American Politics during the Bush Presidency

[QUOTE=Daddy Rulz]Fucking Pelosi Congress sucks, you don't stop a war by not funding it. I'm not so naive to think we can just say "whups our bad we fucked up so now we are gonna take our shit and go." I don't pretend to understand how a country can make a monumental mistake such as our invasion of Irak and then disengage from a conflict like that. [/quote]We really must be nearing the end of the world; Daddy actually said something bad about a democrat. Are you being facetious or is the earth really flat?

[QUOTE=Daddy Rulz]I haven't forgotten Afghanistan that would be the Shrubies that forgot that place. I was never in opposition to the little regime change thingy we did there. [/quote]Why did you favor this “little regime change thingy ”? Didn ’t you say “we were attacked, by 19 Saudis and another guy from somewhere else, Trenton NJ I think ”?

[QUOTE=Daddy Rulz] Do you really write a check when you buy a new truck? Union graft must be pretty good if you can do that. But then again trucks are pretty cheap these days. [/QUOTE]Daddy with the exception of my house if I can ’t pay for it, I don ’t buy it! I subscribe to this kind of old school thinking that people should live within or below their means. (Silly me)

I dumped the union about the same time I dumped Jimmy Carter and for the most part the Democrat party. (I have however voted for some democrats since then. Gasp!)

BTW did you know a filibuster-proof majority of 60 seats in the Senate – is something we haven ’t seen since Jimmy Carter 30 years ago, and that was a fucking disaster!

If trucks are that cheap down in that desert you live in “my brother ” I would like to remind you Christmas is coming and I like red this year.

[QUOTE= Thomas Jefferson] To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, 'the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, and the fruits acquired by it.' [/quote]

[QUOTE=Sidney]So far no money pledges. BTW, I will charge no management fees. The Board will choose ''the unfortunates'', who will benefit from our ''liberal'' generosity! C'Mon guys, send me your pledges. It is the right thing to do![/QUOTE]I'm all in favor of taking DaddyRulz's, Stormy's and Stowe's money and "spreading it around" to the poor unfortunates. It's only fair for them to walk their talk! :D

Unfortunately, we cannot bring about George Bush and the conservatives socialist utopia without the active participation of the big bucks guys like Hunt, Sydney, and Jackson. We, the Daddys and Stowes et. al have contributed about all we had for money into the incompetence, greed, and corruption of the conservatives. We are tapped out and it is time you big bucks guys to step up to the plate and give as I am sure you generously will as the funnel is turned the other way.

[QUOTE=Stormy]Unfortunately, we cannot bring about George Bush and the conservatives socialist utopia without the active participation of the big bucks guys like Hunt, Sydney, and Jackson. We, the Daddys and Stowes et. Al have contributed about all we had for money into the incompetence, greed, and corruption of the conservatives. We are tapped out and it is time you big bucks guys to step up to the plate and give as I am sure you generously will as the funnel is turned the other way.[/QUOTE]Me pay taxes to the Socialist Utopia? You must be joking. I'm going to hide everything from the Obama IRS and engage in massive tax fraud, just like anybody else with a little bit of money and a lick of sense is going to do. Check out how well the economy does then! ;) As things stand, the government takes a third of everything I earn. When they jack it to 50% like The One promises to do, it's time to pack it in and turn scrooge.

On the other hand, I have no qualms about expropriating property from true believers like yourself and giving "tax cuts" (cough - welfare - cough) to the lazy amongst us. And free health insurance for 25 million illegal aliens, too, let's not forget that little bit of The Messiah's agenda.

[QUOTE=Stormy]Unfortunately, we cannot bring about George Bush and the conservatives socialist utopia without the active participation of the big bucks guys like Hunt, Sydney, and Jackson. We, the Daddys and Stowes et. Al have contributed about all we had for money into the incompetence, greed, and corruption of the conservatives. We are tapped out and it is time you big bucks guys to step up to the plate and give as I am sure you generously will as the funnel is turned the other way.[/QUOTE]Take a look at the table on this web page from a left wing, pro-Democrat group, the Citizens for Tax Justice. Look at the column labeled "Income tax":

[url]http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxshares.pdf[/url]

Note that the top 1% of taxpayers paid 39.1% of income taxes for 2007. If the Bush tax cuts hadn't been passed, the top 1% would have paid 37.4% of income taxes. Same goes for the next 4% of taxpayers. The wealthiest pay a higher percentage, AFTER the Bush tax cuts. The reason, people have more incentive to earn income if it's not all being taxed away. If you're a corporation, there's not much incentive to pay any dividends if your shareholders are going to pay 39.6% tax on the dividends (vs. 15% with Bush cuts) If the capital gains tax is lower, shareholders and business owners are more likely to sell and take a profit instead of holding on forever to avoid paying tax.

Stormy, like the Citizens for Tax Justice and most Democrats, seems to believe that it makes more sense for everyone to share a smaller piece of a smaller pie, if we can just fuck the rich. You're nuts Stormy.

