taxes paid from the top 1% of income earners?

Somebody 'splain that to me please.

While I don't know for sure where you are getting your figures from, I can say that at face value that the top 1% of income earners are making a disproportionate amount of income that accounts for their high income tax collections. I think your math is wrong, but I just wanted to answer your question - which I think you know already...

I'm sure that you know that the top 1% of income earners make a ton of the money - but you guys rarely talk about that - and don't seem to care that all that money is concentrated in the hands of a few people.

And of course, this does not even account for all the income these people make that they never have to account for because of all their deductions or avoidances of reporting income. The EFFECTIVE tax rates of individuals is a much more accurate rating of who pays what in this country. Effective tax rates are MUCH different than actual tax rates before people alter their "incomes."

 

[Turfgrass]

The 400 richest families in America, who saw their wealth increase by some $400 billion during the Bush years, have now accumulated $1.27 trillion in wealth. Four hundred families! During the last fifteen years, while these enormously rich people became much richer their effective tax rates were slashed almost in half. While the highest-paid 400 Americans had an average income of $345 million in 2007, as a result of Bush tax policy they now pay an effective tax rate of 16.6 percent, the lowest on record.



Last year, the top twenty-five hedge fund managers made a combined $25 billion but because of tax policy their lobbyists helped write, they pay a lower effective tax rate than many teachers, nurses and police officers. As a result of tax havens in the Cayman Islands, Bermuda and elsewhere, the wealthy and large corporations are evading some $100 billion a year in U.S. taxes. Warren Buffett , one of the richest people on earth, has often commented that he pays a lower effective tax rate than his secretary.


But it's not just wealthy individuals who grotesquely manipulate the system for their benefit. It's the multinational corporations they own and control. In 2009, Exxon Mobil, the most profitable corporation in history made $19 billion in profits and not only paid no federal income tax?they actually received a $156 million refund from the government. In 2005, one out of every four large corporations in the United States paid no federal income taxes while earning $1.1 trillion in revenue.
........................................................................

Sources we need sources!

Originally Posted by THE KOD View Post
The 400 richest families in America, who saw their wealth increase by some $400 billion during the Bush years, have now accumulated $1.27 trillion in wealth. Four hundred families! During the last fifteen years, while these enormously rich people became much richer their effective tax rates were slashed almost in half. While the highest-paid 400 Americans had an average income of $345 million in 2007, as a result of Bush tax policy they now pay an effective tax rate of 16.6 percent, the lowest on record.



Last year, the top twenty-five hedge fund managers made a combined $25 billion but because of tax policy their lobbyists helped write, they pay a lower effective tax rate than many teachers, nurses and police officers. As a result of tax havens in the Cayman Islands, Bermuda and elsewhere, the wealthy and large corporations are evading some $100 billion a year in U.S. taxes. Warren Buffett , one of the richest people on earth, has often commented that he pays a lower effective tax rate than his secretary.


SSD/AZBOB?TURFGRASS: Is this fair?

If it's true...I would like to know two things. First what hedge funds are these because I see that I need to invest my money there, and second who are these managers?

They should be drawn and quartered then we should take all their damn money and split between the rest of us. True hammer and sickle style.

Seriously, how does one negotiate a salary like that? A Billion dollars a year...really? That's Awesome! Could you imagine how much money he had to make for someone else to make a Billion dollars?

Whew!

Show me something that will back that up, please.


I also have a degree in turfgrass science and culture.

My brother from the turf industry. You ask and I shall provide for your reading pleasure...http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/incometaxandtheirs/a/who-pays-most-income-tax.htm

http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

While I don't know for sure where you are getting your figures from, I can say that at face value that the top 1% of income earners are making a disproportionate amount of income that accounts for their high income tax collections. I think your math is wrong, but I just wanted to answer your question - which I think you know already...

I'm sure that you know that the top 1% of income earners make a ton of the money - but you guys rarely talk about that - and don't seem to care that all that money is concentrated in the hands of a few people.

And of course, this does not even account for all the income these people make that they never have to account for because of all their deductions or avoidances of reporting income. The EFFECTIVE tax rates of individuals is a much more accurate rating of who pays what in this country. Effective tax rates are MUCH different than actual tax rates before people alter their "incomes."

Ah, Chad...I'm just stirin' the pot a bit. I don't care if you tax them right outta the country. I'll even agree to tax them so much so, that let's just say nobody can make more than $200,000 bucks. After that, Uncle Sugar gets the rest of the cash. How'd that be?

:0corn

Carry on.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

I just hope people are actually taking notice. The GOP wants to cut programs for the poor and refuses to talk about raises takes on the wealthy. What the fuck is wrong with some people? The audacity is sickening.

From the classic redistribution of wealth advocate--whose livelyhood depends on it.

-You earned it-
-I want it
-you owe me
-it's not my fault

--and the audacity of anyone thinking any different.
______________________

Message for the tramps of this world--we tax payers didn't take you to raise--you got 24 hours in day like everyone else.

your on the internet 24/7

If you spent half that time looking for job--you wouldn't have to live at home and be groveling for those gov benefits.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

There are 2 modes of attempting to reduce deficting spending (balancing budget not probale)

Reduce spending or raise taxes.

I'm going to take a wild stab and guess--

-- most who pay the taxes will be for spending cuts--and those paying no taxes will approach 100% for the increase in taxes.

One more time until it sinks in-
- Feed a man a fish and you fed him for a day
-Teach a man to fish and you fed him for a lifetime

liberals answer --Lets bring our 20 million illegals (oops) "undocumented" onto the cradle to grave tit.. :facepalm:

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

The 400 richest families in America, who saw their wealth increase by some $400 billion during the Bush years, have now accumulated $1.27 trillion in wealth. Four hundred families! During the last fifteen years, while these enormously rich people became much richer their effective tax rates were slashed almost in half. While the highest-paid 400 Americans had an average income of $345 million in 2007, as a result of Bush tax policy they now pay an effective tax rate of 16.6 percent, the lowest on record.



Last year, the top twenty-five hedge fund managers made a combined $25 billion but because of tax policy their lobbyists helped write, they pay a lower effective tax rate than many teachers, nurses and police officers. As a result of tax havens in the Cayman Islands, Bermuda and elsewhere, the wealthy and large corporations are evading some $100 billion a year in U.S. taxes. Warren Buffett , one of the richest people on earth, has often commented that he pays a lower effective tax rate than his secretary.


But it's not just wealthy individuals who grotesquely manipulate the system for their benefit. It's the multinational corporations they own and control. In 2009, Exxon Mobil, the most profitable corporation in history made $19 billion in profits and not only paid no federal income tax?they actually received a $156 million refund from the government. In 2005, one out of every four large corporations in the United States paid no federal income taxes while earning $1.1 trillion in revenue.
........................................................................

can any of this really be true

:scared

A: The answer is no --How many times have your brought up the oil grift and ran off when facts were presented?
B: with no link to resources I assume you want us to think you authored this?

you want the truth
C: go to gov.com look up bush tax cut tables--cut and paste before and after
--then tell us which tax bracket got the smallest tax break and which got the largest.

Yep I know see ya around -again kurby

--and while on that subject --thought you be wanting to comment on your predictions :SIB
http://www.madjacksports.com/forum/showthread.php?t=361306