RkFast Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 No. Because some people need to be paying their fair share and not loafing off on the gov't dime that others contribute. By that line of reasoning, the rich are the ones who should be getting a tax break and the middle and lower classes should be paying more. I love how the group of people who contribute the MOST to the tax base liberals always call the ones "not paying their fair share." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 Hey! Hey my father has a 6th grade education and is a vet too boot... He would be insulted! He sounds nothing like these guys... He is actually compassionate. Maybe the guys you are ripping on were beat as a child by their father? I hear ya EiI. Notice I didn't say ALL old men with 6th grade educations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Helmet_hair Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 All this is very simple for me Obama, DO NOT take, regulate or tax out of existence my guns and ammo; Looks like I'll be needing it in a few years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheeseburger_in_paradise Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 Why bother waiting until the guy takes office and starts to help make policy? Better to start bashing now. That's especially true for those who have nothing of substance to offer, and will bash no matter what Obama decides to do. Your usuall outstanding worthless post, AD! And this is different from the past? How? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 All this is very simple for me Obama, DO NOT take, regulate or tax out of existence my guns and ammo; Looks like I'll be needing it in a few years. I'm getting me a suitcase nuke! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 All this is very simple for me Obama, DO NOT take, regulate or tax out of existence my guns and ammo; Looks like I'll be needing it in a few years. I don't think Obama gives a rat's ass about your guns. I don't know where you people GET this stuff. We're teetering on the brink of financial disaster in this country and you're worried about your guns? Fat lot of good they'll do you in a depression, unless you can actually use them to shoot game or pawn them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 I don't think Obama gives a rat's ass about your guns. I don't know where you people GET this stuff. We're teetering on the brink of financial disaster in this country and you're worried about your guns? Fat lot of good they'll do you in a depression, unless you can actually use them to shoot game or pawn them. They will use the guns to keep the thieving poor from their doors! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 I especially like the part where AD bashes posters about something that hasn't happened yet, and the last line of post #1 in his thread is, "...the silence is deafening." Before anyone has had a chance to not respond. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 They will use the guns to keep the thieving poor from their doors! They like to think that, except the real poor typically live with other real poor and they only have each other to steal from. Hence the gun nuts really don't have anybody to shoot, although hope springs eternal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bills_fan Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 By that line of reasoning, the rich are the ones who should be getting a tax break and the middle and lower classes should be paying more. I love how the group of people who contribute the MOST to the tax base liberals always call the ones "not paying their fair share." I wouldn't go so far as to give a tax "break" to the "rich," but Obama's tax cut plan will take the number to over 50% of all Americans who receive a net gain from the Federal government. This eliminates any incentive for this over 50% to watch government spending and control costs. IMHO, just about every person needs to have a minimal tax outflow to the Federal government, if only as an incentive to watch how their taxes are spent. That old line "I pay may taxes so..." Well, not really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 I wouldn't go so far as to give a tax "break" to the "rich," but Obama's tax cut plan will take the number to over 50% of all Americans who receive a net gain from the Federal government. This eliminates any incentive for this over 50% to watch government spending and control costs. IMHO, just about every person needs to have a minimal tax outflow to the Federal government, if only as an incentive to watch how their taxes are spent. That old line "I pay may taxes so..." Well, not really. I agree with this very strongly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 Not even me... I have my tasks! And to be specific, I mean the corporate welfare. It is the ones you can't see that are the most insideous one's. Not that I condone the welfare queen in the Caddy, but that is only the tip of the iceberg. What is wrong with corporate welfare exactly? Suppose a company paid *no* taxes? The people owning it would still be paying taxes on dividends and capital gains... so who exactly is gaining unfairly? And why doesn't your argument apply to non-profits? They pay no taxes but can pay no dividends - this allows them to plow the profits into executive compensation. Where is the outrage? Is it because they are generally Democrat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 If he reverses the tax breaks and gives back to the middle class at the expense of the corporations, the economy will be stimulated. Once demand gets going, the tax breaks can be given back to the corporations, allowing for job stimulation. Giving the corporations breaks when there is no demand is pretty much putting it in the pockets of the CEO's and does nothing for the economy. Demand must be stimulated first. It is the right and left wingnuts that think doing the same thing works in any situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 If he reverses the tax breaks and gives back to the middle class at the expense of the corporations, the economy will be stimulated. Once demand gets going, the tax breaks can be given back to the corporations, allowing for job stimulation. Giving the corporations breaks when there is no demand is pretty much putting it in the pockets of the CEO's and does nothing for the economy. Demand must be stimulated first. It is the right and left wingnuts that think doing the same thing works in any situation. No, giving corporations tax breaks when there is no demand does... nothing. If they are not making any money, their tax rates are irrelevant. And (still assuming they are not making any money overall) keeping the tax breaks doesn't cost the government anything in lost revenue since they wouldn't be getting anything anyway. All revoking the breaks would do is send a long-term message to the business world that this is a less business-friendly country in which to set up shop. The only tax tinkering that makes any sense is to lower income tax on the consumers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bills_fan Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 No, giving corporations tax breaks when there is no demand does... nothing. If they are not making any money, their tax rates are irrelevant. And (still assuming they are not making any money overall) keeping the tax breaks doesn't cost the government anything in lost revenue since they wouldn't be getting anything anyway. All revoking the breaks would do is send a long-term message to the business world that this is a less business-friendly country in which to set up shop. The only tax tinkering that makes any sense is to lower income tax on the consumers. I would look to offer small businesses (say with less than x number of employees) tax breaks tied to new hiring and breaks tied to no layoffs. If there is a way for a business to avoid layoffs or make new hires, I would strongly incentivize this behavior. My target would be small businesses as they support most of the job creation in the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 I'm getting me a suitcase nuke! Actually, the right to bear arms is a "collective", not "individual" right. So you wanna go halvsies on it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 Actually, the right to bear arms is a "collective", not "individual" right. So you wanna go halvsies on it? Works for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 No, giving corporations tax breaks when there is no demand does... nothing. If they are not making any money, their tax rates are irrelevant. And (still assuming they are not making any money overall) keeping the tax breaks doesn't cost the government anything in lost revenue since they wouldn't be getting anything anyway. All revoking the breaks would do is send a long-term message to the business world that this is a less business-friendly country in which to set up shop. The only tax tinkering that makes any sense is to lower income tax on the consumers. I think you just said what I was trying to say Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 I'm getting me a suitcase nuke! A snuke? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 Its a pity when the next generation fails to get as much formal education as their parents. You are a funny man Jim! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts