The Obama Years- A GOP love story

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by firstdown

That's because you don't make that much money or have 33 to 35% of your income going to pay federal taxes. That does not even include the other state, property, or sales taxes. Some making a little over $250,000 per year are paying 40 to 50% of their income into taxes. Not sure how anyone could be for that. I know several people who make over $250,000 per year and they work harder then anyon I know and earn every penny they make.

The problem I mostly have are the tax havens and loopholes the ultra rich use to avoid taxes. You have your guys like Mitt dodging taxes like a mofo and paying some stupid rate like 14% or lower (which is why he didn't show his taxes in length).

The guys making 250k aren't dodging taxes, aren't using tax loopholes. (for the most part) Personally, I would move that tax increase to 1 million and then close ALL tax loopholes. It's never going to happen though because the people voting for it are millionaires themselves.

[NC_Skins]

Jon Stewart summarizes GOP budget plan: Jump off the fiscal cliff voluntarily | The Raw Story

Jon Stewart brilliant as always.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

The problem I mostly have are the tax havens and loopholes the ultra rich use to avoid taxes. You have your guys like Mitt dodging taxes like a mofo and paying some stupid rate like 14% or lower (which is why he didn't show his taxes in length).

The guys making 250k aren't dodging taxes, aren't using tax loopholes. (for the most part) Personally, I would move that tax increase to 1 million and then close ALL tax loopholes. It's never going to happen though because the people voting for it are millionaires themselves.

Okay, ignoring the philosophical/ethical issues underpinning the pros and cons on wealth redistribution in this fashion - let's just say we do this. You don't come anwhere near closing the revenue/spending gap. It's barely a start. I haven't googled the numbers but let's just say such a move covers 30% of the revenue/spending deficit (and I think 30% is a huge overstatement).

Where's the other 70% coming from?

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Okay, ignoring the philosophical/ethical issues underpinning the pros and cons on wealth redistribution in this fashion - let's just say we do this. You don't come anwhere near closing the revenue/spending gap. It's barely a start. I haven't googled the numbers but let's just say such a move covers 30% of the revenue/spending deficit (and I think 30% is a huge overstatement).

Where's the other 70% coming from?

There really isn't any philosophical debate on "sharing the wealth". Fact is, the rich scumbags have been dodging taxes and paying less PERCENTAGE of taxes as compared to everybody else. That's not equal. So, let those assholes eat cake for a decade(like we have) before moving the the tax rate back down EQUAL for everybody. (above poverty level) That way we can all pay the same rate and nobody has a upper advantage when it comes to taxes being paid.

More ways to save money and increase revenue.

1) Corporate taxes. No sense in corporations paying 0 taxes on 14 billion in profits. (GE) NO sense of Google paying 2% tax rate back in 2010 when they score billions. (a few examples below)
Ten giant U.S. companies avoiding income taxes: Sen. Bernie Sanders list - Lynn Sweet

A nice article here:
Majority of corporations avoid federal income taxes - study - Aug. 12, 2008

I also think they should lower the overall corporate tax, and close ALL the loopholes.


2) Subsidies to oil industry or any other corporation. I think this is self explanatory.


Also, you have to cut spending, and I'm fine with cutting spending across the board. The one interesting point to note though, infrastructure spending helps out the economy.

That's just off the top of my head. I'm sure I can (and will) think of more.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

There really isn't any philosophical debate on "sharing the wealth". Fact is, the rich scumbags have been dodging taxes and paying less PERCENTAGE of taxes as compared to everybody else. That's not equal. So, let those assholes eat cake for a decade(like we have) before moving the the tax rate back down EQUAL for everybody. (above poverty level) That way we can all pay the same rate and nobody has a upper advantage when it comes to taxes being paid.

More ways to save money and increase revenue.

1) Corporate taxes. No sense in corporations paying 0 taxes on 14 billion in profits. (GE) NO sense of Google paying 2% tax rate back in 2010 when they score billions. (a few examples below)
Ten giant U.S. companies avoiding income taxes: Sen. Bernie Sanders list - Lynn Sweet

A nice article here:
Majority of corporations avoid federal income taxes - study - Aug. 12, 2008

I also think they should lower the overall corporate tax, and close ALL the loopholes.


2) Subsidies to oil industry or any other corporation. I think this is self explanatory.


Also, you have to cut spending, and I'm fine with cutting spending across the board. The one interesting point to note though, infrastructure spending helps out the economy.

That's just off the top of my head. I'm sure I can (and will) think of more.

This is the problem. You call the rich scumbags because they work hard and pay the taxes they legally owe. So what do you call the poor who don't pay any taxes and actually receive a refund after paying nothing into the system?

I guess you also must know those Corp. profits are passed down to the stock holder and they have to pay taxes on the profits.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by firstdown

This is the problem. You call the rich scumbags because they work hard and pay the taxes they legally owe. So what do you call the poor who don't pay any taxes and actually receive a refund after paying nothing into the system?

I guess you also must know those Corp. profits are passed down to the stock holder and they have to pay taxes on the profits.

Why do you think that the ultra rich work hard? The majority of the Walton family didn't work hard, yet there they are ranking in the top 10 of richest people in the world. They inherited money. That dumb cunt Gina Rineheart (aussie) inherited her money. You know who does work hard? The employees that build their businesses up that make them ultra rich. I'm sick and tired of hearing how "hard" these billionaires work. It's a fallacy. Sure some may have worked their asses off to the top, but by in large it simply isn't true. They either lucked out, or inherited money.

Not all corps do dividends. The profits are need to be taxed. End of story. Are you ****ing really sitting up here saying that a company should get 14 billion in profits and not pay taxes? That's exactly what you are arguing with the point you are making when you retort with a "they give out dividends, which those people pay taxes on". Also, who cares if the dividends are taxed. If I get income, it's taxed. If I share my income with you as a gift, that money is now income for you and it's taxed. Welcome to the world of the same income being taxed multiple times. Should work the same for corporations. After all, ARE THEY NOT PEOPLE? The SCOTUS thinks so.


Wait, you want some guy who's living below the poverty level to pay taxes? Are you shitting me? I think you need to find out what living below the poverty level means and get back with me.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Why do you think that the ultra rich work hard? The majority of the Walton family didn't work hard, yet there they are ranking in the top 10 of richest people in the world. They inherited money. That dumb cunt Gina Rineheart (aussie) inherited her money. You know who does work hard? The employees that build their businesses up that make them ultra rich. I'm sick and tired of hearing how "hard" these billionaires work. It's a fallacy. Sure some may have worked their asses off to the top, but by in large it simply isn't true. They either lucked out, or inherited money.

Not all corps do dividends. The profits are need to be taxed. End of story. Are you ****ing really sitting up here saying that a company should get 14 billion in profits and not pay taxes? That's exactly what you are arguing and the point you are making when you retort with a "they give out dividends, which those people pay taxes on". That's probably one of the stupidest things I've seen you say to date. Also, who cares if the dividends are taxed. If I get income, it's taxed. If I share my income with you as a gift, that money is now income for you and it's taxed. Welcome to the world of the same income being taxed multiple times. Should work the same for corporations. After all, ARE THEY NOT PEOPLE? The SCOTUS thinks so.


Wait, you want some guy who's living below the poverty level to pay taxes? Are you shitting me? I think you need to find out what living below the poverty level means and get back with me.

So now the rich do nothing but the none working poor are the hard workers. I guess we should wait around for them to turn the economy around. LMAO

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by firstdown

So now the rich do nothing but the none working poor are the hard workers. I guess we should wait around for them to turn the economy around. LMAO

I didn't say they didn't do anything. I said I think there is this huge misconception that the ultra rich busted their asses off for their wealth. You think that Hostess CEO busted his ass to earn that 1.9 million dollar bonus he got from his company being liquidated? All the while stealing the employees pensions and not giving it back to them?


You are trying to twist what I say into it being that way in all cases. It's not. I've said as much but you choose to ignore what I'm saying. It's getting tiring having to keep explaining this to you.


It's the middle class and poor people that drive this economy, not the rich. It's the middle class and poor who buy most of the goods that cause these billionaires to get richer. (and stockholders) So yes, we do need to give back to those groups so they can in fact turn the economy around. Shows you don't grasp the fact that having few people own all the wealth isn't going to do shit for the economy. Salaries need to go up, even if that means telling some jackwagon billionaire that he can't have a second yacht.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

The problem I mostly have are the tax havens and loopholes the ultra rich use to avoid taxes. You have your guys like Mitt dodging taxes like a mofo and paying some stupid rate like 14% or lower (which is why he didn't show his taxes in length).

The guys making 250k aren't dodging taxes, aren't using tax loopholes. (for the most part) Personally, I would move that tax increase to 1 million and then close ALL tax loopholes. It's never going to happen though because the people voting for it are millionaires themselves.

First off Mitts not dodging taxes he is paying what he owes and he did not make the tax laws. You think that Obama and other Dems don't also take the deductions or pay the tax rate they owe and nothing more? I'm sure you also know that the reason people know how much Obama donated to charity last year was because it was on his taxes as a write off (your terms he was dodging paying taxes on that money). You also say people making 250k aren't taking tax deductions and I'd say your crazy. You don't take tax dedections? They are not loopholes they are tax code and anyone using them is not dodging taxes. Even the poor take tax deductions on money they didn't even pay to get a tax credit and refund even if they didn't pay taxes.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by firstdown

First off Mitts not dodging taxes he is paying what he owes and he did not make the tax laws. You think that Obama and other Dems don't also take the deductions or pay the tax rate they owe and nothing more? I'm sure you also know that the reason people know how much Obama donated to charity last year was because it was on his taxes as a write off (your terms he was dodging paying taxes on that money). You also say people making 250k aren't taking tax deductions and I'd say your crazy. You don't take tax dedections? They are not loopholes they are tax code and anyone using them is not dodging taxes. Even the poor take tax deductions on money they didn't even pay to get a tax credit and refund even if they didn't pay taxes.

Hiding money in offshore accounts and using loopholes is dodging taxes. I didn't say they were doing anything illegal, I simply said they were dodging taxes.....and they are.

The loopholes I'm referring to are the ones not offered or afforded to the peasants.

[NC_Skins]

Seriously, **** Obama. Hope he stumps his toe and hurts him the next 4 years. Fiscal cliff coming and this asshole is giving Congress and the feds a raise. A congress that has a 9% approval rating.

[NC_Skins]

Sen. Paul to Sec. Clinton: I would have relieved you of your post - The Washington Post


Senator Paul (the other one) drills Clinton pretty good about Benghazi. I agree with him totally. I like how she played coy about the gun shipping question.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Sen. Paul to Sec. Clinton: I would have relieved you of your post - The Washington Post


Senator Paul (the other one) drills Clinton pretty good about Benghazi. I agree with him totally. I like how she played coy about the gun shipping question.

BS, Hilary did one hell of a job!

"Hillary Kicked Republican Buttocks Today" -...

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by Giantone

BS, Hilary did one hell of a job!



"Hillary Kicked Republican Buttocks Today" - YouTube

LOL. After such biased commentary I never want to hear than ANY other news outlet is so biased ever again... in the first clip Hillary says in the same breath that it's not her fault not calling it a terrorist attack because it doesn't matter why the terrorist action happened, but it is vital that we get down to the bottom of why it happened so it never happens again.

Great job!

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by Giantone

BS, Hilary did one hell of a job!

Is that why cable requests for additional security were ignored? I wouldn't call that "one hell of a job!" If anything, I'd call it a failure to do her job. My post with the Rand Paul article wasn't about how she fared versus the opposite party. I could care less how she "fared" in the political arena, and she is right that a good amount of the questions are politically motivated. I mean, who really gives a **** if the American people were told it was a spontaneous attack or a terrorist act at first? An attack is an attack. The primary issue here is that requests for additional security were ignored, in a place that was a hotbed for potential terrorist activity.

Going to LOL at the MSNBC link. You can do better bro.