DC Tom Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 Don't worry, those people will be swimming in altruistic charitable table scraps if we make the Bush tax cuts permanent for all. Good thing we have a government that can force people to be charitable whether they want to be or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 Good thing we have a government that can force people to be charitable whether they want to be or not. Otherwise the Democrats would never practice what they preach: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=40889 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 (edited) But the American rich own nicer cars and bigger TVs Exactly. HUGE difference between a $30K Acura and maybe a nice TV in the living room (me) and a $80K Bimmer, a home theater room, having tons of "!@#$ You Money" laying around, a membership at the Friar's Club and a beach house in the Hamptons (NOT me). Otherwise the Democrats would never practice what they preach: http://www.humaneven...le.php?id=40889 God !@#$ing Damn you, I was just queing that AC article up to post here. Nice work. Edited January 7, 2011 by RkFast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 Exactly. HUGE difference between a $30K Acura and maybe a nice TV in the living room (me) and a $80K Bimmer, a home theater room, having tons of "!@#$ You Money" laying around, a membership at the Friar's Club and a beach house in the Hamptons (NOT me). God !@#$ing Damn you, I was just queing that AC article up to post here. Nice work. My pleasure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 (edited) The same for the definition of "poor" The American poor own cars, cell phones, and LCD TVs are they really poor? We subsidize their food and heat as they spend on luxuries. Yep. It was great hearing the 15-year old girl on state Medicaid talk about the $200 Ugg boots she was getting for Christmas. Considering my bill for her anesthesia service was about 75% of that. It's also amazing to see how many have money to smoke a pack or two a day. Or have iPhones (and thus data plans at $30/month). Edited January 7, 2011 by Doc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 Yep. It was great hearing the 15-year old girl on state Medicaid talk about the $200 Ugg boots she was getting for Christmas. Considering my bill for her anesthesia service was about 75% of that. It's also amazing to see how many have money to smoke a pack or two a day. Or have iPhones (and thus data plans at $30/month). That free healthcare is the first step to her getting a job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Yep. It was great hearing the 15-year old girl on state Medicaid talk about the $200 Ugg boots she was getting for Christmas. Considering my bill for her anesthesia service was about 75% of that. It's also amazing to see how many have money to smoke a pack or two a day. Or have iPhones (and thus data plans at $30/month). See that is the thing. The message has to be sent that as Americans we have to stop with the consumerism crap. We need to stop shopping, stop spending. Yet, that is not the message being sent. You heard how Vegas got all upset when Obama took office and he tried to convey this message about "blowing your money in Vegas." Just as the gov't needs to stop spending on crap... We consumers need to tighten it right down... Yet, all you here is mixed messages. Like the old Steven Wright joke: "I bought a dog the other day...I named him Stay. It's fun to call him..."Come here, Stay! Come here, Stay!" He went insane. Now he just ignores me and keeps typing." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 It's a simple question, meatball, no need for spin. And nobody's asking for a W2, just above or below $250K. It cracks me up that not one of you yet even claims to make $250K/year, yet all of you conservative honks cry about the higher tax for people making more. You must all be very principled people when because I doubt you care so much about somebody else's problems when it comes to just about anything else. Probably because most of us understand the "boiling frog" theory. The government has already made higher education and health care out of reach for most people, and the economic "policies" are about to make the idea of my generation ever retiring a pipe dream. The next step is reaching directly into my wallet. Frankly, I've had enough. The government has more than enough money to do what the Constitution charges it with. It simply needs to learn to live within its means, just like the citizens that supposedly control it. And if you have a kid or two in college, any kind of mortgage and live in a city of modest size or larger, $250k ain't a hell of a lot of money. If that's tough for you to understand, you're going to be poor for a long time. See that is the thing. The message has to be sent that as Americans we have to stop with the consumerism crap. We need to stop shopping, stop spending. Yet, that is not the message being sent. You heard how Vegas got all upset when Obama took office and he tried to convey this message about "blowing your money in Vegas." Just as the gov't needs to stop spending on crap... We consumers need to tighten it right down... Yet, all you here is mixed messages. Like the old Steven Wright joke: "I bought a dog the other day...I named him Stay. It's fun to call him..."Come here, Stay! Come here, Stay!" He went insane. Now he just ignores me and keeps typing." Why not just type a post stating: "I don't understand basic economics"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Why not just type a post stating: "I don't understand basic economics"? That which is understood need not be discussed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Why not just type a post stating: "I don't understand basic economics"? And you can just post stating: "I don't understand how to think critically." You are so full of carp Darin... You just can't stand it, can you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Caveman Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 The principle of "You're too rich, so anything you make above X is ours" is a bad principle whether it impacts me directly and immediately or not. It's also worth mentioning that this principle isn't one that any elected official at the Federal level (Dem or Republican) has. What we're talking about is taking a somewhat higher percentage if you happen to make more than that arbitrary number. It may seem like I'm nitpicking, but I think the difference between them taking an extra 2% from somebody making $380,000 (vs. 2% less from someone making $379,000) and taking everything over $379,000 is pretty significant. There is no income level where the govt simply takes the rest, and no one is proposing that. Good thing we have a government that can force people to be charitable whether they want to be or not. That's true, just look at all we received from the Injuns. Still working on getting Iraq to donate tho'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 (edited) And you can just post stating: "I don't understand how to think critically." You are so full of carp Darin... You just can't stand it, can you? don't say Darin is full of crap he's just one