OCinBuffalo Posted September 20, 2011 Posted September 20, 2011 Don't read into it so much- pretty much everyone respects our veterans and what our troops have/can do. I think heis main thing was saying that we should look to avoid wars when possible There's nothing to "read into". He said bring back the draft plain as day. That is a stupid choice and I stomped on him for it. War taxes are fine with me, the draft is not. The draft is only fine with people who: don't know any better, don't know anything but still think their opinion on the subject is valid who do know better, do know something, but are so f'ing stupid/affected by their hate for the military/insistence that it's just a jobs program, that this is the crap the comes out of their mouth who do know better, do know something, but are simply trying to score political points with idiots who don't know any better. Look there's a reason why for the last 30 years every time some tool brings this up, it ends the same day = somebody on their staff tells them to STFU, quickly. It's the same as "taxing the internet/email", every so often some idiot has a "bright idea", and then has to be slapped back into line, before the news media makes it into a Joe Biden story.
Magox Posted September 21, 2011 Posted September 21, 2011 Yes indeed. I've made that comparison myself. It really is a do-nothing Congress. So we just want to narrow the debate down to just income taxes? Forget all the regressive taxation? Forget about how this economy is hitting the middle and increasing lower classes yet the wealthy are laughing it up? Paul Ryan is drinking his lobbiest bought $400 bottles of wine while kids in local communities have to do without football coaches, policemen and afterschool chess club programs We know what's going on, the rich really are getting richer and the poor really are getting poorer and more numerous. While you want to ignore that and others are absolutely celebrating it and hoping it gets much worse on the street, others will fight it.
Nanker Posted September 21, 2011 Posted September 21, 2011 Best way to ruin the Army? Bring back the draft. We'll be right back to "The Army of the 70s" in no time. :rolloeyes: A lot of good people devoted their entire lives to bringing our Army back from the brink of complete failure. Do me a favor and don't propose things that would piss all over that legacy and erase their good, hard work. 1 of today's soldiers is worth at least 7 of them from the 70s in terms of combat effectiveness and readiness. So, even if you dishonor them by talking in terms of money, they are way more cost effective. I love uninformed opinions. They are my favorites. You dare pontificate on the service of my generation in my generation's war? !@#$ you! It was bad enough that Jane Fonda and her ilk castigated the sacrifices that my generation made for JFK's war. !@#$ YOU! You think the modern technological advances haven't had an effect on the effectiveness of the armed forces or that my generation's sufferings are less than the current one's? !@#$ YOU ****! Eat **** and die!
BiggieScooby Posted September 21, 2011 Posted September 21, 2011 Yeah, they are. Alaska Darin, we all know a former Governor from your state fits that bill.
Alaska Darin Posted September 21, 2011 Posted September 21, 2011 Alaska Darin, we all know a former Governor from your state fits that bill. Congratulations on recognizing someone on your intellectual level. Now try pointing that tiny brain at the liberals you slob over, because they're just as bad.
Magox Posted September 21, 2011 Posted September 21, 2011 Even Clinton recognizes the effects of overburdensome regulations and what they can do to the economy. In the Newsmax interview, Clinton also cautioned against new government regulations. “What I find is a lot of business people can be supportive of new regulations and new standards, but particularly in a fragile time they don’t like to have too many things changing at once,” he said. “A business can’t do five things at once and decide whether to get back into the investment business after it’s slow.” Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/64024.html#ixzz1Yb6ipv6S If he were from the opposing side of the aisle, his words would of been much more poignant than the words he chose.
Chef Jim Posted September 21, 2011 Posted September 21, 2011 From WSJ: Linky Thingy" If i were to quibble with the point is that IFS said that top earners "hide" income. I think it's very hard for people to hide income. But it's very easy for high earners to defer or to shelter the income. Again, once you lower the cost of tax avoidance (ie raise tax rates) tax hikes are counterproductive. The other fallacy of the article is that it claims that tax revenues went up during Clinton years when he raised rates on the rich. What's not said is that the increase in revenues came from capital gains, and Clinton LOWERED those rates! Yup. Affluent people have access to all types of tax shelters. If the IRS wants to change how Cap Gains are taxed and make them a higher tax to the affluent they'll just get their "income" elsewhere. They'll run simple taxable equivalent yields and will probably realize the best place to put their money would be tax free assets like muni bonds and life insurance. Great. So not only will they be pulling money out of the stock market (bad) they'll put them in assets that generate zero federal taxes. Good job. Does anyone think these things through?
Kevbeau Posted September 21, 2011 Posted September 21, 2011 (edited) Does anyone think these things through? In my limited experience with dealing with gov't projections....no. Their projections are usually calculated in a vacuum and they don't seem to grasp the concepts of demand and/or elasticity curves. Edited September 21, 2011 by Kevbeau
DaveinElma Posted September 21, 2011 Posted September 21, 2011 We know what's going on, the rich really are getting richer and the poor really are getting poorer and more numerous. While you want to ignore that and others are absolutely celebrating it and hoping it gets much worse on the street, others will fight it. Cry me a river.
OCinBuffalo Posted September 23, 2011 Posted September 23, 2011 You dare pontificate on the service of my generation in my generation's war? !@#$ you! It was bad enough that Jane Fonda and her ilk castigated the sacrifices that my generation made for JFK's war. !@#$ YOU! You think the modern technological advances haven't had an effect on the effectiveness of the armed forces or that my generation's sufferings are less than the current one's? !@#$ YOU ****! Eat **** and die! Yeah, I'll eat schit...right after you eat the schit you left for me. The "Army of the 70s" is a common phrase that anybody who has actually been in the Army knows well. In fact, I doubt you have the first f'ing clue what you are talking about. I can piss on you all I like: I have have earned the right. I dare? No. You dare. I am part of the generation of Army officers who had to clean up your mess, pal. trained with a steel pot, same as you. In fact most of our equipment was from Vietnam, especially our damned radios, so spare me the John Wayne routine. There was no major difference in technology for us until after the Gulf War. Without us, and more importantly, the officers 5 years before us, the whole thing would have imploded. We had problem child after problem child with stories of their home life you can't even imagine...because they were the kids of "when Baby Boomer's Go Wild". Half my command didn't know who their father was, but you want me to respect your generation? I will give you the Jane Fonda thing...but whose generation does she belong to, mine or yours? We were able to turn these people around and make them useful to their unit, and their country...because they volunteered, and because we didn't let them, or us, feel sorry for ourselves. I based everything I said and did on "you are a grown-up who has made a choice to be here, now you have to make the next one, what's it gonna be? Back to the schit you came from, or on to something better?" Where I was was hard enough, but I was f'ing nowhere if they were drafted. Nowhere. Therefore, I have 0 interest in bringing back the draft, and even less interest in a clown who gets butthurt when I tell him the truth.
Chef Jim Posted September 27, 2011 Posted September 27, 2011 One thing no one has brought up. If Buffet's secretary is paying 33% in federal taxes (I assume after deductions) she is FAR from middle class.
/dev/null Posted September 27, 2011 Posted September 27, 2011 One thing no one has brought up. If Buffet's secretary is paying 33% in federal taxes (I assume after deductions) she is FAR from middle class. Maybe she's paying the Jew rate
Booster4324 Posted September 28, 2011 Posted September 28, 2011 One thing no one has brought up. If Buffet's secretary is paying 33% in federal taxes (I assume after deductions) she is FAR from middle class. Pretty sure he is adding in Social Security, etc. To be fair, he should be adding any federal taxes, Gas, payroll etc...
/dev/null Posted September 28, 2011 Posted September 28, 2011 Pretty sure he is adding in Social Security, etc. To be fair, he should be adding any federal taxes, Gas, payroll etc... But he's not raising taxes on the middle class. He's making sure those rich corporate jet owners pay their fair share
Chef Jim Posted September 28, 2011 Posted September 28, 2011 Pretty sure he is adding in Social Security, etc. To be fair, he should be adding any federal taxes, Gas, payroll etc... I wouldn't be so sure. I think it's pretty safe to say that the personal secretary of the world's second richest person is far from middle class with regard to her income. This year, households making more than $1 million will pay an average of 29.1 percent of their income in federal taxes, including income taxes and payroll taxes, according to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank.
DC Tom Posted September 28, 2011 Posted September 28, 2011 Pretty sure he is adding in Social Security, etc. To be fair, he should be adding any federal taxes, Gas, payroll etc... And when you add in FICA, of course the rich pay a smaller percentage in taxes. They cap out contributions at $106k. So someone who makes $106k is paying 4% to FICA on their income above and beyond their income tax. Someone who makes $1M is paying 0.4% above and beyond their income tax. So the solution to that is...to raise income tax rates?
Chef Jim Posted September 29, 2011 Posted September 29, 2011 Florida Gov. Rick Scott was on CNBC this morning. And the financial bimbo asked him if FL has ever considered going with a flat tax. His response? "Uh, we don't have income taxes in Florida."
Taro T Posted September 29, 2011 Posted September 29, 2011 Florida Gov. Rick Scott was on CNBC this morning. And the financial bimbo asked him if FL has ever considered going with a flat tax. His response? "Uh, we don't have income taxes in Florida." It might have been more entertaining had he responded 'we already do have a flat income tax in Fla, it's 0% across the board.'
DC Tom Posted September 29, 2011 Posted September 29, 2011 Florida Gov. Rick Scott was on CNBC this morning. And the financial bimbo asked him if FL has ever considered going with a flat tax. His response? "Uh, we don't have income taxes in Florida." So have they ever considered going with a flat tax?
Chef Jim Posted September 29, 2011 Posted September 29, 2011 I guess you're both right. They did consider a flat tax and they went with zero.
Recommended Posts