[QUOTE=Jackson]Okay guys, I'll explain this again for those of you who didn't understand it the first several times.

We were attacked by a stateless organization named Al Qaeda.

To fight them, we established a battleground in another country and invited them to attack us there, which they did with all the intelligence of lemmings rushing into the sea, and where we have summarily decimated their "troops".

Get it?

Thanks,

Jackson[/QUOTE]I guess it is you who just doesn't understand.

Al Qaeda WASN'T in Iraq until after the bushman took our Sadam. We could have just stayed in Afghanistan where we ALREADY had a 'battleground' and let the crazies come to us there. There was no reason to invade Iraq just so we could 'fight them there rather than here'. That would have been achieved by our presence in Afghanistan.

Do you get it now?

Suerte.

Stowe

[QUOTE=Hunt99]I'm all in favor of taking DaddyRulz's, Stormy's and Stowe's money and "spreading it around" to the poor unfortunates. It's only fair for them to walk their talk!:D[/QUOTE]I am willing to 'walk my talk'. I am willing to pay my share of taxes. That is how this country became as great as it 'was'. Roads, water, sewer, electricity to almost every house in the country. Dams that provide us more water than any other country. All of those, and MUCH more came from government projects, not private enterprise. None of this could have happened by private enterprise because the profit margin wouldn't be there.

Except for one LITTLE fact that you just don't seem to get, under Obama's plan I will get a tax cut, unlike under McAngryOldGuy. Having said that, I think any tax cuts in our current situation is not the correct direction to go-perhaps in 2 or 3 years.

Suerte

The problem is, it just doesn't trickle-down like it used to. The Bush years have managed to provide an amazing transfer of wealth so that now one per cent have twenty per cent of the wealth. If I was in the one per cent I would be depressed as well at the looming prospect. You have my full sympathy. I, too, know the frustration of my party's political failure and the turning over of power to lunatics. Especially lunatics with the Presidency and both Houses of Congress in the same party. I'm just saying that it seems like the pendulum is swinging the other way.

[QUOTE=Hunt99]Me pay taxes to the Socialist Utopia? You must be joking. I'm going to hide everything from the Obama IRS and engage in massive tax fraud, just like anybody else with a little bit of money and a lick of sense is going to do. Check out how well the economy does then!;) As things stand, the government takes a third of everything I earn. When they jack it to 50% like The One promises to do, it's time to pack it in and turn scrooge.

On the other hand, I have no qualms about expropriating property from true believers like yourself and giving "tax cuts" (cough - welfare - cough) to the lazy amongst us. And free health insurance for 25 million illegal aliens, too, let's not forget that little bit of The Messiah's agenda.[/QUOTE]You just provide another example of the dishonesty (crookedness-corruption?) of so many Republicans. If you truly believe this and intend on doing as stated (and I suspect you mean it whether you do it or not) that indicates a total lack of have integrity or honesty. No surprise there!

Unlike you, and almost every other Repub that posts here, you never post a negative about anything Republican. I don't agree with everything that Obama (or the Dems) proposes, like his position on illegal aliens, but I disagree with ALMOST everything that the Republicans stand for in this day and age. Just look at their tactics. All they spew is fear and hate, fear and hate. That is the Republican platform nowadays: fear and hate.

[QUOTE=Tiny12]Take a look at the table on this web page from a left wing, pro-Democrat group, the Citizens for Tax Justice. Look at the column labeled "Income tax":

[url]http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxshares.pdf[/url]

Note that the top 1% of taxpayers paid 39.1% of income taxes for 2007. If the Bush tax cuts hadn't been passed, the top 1% would have paid 37.4% of income taxes. Same goes for the next 4% of taxpayers. The wealthiest pay a higher percentage, AFTER the Bush tax cuts. The reason, people have more incentive to earn income if it's not all being taxed away. If you're a corporation, there's not much incentive to pay any dividends if your shareholders are going to pay 39.6% tax on the dividends (vs. 15% with Bush cuts) If the capital gains tax is lower, shareholders and business owners are more likely to sell and take a profit instead of holding on forever to avoid paying tax.

Stormy, like the Citizens for Tax Justice and most Democrats, seems to believe that it makes more sense for everyone to share a smaller piece of a smaller pie, if we can just fuck the rich. You're nuts Stormy.[/QUOTE]Warren Buffett believe that he, and all the rich, should be contributing more in taxes. He fears for the economic survival of middle class which is what made the US the economic powerhouse of the world. Without the middle class, the US would be a microcosm of what it is.

The Reagan trickle down theory has been proven to be nothing but a shame. And all stats indicate that the rich are getting richer and the poor and middle class are going bye, bye. Salaries the last 10 years for the middle class have decreased, when adjusted for inflation, while for the rich they have increased at a higher rate that any time in, something like, the past 40 years.

I would not consider him 'crazy'.

[QUOTE=Sidney]Not $1 of pledges yet. The unfortunates need you help! Maybe you guys are ''all talk, no action''![/QUOTE]Why would we send you anything? If you follow standard conservative actions-the minute you got our money it would be confiscated for personal use.

Perhaps there are others out there naive enough to believe you would use any money we provide you to benefit anyone other than yourself.

FYI - I already have organizations I donate to to help others. What about you and all the other conservatives?

Hmm? No? Sorry I asked!

Suerte.

Stowe.

The conservative motto is not "1 for all and all for 1" but rather "1 for me and all for me".

With respect to Alexandre Dumas.

[QUOTE=Stowe]You just provide another example of the dishonesty (crookedness-corruption? Of so many Republicans. If you truly believe this and intend on doing as stated (and I suspect you mean it whether you do it or not) that indicates a total lack of have integrity or honesty. No surprise there!

Unlike you, and almost every other Repub that posts here, you never post a negative about anything Republican. I don't agree with everything that Obama (or the Dems) proposes, like his position on illegal aliens, but I disagree with ALMOST everything that the Republicans stand for in this day and age. Just look at their tactics. All they spew is fear and hate, fear and hate. That is the Republican platform nowadays: fear and hate.[/QUOTE]You honestly think that anybody is going to work harder if half (or even more) of what they earn gets sucked down by the gaping maw of Big Government? Pshaw! At least I'm honestly telling you that I won't contribute to the larger economy when I have no incentive to do so. Most every guy who has capital and gumption will react the same way, and the results for the larger economy will not be pretty.

I've never been hired for a job by a poor man. And I doubt he's going to hire me now that he gets a check from Washington for sitting on his lazy ass (oops - "tax cut!").

A wise man said not so long ago: "A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have." Capital is not static and doesn't respect national borders anymore. If the U. S. Government wants to steal my money with an outrageous level of taxation, there's no reason for me to sit still and allow them to take it and "spread it around" to somebody whose only claim to it is that he has a pulse. :D

No "fear and hate" in that - it's simple economics. And that's exactly why a guy like Joe the Plumber was able to put a human face on the Marxist policies of B. Hussein Obama.

[QUOTE=Hunt99]I've never been hired for a job by a poor man.[/QUOTE]No, but based on your prior post where you stated "I'm going to hide everything from the Obama IRS and engage in massive tax fraud, just like anybody else with a little bit of money and a lick of sense is going to do" you indicate that you intend to break the law and not pay your taxes, you evidently wouldn't be above stealing from a poor man.

[QUOTE=Stowe]No, but based on your prior post where you stated "I'm going to hide everything from the Obama IRS and engage in massive tax fraud, just like anybody else with a little bit of money and a lick of sense is going to do" you indicate that you intend to break the law and not pay your taxes, you evidently wouldn't be above stealing from a poor man.[/QUOTE]Hey Stowe baby, you seem to be hung up on personal slights, amigo! Did I fuck your private chica one time and get you upset?

I'm telling you how it is - shorn of the legalese and accounting sleight-of-hand. If you make it more expensive to make an honest living than to not make one at all, people with capital are going to do what it takes to protect it. Nobody is going to devote themselves to work just to enrich the tax man, not unless they have a screw loose. It's called capitalism, amigo!

Do you want prosperity? Drop the income tax code, enact a 10% sales tax on everything (or 15% , or whatever it is - including all financial transactions and everything else) and have at it. This nation will have prosperity like it has never seen.

This idea that the government is the source of all wealth, and that proper economic policy is to "spread it around" is simple Marxism. Heck, even the Chinese don't believe in that stuff anymore, but it's still taught as gospel at Columbia and Harvard. And advocated, in a prettified way, by their most prominent graduate.

Anyway, pleasure debating with you this afternoon, friend. I have to stop now and get dressed. I've got a hot chick I have to take out for dinner and then I have to ride her fine ass and blow some spooge in it in the back seat of my BMW. Filthy girl she is, she likes me to punish her!

I'll order a bottle of Dom and drink to your health! :D

We have all paid higher tax rates than the max that O is talking about. Since hunt99's agi is over $250,000. Why would he be concerned about saving 20 pesos. I am confused. The USA is economically falling apart. We are engaged in three wars. I need not say more.

I guess once a crook always a crook. Please do not discuss your plans to commit tax fraud or other serious crimes in the future on this board. I would hate to see this board busted. You can voice all of your negative emotions without planning criminal behavior here. This is the sort of thing that would cause a raid on the servers.

[QUOTE=Miami Bob]We have all paid higher tax rates than the max that O is talking about. Since hunt99's agi is over $250,000. Why would he be concerned about saving 20 pesos. I am confused. The usa is economically falling apart. We are engaged in three wars. I need not say more.

I guess once a crook always a crook. Please do not discuss your plans to commit tax fraud or other serious crimes in the future on this board. I would hate to see this board busted. You can voice all of your negative emotions without planning criminal behavior here. This is the sort of thing that would cause a raid on the servers.[/QUOTE]LOL! I'm the last guy who haggles over 20 pesos. No Dom for you! You can drink that $5 a bottle stuff that has a ship on the label.

[QUOTE=Hunt99]Hey Stowe baby, you seem to be hung up on personal slights, amigo! Did I fuck your private chica one time and get you upset?

I'm telling you how it is - shorn of the legalese and accounting sleight-of-hand. If you make it more expensive to make an honest living than to not make one at all, people are going to do it. Nobody is going to devote themselves to enriching the tax man, not unless they have a screw loose.

Do you want prosperity? Drop the income tax code, enact a 10% sales tax on everything (or 15% , or whatever it is - including all financial transactions and everything else) and have at it. This nation will have prosperity like it has never seen.

This idea that the government is the source of all wealth, and that proper economic policy is to "spread it around" is simple Marxism. Heck, even the Chinese don't believe in that stuff anymore, but it's still taught as gospel at Columbia and Harvard. And advocated, in a prettified way, by their most prominent graduate.[/QUOTE]

If I got a bit personal it was because I felt you attacked first - this time, as well as the last time a few months ago-the last time we traded barbs. I try not to initiate invectives (unless I am totally drunk-hehe) but I will respond accordingly and persistently (sometimes unfortunately!) If you attack someone, shouldn't you expect like in return?

You and I have a basic difference of opinion which is perfectly fine-I really enjoy most of these types of discussions-even with someone I disagree with. I would much prefer to disagree cordially.

I do have one question. If high taxes will negatively impact the economic / social health of a society, why do the Scandinavian countries have a higher standard of living (except Denmark) than the US, cheaper healthcare, free education and pay SIGNIFICANTLY more taxes?

I definitely do NOT like taxes but they are a necessary evil. Without taxes we would not have, what is considered by most, the best infrastructure in the world (unfortunately declining severley) Where almost EVERY single person has sewer, municipal water, electricity, roads, etc.

Stowe

[QUOTE=Stowe]Warren Buffett believe that he, and all the rich, should be contributing more in taxes. He fears for the economic survival of middle class which is what made the US the economic powerhouse of the world. Without the middle class, the US would be a microcosm of what it is.

The Reagan trickle down theory has been proven to be nothing but a shame. And all stats indicate that the rich are getting richer and the poor and middle class are going bye, bye. Salaries the last 10 years for the middle class have decreased, when adjusted for inflation, while for the rich they have increased at a higher rate that any time in, something like, the past 40 years.

I would not consider him 'crazy'.[/QUOTE]Buffet's "beliefs" about taxes are self serving or result from his personal experience. A couple of examples -- he does believe dividends paid to individuals should be taxed at a higher rate. Buffet's wealth has been from his ownership in Berkshire Hathaway. Berkshire is a corporation. Corporations have historically have gotten a 70% to 85% exemption from taxes on dividends. So while some poor schmo like me was paying 39.6% tax on my dividends, Buffet was getting away with a rate of more like 5% to 10%. If the dividend were a compelling reason to buy the shares, then Buffet could pay more than me. A high tax on dividends provides him with a competitive advantage.

You can expand this to individual taxes in general. What does Buffet care if the individual tax rate is 39.6% or 50% or 70%? He owns Berkshire Hathaway. What he gets directly in ordinary income, interest income, etc., is insignificant to him -- it's puny, tiny, infintesimal compared to what he has in Berkshire.

And the death tax. He'll leave some miniscule percentage of his wealth to his kids, a $100 million a piece or whatever, and the rest goes to the Gates Foundation. He favors the wealth tax, hey, it's a great way to get other billionaires to leave money to charity, so the government doesn't take 45% of it. But what about family businesses worth, say, $5 million, $50 million, $100 million, whatever. After they finish paying the 45% , they're wiped out. Their businesses are destroyed. Buffet has made a lot of money buying up private businesses on the cheap and incorporating them into Berkshire Hathaway. Why? I'd bet in many instances because the families couldn't pay the death tax. So they sell out to Buffet but they keep on working for him -- they were masters of their own destinies. Now they're slaves, albeit slaves with a lot of money.

About your other point, rising inequality. First the slanted studies you refer to
always use households, not individuals, for comparison. Since there are more households headed by single persons, the households aren't getting richer but the individuals are. Second they're based on income before tax. As a result of tax cuts by Bush etal, 50% of the population pays no or little income tax. If you look at the figures on an after tax basis they don't look so bad. Third, there have been improvements in purchasing power that the statistics don't capture, for example, the quality of a car or a television now vs. 20 or 30 years ago. Fourth, what you're blaming on Republicans shouldn't be blamed on Republicans. The studies you're talking about show a lot of the rising inequality occurring under Clinton or under governments where neither Republicans nor Democrats controlled both the executive and legislative branches. And for that matter most of this the politicians have no control over -- it results from changes in an industrial, labor intensive economy to something more knowlege based.

So really Stowe, what you want to do is tax the rich more so they'll become poorer, regardless of whether or not it will increase tax revenue. What you're after is to make everyone equal, regardless of whether that also makes everyone poorer. Hunt has valid points. The Laffer curve is real.

[QUOTE=Stowe]I do have one question. If high taxes will negatively impact the economic / social health of a society, why do the Scandinavian countries have a higher standard of living (except Denmark) than the US, cheaper healthcare, free education and pay SIGNIFICANTLY more taxes?[/QUOTE]First of all, that's not true, except for Norway, which is the Abu Dhabi of Europe (lots of oil) After adjusting for purchasing power, the U. S. Has a higher standard of living. Second, why do Chinese in Singapore and Hong Kong and Swiss make a lot of money? Because they work their butts off and they value education. The Scandinavians too value education, and by European standards they're industrious. I did read some research that indicated these countries benefitted economically when they lowered tax rates, but I'm too lazy to look it up.

How about comparing the rate of growth in high tax states, like Scandinavia, France, Germany, etc., to low tax countries, like Singapore, Hong Kong, Ireland or most of eastern Europe? There is a strong correlation between lower taxes and stronger economic growth.

[QUOTE=Tiny12]First of all, that's not true, except for Norway, which is the Abu Dhabi of Europe (lots of oil) After adjusting for purchasing power, the U. S. Has a higher standard of living. Second, why do Chinese in Singapore and Hong Kong and Swiss make a lot of money? Because they work their butts off and they value education. The Scandinavians too value education, and by European standards they're industrious. I did read some research that indicated these countries benefitted economically when they lowered tax rates, but I'm too lazy to look it up.

How about comparing the rate of growth in high tax states, like Scandinavia, France, Germany, etc. To low tax countries, like Singapore, Hong Kong, Ireland or most of eastern Europe? There is a strong correlation between lower taxes and stronger economic growth.[/QUOTE]Absolutely wrong based on the HDI (Human Development Index) which calculates we are 12th with all but Denmark with a higher standard of living.

Here is the calculation used-it measures life expectancy, education and standard of living based on the GDP-this is the formula used by all internation organizations (and the UN) to measure and compare:

In general, to transform a raw variable, say x, into a unit-free index between 0 and 1 (which allows different indices to be added together) the following formula is used: x-index = \frac{x - \min\left (x\right)} {\max\left (x\right)-\min\left (x\right)}

Where \min\left (x\right) and \max\left (x\right) are the lowest and highest values the variable x can attain, respectively.

The Human Development Index (HDI) then represents the average of the following three general indices:

* Life Expectancy Index = \frac{LE - 25} {85-25}

* Education Index = \frac{2} {3} \times ALI + \frac{1} {3} \times GEI.

O Adult Literacy Index (ALI) = \frac{ALR - 0} {100 - 0}

O Gross Enrollment Index (GEI) = \frac{CGER - 0} {100 - 0}

* GDP Index = \frac{\log\left (GDPpc\right) - \log\left (100\right)} {\log\left (40000\right) - \log\left (100\right)}

LE: Life expectancy at birth.

ALR: Adult literacy rate (ages 15 and older)

CGER: Combined gross enrollment ratio for primary, secondary and tertiary schools.

GDPpc: GDP per capita at PPP in USD

Stowe, OK, I'm just considering your last variable, Per capita GDP adjusted for PPP.

The first three items on your list are life expectancy (i.e. health care), education, and literacy (i.e. education), and I don't understand the rest of the list, except for per capita GDP. We spend more per capita on health care than any country in the world. Adjusted for PPP, I bet we spend more per capita on education too. So do you think raising taxes and spending more on health and education are the solutions to our problems? That's what most democrat politicians think, we should just throw more money down a bottomless pit without fixing the root causes of the problem. Especially when it's their constituencies that benefit from the problems, like the members of the National Education Association and the trial lawyers who sue doctors, hospitals, drug and insurance companies.

And about your other post,

[QUOTE=Stowe]FYI - I already have organizations I donate to to help others. What about you and all the other conservatives?

Hmm? No? Sorry I asked!

The conservative motto is not "1 for all and all for 1" but rather "1 for me and all for me". [/QUOTE]I've donated more to nonprofits in the last two years than you will in your entire life. The arch conservative administrator of this site has spearheaded efforts at helping the poverty stricken. There are many conservatives that donate to help others. We'd prefer to use our money where it will actually do some good, instead of having government waste it.

[QUOTE=Tiny12]I've donated more to nonprofits in the last two years than you will in your entire life. [/QUOTE]Why don't you just ignore my posts since you obviously missed the fact that those numbers were not mine but what the WORLD uses to measure standards-of-living.

Why don't you move on from my posts.

Suerte,

Stowe

No, YOU missed the point. I guess Cuba has one of the highest standards of living anywhere, as in terms of life expectancy, education and literacy it stacks up better than about 90% of the rest of the world. Scandinavian countries have a higher "standard of living" by your definition because they've done something right in education and health care, even though we throw more money at those problems than they do. Attributing the difference to taxes makes absolutely no sense.

Sorry Stowe, I know we're about to be out in the wilderness after this election, and I'm taking it all out on you. That's a lot safer than taking it out on somebody you know in real life that can beat the shit out of you.

[QUOTE=Tiny12]So while some poor schmo like me was paying 39.6% tax on my dividends.[/QUOTE]Is that really true, Tiny, or are you just bullshitting us?

Yes, I'm calling your bluff.

Because if it is so, you are such a "POOR SCHMO" that your taxable income was among the top 1% of all taxpayers in the entire United States of America! If that is the case, you should count your blessings that out great system has enabled you to earn such incredible wealth, and quit being such a UNGRATEFUL fucking CRYBABY!

My bet is that you didn't come close to earning that much or you would be WAY too busy to be writing your complaints here.

Your line about paying 39.6% has about as much credibility as the now infamous "Joe the Plumber," who is in the 15% bracket and still hasn't paid his taxes; has no money to buy a business; is not a licensed plumber; and isn't even named Joe, for Chrissakes!

Conservatives live in such a fantasy world, don't they?

If you actually did have an income among the top 1% in America, you would know that because of our graduated income tax brackets, even the 1% of the taxpayers who hit the marginal rate of 39.6% on their top dollars only average paying 25% on their overall income. You can even look it up:

[url]http://www.cbpp.org/3-6-01tax2.htm[/url]

A pretty cheap price to pay to live in such a great country that provides the infrastucture, freedom, and public supports to become one of the wealthiest people on the planet!

Now, the fact that you use an inflamatory term such as "death tax" when referring to the [i]estate tax[/i] shows that you are on a political mission and not actually interested in a reasonable policy discussion.

I HIGHLY doubt that you are among the 440 richest families in America. After all they are the only ones with enough assets to be subject to the estate tax. You can look that up to:

[url]http://www.factcheck.org/article328.html[/url]

Furthermore, you would know that no tax of any kind has been paid upon the capitol gains in an estate, due to the "step up" cost basis at the time the estate passes to the heirs.

Thus, an estate tax serves as a replacement for the income tax which was never imposed on the capitol gains of those 440 families a year who would be so lucky to command such a store of wealth.

DB.

P. S. To Stowe: Are all these conservatives born so totally full of shit, or do they really have to work at being completely oblivious?

DB, You're the one that's full of it. Read the thread. Go back to the original post that got Stowe on my case. The left wing, Democrat supported Citizens for Tax Justice published data showing the wealthy in 2007 paid a higher % of income taxes after the Bush tax cuts than they would have under the tax regime that was in effect under Clinton. You take a 39.6% marginal tax rate, in effect up to the year 2000, add to it state income tax, and you've got people paying close to half their marginal income in taxes. As Hunt says, they start doing what they can to avoid paying taxes. With a lower tax rate the government collected more income tax from the rich than it would have with higher tax rates, according to a bunch of lefties (Citizens for Tax Justice)

You and other Democrats want to tax the wealthy more, even if it means everyone ends up with less after tax income. That makes a lot of sense, huh?

I say Warren Buffet effectively pays 5% to 10% tax on dividends, and poor schmo's like me were paying 39.6% (before Bush tax cuts). Guess I should have deleted the words "like me", as that really wasn't necessary to make the point, and maybe you wouldn't have written an essay on how I'm a liar and a UNGRATEFUL fucking CRYBABY.

Only the 440 richest families are subject to the death tax? That's bull shit. Anybody with an estate worth over $2 million is subject to it. I've read that the costs associated with the estate tax are about as high as the revenue raised. I'm not sure I believe that's true, but either way it wouldn't make any difference to you -- I guess as long as we're soaking the rich you're all for it.

[QUOTE=Stowe]I guess it is you who just doesn't understand.

Al Qaeda WASN'T in Iraq until after the bushman took our Sadam. We could have just stayed in Afghanistan where we ALREADY had a 'battleground' and let the crazies come to us there. There was no reason to invade Iraq just so we could 'fight them there rather than here'. That would have been achieved by our presence in Afghanistan.

Do you get it now?

Suerte.

Stowe[/QUOTE]It seems that I have to explain everything to those who appear to be deliberately obtuse.

Afghanistan wasn't a sufficiently large enough prize to motivate Al Qaeda into committing "suicide by US military confrontation". Simply put, they didn't give a fuck if we succeeded in Afghanistan. Iraq however, was a different story in that they knew that if we were successful in establishing a secular democracy there that it would mark a major turning point in the ultimate demise of their radical philosophy.

Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=Tiny12]Take a look at the table on this web page from a left wing, pro-Democrat group, the Citizens for Tax Justice. Look at the column labeled "Income tax":

[url]http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxshares.pdf[/url]

Note that the top 1% of taxpayers paid 39.1% of income taxes for 2007.[/QUOTE]My question for all the liberals posting here is simple:

What percentage of the total income taxes should be paid by the top 1% of all taxpayers?

Should the top 1% pay 50% of the total bill?

60%?

90%?

Go ahead, put a number on it so we all know what you think is fair.

Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=Tiny12]Only the 440 richest families are subject to the death tax? That's bull shit.[/QUOTE]You don't read. I am not surprised.

I went to the trouble of doing the research for you, but it was too much trouble for you to click the link and educate yourself. So I will copy and paste the paragraph right here for you:

"And though the ad focuses on family farms and businesses, the truth is that very few actually pay the estate tax. The Tax Policy Center projects that roughly 440 taxable estates were primarily made up of farm and business assets in 2004."

BTW, I did not call you a liar. You can't find that word in my post. But I did have a hunch you were full of shit and called your bluff.

Hmmm, are you telling me my hunch was right?

[QUOTE=Tiny12]Guess I should have deleted the words "like me", as that really wasn't necessary to make the point, and maybe you wouldn't have written an essay on how I'm a liar and a UNGRATEFUL fucking CRYBABY.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Dodger Bulldog]You don't read. I am not surprised.

BTW, I did not call you a liar. You can't find that word in my post. But I did have a hunch you were full of shit and called your bluff.[/QUOTE]Here's what you wrote:

"the 440 richest families in America ... are the only ones with enough assets to be subject to the estate tax."

Please go back to your link, read the web page, and let me know whether what you wrote is true. Or even remotely close to what it says on that site.

[QUOTE=Jackson]My question for all the liberals posting here is simple:

What percentage of the total income taxes should be paid by the top 1% of all taxpayers?[/QUOTE]Jackson, that is way TOO easy!

Let me take you back to a period in time when unemployment went lower than economists predicted it ever could, below the 4% "full employment" line. McDonalds and other companies had to pay a couple dollars over minimum wage just to find workers.

But it didn't hurt their profits any. Business profits were at an all-time high, to the point that the Dow Jones average more than tripled from 93-01.

Some say Republicans are good for the economy and Wall Street, but today the market is quite a bit below where it was when the conservatives wrested away control and took office in 2001, isn't it?

How is everyone's 401k doing out there?

Oh, and it had seemed completely impossible at the time, but the Treasury went from record deficits under Daddy Bush (remember Ross Perot's charts in the '92 election) to surpluses for as far as the eye could see.

Until W. Destroyed the surplus and had us back in a deficit within three months in office.

Yes, Jackson, it is simple. Let's go back to the tax rates that brought us incredble prosperity in the 90's - the Clinton years!

If only we could go back in time to January '01 and start the millennium over agan, huh?

Too bad we can't.

But we can repeal EVERYTHING that Bush and the conservatives foisted on us to throw our economy under the bus, and QUIT pouring $10 billion a month into the spider hole he created for us in Iraq!

Now, I would like to ask you a question.

George H. W. Bush lost reelection because we remembered reading his lips and he did introduce a small tax increase for everyone.

But Clinton targeted his increase for only the upper income earners which brought us all of that prosperity, we have been cutting tax rates at both the federal and state level since Reaganomics took precedence in '80.

So when would you have us stop cutting taxes? I would like to see you pick a number.

Do you want the maximum rate to be 10%? 5%? 1%?

Or no taxes at all? 0.000000000%?

DB

[QUOTE=Tiny12]Here's what you wrote:

"the 440 richest families in America. Are the only ones with enough assets to be subject to the estate tax."

Please go back to your link, read the web page, and let me know whether what you wrote is true. Or even remotely close to what it says on that site.[/QUOTE]Well Tiny, that is because there were two links in my original post, and you clicked on the WRONG one.

For some reason you were not capable of clicking on both links.

I copied and pasted paragraph six from the second link.

That is what quote marks mean, Tiny. They tell you I did not write any of it, I quoted it.

Apparently, you are so lacking in intellectually curiousity and initiative that you didn't even go back to read my post to learn how you screwed up.

Just dash off a thoughtless post that contains no meaning.

Congratulations. You just demonstrated that you are the perfect symbol of exactly how deep and insightful conservative thought is!

This is a hopeless discussion. I have no more time to waste on one who refuses to read for comprehension.

DB

[QUOTE=Sidney]The Muslim Liar's bullshit oratory will convince the financial community that all is ok! He will lead us to the ''promised land''! But, sometimes I get confused? Are the markets down partly because of his possible election? But then, I remember Musliah's prophecy--

''He will bring Change''![/QUOTE]Give up your citizenship?

So much hatred. Post after post. What motivates all this?

[QUOTE=Punter 127]

Government involvement is the reason we're dependent on foreign oil,

[/QUOTE]See the world as it really is old man.

Q1 What is real reason the USA is dependent on foreign oil?

Answer because there are not enough reserves of oil within the borders of the USA.

Q2 Why did the USA invade Iraq.

Answer because there are not enough reserves of oil within the borders of the USA.

[QUOTE=Jackson]My question for all the liberals posting here is simple:

What percentage of the total income taxes should be paid by the top 1% of all taxpayers?

Should the top 1% pay 50% of the total bill?

60%?

90%?

Go ahead, put a number on it so we all know what you think is fair.

Thanks,

Jackson[/QUOTE]Top 1% should pay 33.3%

Next 19% should pay 33.3%

Bottom 80% should pay 33.3%

Lower taxes are not the answer to everything.

It is hard to see the US lowering taxes in the years after this credit crisis.

At some point the party comes to an end and the US will repay its debts.

And as a foreigner it is obvious how you will do this.

US debt is in US dollars.

The US will simply depreciate the value of its currency and then repay its debts.

With the consequence of lower living standards for America's citizens.

With the consequence of 'burning' foreign creditors.

1. Punter those 19 Saudis and 1 guy from Trenton trained in Afghanistan with the blessing of the regime in power those Taliban fellas, so that regime change thingy we did was proportional to the attack that was planned, rehearsed and launched from their country. The war in Afghanistan is and was righteous, abandoning it to attack Iraq was folly.

1b. Pelosi sucks and I don't see the Dems doing SHIT with the house and senate (lower case not an accident, they don't deserve capitals in the capitol) I want to vote for Colin. Since he's not running I'm gonna give the other brother a chance.

1c. Fire engine red? So it matches your lipstick? Hahahahahahaha.

2. Sid if your serious about managing a fund like that send me an email about who you would pick as unfortunates. I would send you checks up to, I don't know, say 5% of my take home. I don't make much but this sounds like a great idea, would you match it with 5% of your income. I really think it's a great idea and I'm serious about helping out. If you get tax exempt status so I can write it off (that pesky 39% bracket thingy) On the other hand if it's just some bullshit way to piss people off and you'll spend the money on Dominicanas with big butts count me out.

3. Jax, sorry bubba but that guy Al Quada was already in Afghanistan, havng shwarma with Joe Jihadist. What you're saying is that we needed to get them out of the country they were in and where our troops already were, into another country in order to attack them? I never went to college and I'm not very smart but that doesn't make any sense brother. There was already a secular government in Iraq, the Baathist, Saddam didn't wear one of those robes and funny hats like the Reverend Mothers from the movie Dune. Those guys were some party animals, drinking, whoring, raping, gambling, smoking hash kinda guys. We got rid of the secular government in Iraq and most likely when we leave there will be a Islamic Government there. Shaira pretty much cuts out all the fun stuff.

3b. I just gotta ask it again, we couldn't attack them in the place they were but had to entice them to move to another place (along with our Army) in order to let them commit suicide by flinging themselves on our bayonets? Because Afghanistan wasn't a big enough prize because they were there already?

Who else. Stowe you fucking lost me with those number thingys.

It was great to see Paul Krugman win the Nobel.

[QUOTE=Dodger Bulldog]Jackson, that is way TOO easy!

Let me take you back to a period in time when unemployment went lower than economists predicted it ever could, below the 4% "full employment" line. McDonalds and other companies had to pay a couple dollars over minimum wage just to find workers.

But it didn't hurt their profits any. Business profits were at an all-time high, to the point that the Dow Jones average more than tripled from 93-01.

Some say Republicans are good for the economy and Wall Street, but today the market is quite a bit below where it was when the conservatives wrested away control and took office in 2001, isn't it?

How is everyone's 401k doing out there?

Oh, and it had seemed completely impossible at the time, but the Treasury went from record deficits under Daddy Bush (remember Ross Perot's charts in the '92 election) to surpluses for as far as the eye could see.

Until W. Destroyed the surplus and had us back in a deficit within three months in office.

Yes, Jackson, it is simple. Let's go back to the tax rates that brought us incredble prosperity in the 90's - the Clinton years!

If only we could go back in time to January '01 and start the millennium over agan, huh?

Too bad we can't.

But we can repeal EVERYTHING that Bush and the conservatives foisted on us to throw our economy under the bus, and QUIT pouring $10 billion a month into the spider hole he created for us in Iraq!

Now, I would like to ask you a question.

George H. W. Bush lost reelection because we remembered reading his lips and he did introduce a small tax increase for everyone.

But Clinton targeted his increase for only the upper income earners which brought us all of that prosperity, we have been cutting tax rates at both the federal and state level since Reaganomics took precedence in '80.

So when would you have us stop cutting taxes? I would like to see you pick a number.

Do you want the maximum rate to be 10%? 5%? 1%?

Or no taxes at all? 0.000000000%?

DB[/QUOTE]It figures, I've been asking liberals this question for years, and I've never received a straight answer.

The answer to the same question, which you failed to answer while simultaneously bouncing it back to me is: [b]We should all pay the same percentage![/b]

Right now, 51% of the voters (not 51% of the taxpayers) are telling the other 49% of the voters how much they have to pay.

"Democracy is not nine wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner."

Thanks,

Jackson.

BTW, Reagan's tax cuts are what made the US economy so strong during the Clinton terms, although Clinton had no compulsion against claiming the credit.

[QUOTE=Dodger Bulldog]Until W. Destroyed the surplus and had us back in a deficit within three months in office.[/QUOTE]We were attacked, remember?

We're in a war, remember?

Every war-time administration has run up huge deficits, remember?

Thanks,

Jackson