of those Alaskan small government libertarians- you know Alaska where 88% of the state is owned by the state and federal government- Alaska where people get to extort the oil companies for a stipend ( Permanent Fund Dividend)- Alaska where a third of economic activity is generated from the federal government- Alaska that has done pretty damn well at getting federal money Alaska ranked first in federal spending per capita in 18 of the 25 years from 1981 through 2005. From 2004 to 2008, Taxpayers for Common Sense reports, Stevens had a hand in 891 Alaska-oriented earmarks worth $3.2 billion. That works out to about $4,800 per Alaskan, 18 times the national average. And earmarks represent just a fraction of federal spending in Alaska, which totaled $9 billion in 2006 alone. but on the plus side Alaska has the most progressive pot laws in the country which begs the question, are Alaskans libertarians or just Hippies with bad surely attitudes. Edited January 11, 2011 by ....lybob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 but on the plus side Alaska has the most progressive pot laws in the country which begs the question, are Alaskans libertarians or just Hippies with bad surely attitudes. Bad attitude. He is smoking the crap... That is what almost 24 hours of daylight and the thunder !@#$ will do to a person. You seen the movie Insomnia... They are delusional up there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 And if you have a kid or two in college, any kind of mortgage and live in a city of modest size or larger, $250k ain't a hell of a lot of money. If that's tough for you to understand, you're going to be poor for a long time. So, you pulling $250K or are you in the poorhouse like 95% of everyone here? I'm not sure you're the big city slicker I should be taking advice from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 There is no income level where the govt simply takes the rest, and no one is proposing that. Well, yeah...except for when they have, like a few years ago when the government assumed plenipotentiary powers to arbitrarily confiscate bonuses in the financial industry they considered "excessive". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Caveman Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 (edited) Well, yeah...except for when they have, like a few years ago when the government assumed plenipotentiary powers to arbitrarily confiscate bonuses in the financial industry they considered "excessive". They confiscated bonuses? Arbitrarily? I'd like to spend some time in your reality. They tried to impose an excessive tax on bonuses from companies who owed more than $ 5 billion in bonus money. Edited January 11, 2011 by Captain Caveman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Well, yeah...except for when they have, like a few years ago when the government assumed plenipotentiary powers to arbitrarily confiscate bonuses in the financial industry they considered "excessive". Government exists to protect the government. It seems infinitely fair to do what must be done to deal with a crisis until they come after your stuff. The power grab mentioned above is a perfect example of that. I think you'd fine most of the citizens in middle America would feel their testicles shrink to the size of raisins when the words "The government is going to seize..." spoken in conjunction with "your property". * *feel free to substitute "ovaries" as you see fit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 It is a ton of money... I live 30 miles from The Loop in Chicago and a decent used house is well under a 100k now.. You can get a mansion for 250 to 300! We don't make nearly 250k and send two children to private school... And still manage to save 20%. I would be living like a bigger king if our HOUSEHOLD income was 250k! Working for the fed... I get paid by wage grade (hourly), NOT GS, set to the industry of the area where our district HQ... That is set to the Quad Cities... Believe it or not... That is more than it would be if HQ was based in Chicago! Back in the 1980's when they switched districts from Chicago... The people working here actually got a lump sump payment of the difference. 250? I can't imagine how even more secure I would be. Or better yet... If I took a job transfer down river say in Peoria or some little podunk town where the cost of living is even cheaper. I bought my house brand new in 1995, 1500 square feet, for about 150... I am still in it today... AND TAXES are about 6k in a republican collar county (Will, about a mile from Cook county) and I don't even send my children to public schools. Obviously, I am not speaking for other parts of the country... But something has been going horribly wrong the last 15 years in the rest of the country while I was in the same house here in the northern Illinois/northwest Indiana area. Maybe people move around too much and always want more. Me I am happy... I can't imagine what security and doubling + my income would bring. I know what it would bring... I'd be rich moneywise! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 It is a ton of money... I live 30 miles from The Loop in Chicago and a decent used house is well under a 100k now.. You can get a mansion for 250 to 300! We don't make nearly 250k and send two children to private school... And still manage to save 20%. I would be living like a bigger king if our HOUSEHOLD income was 250k! Working for the fed... I get paid by wage grade (hourly), NOT GS, set to the industry of the area where our district HQ... That is set to the Quad Cities... Believe it or not... That is more than it would be if HQ was based in Chicago! Back in the 1980's when they switched districts from Chicago... The people working here actually got a lump sump payment of the difference. 250? I can't imagine how even more secure I would be. Or better yet... If I took a job transfer down river say in Peoria or some little podunk town where the cost of living is even cheaper. I bought my house brand new in 1995, 1500 square feet, for about 150... I am still in it today... AND TAXES are about 6k in a republican collar county (Will, about a mile from Cook county) and I don't even send my children to public schools. Obviously, I am not speaking for other parts of the country... But something has been going horribly wrong the last 15 years in the rest of the country while I was in the same house here in the northern Illinois/northwest Indiana area. Maybe people move around too much and always want more. Me I am happy... I can't imagine what security and doubling + my income would bring. I know what it would bring... I'd be rich moneywise! So...you're advocating Bush era tax rates or increased taxation for $250k+? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 So...you're advocating Bush era tax rates or increased taxation for $250k+? Neither. I am just saying if you can't live on 250 and bring all the finer things to your life... You are in trouble by spending too much or in the wrong area. I think the problem is that people must have huge mortgages out there??? Yet... If I had to pick... I can still live with higher tax rates... Especially for the ones over 250. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts