Taetsch Z-24 wrote:really ment what?
Chris
Taetsch Z-24 wrote:Ahh, Correct.On the average, Libertarians support all rights more than either Dem or Rep.
But I answered the question, on average they do support gun rights more then dem's...
Chris
Quote:
This ain't a horse race. You don't vote for who you THINK will win. You vote for who you WANT to win. They try to tell you that voting 3rd party is just wasting your vote, but if you don't vote your conscience, you just wasted your vote.
Taetsch Z-24 wrote:So its a good thing i voted for Dr. Paul then?Correct. Win or not, at least you didn't waste your vote.
Chris
KevinP (Stabby McShankyou) wrote:
and I'm NOT a pedo. everyone knows i've got a wheelchair fetish.
Quiklilcav wrote:Here is a clip, for those who haven't seen it, of Obama talking to the plumber about his taxes being increased under his plan.
Notice a very important point that Obama makes in this: if your revenue is over $250K, your taxes will increase. 95% of businesses in the US are not below this line. Don't be fooled by his double talk. He will raise the taxes on the majority of businesses, and there will be more lay-offs because of it.
The 40% flat tax argument he makes is complete bullsh!t. That statement basicly says that the average taxes now, which would be replaced by a flat tax, is 40%. He's talking about raising the over $250K bracket to 39%, so how could the average possibly be 40%?
Obama is not change. He is more of the same, and part of the tax-happy Democrats in power, interested in redistributing the wealth from the producers to the non-producers.
It is projected that the Senate will be a Democrat super-majority, and with the House, Senate, and Whitehouse all under Democrat control, they will pass any tax increase they want, to fund any program they want, without reproach. I can not think of a stronger reason to vote Republican than this, because if they get the projected control, our country will be at the mercy of one party.
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:The spending freely Republicans for the past 40 years has grown our debt so high that some one has to be mature enough to repay it. The Republicans has been giving socialist style tax welfare, to corporations i.e. oil industry, airplane corp, etc . And since the 80's Republicans has been giving tax breaks if you build outside of the states, which is why almost nothing is "Made in the USA." Now the taxing bracket is higher for for the rich, but it is NOT in proportion to the income, the disparity of lower paying taxes gets lower the more you make; making low income people pay more.
If you wanted low tax Republican you should have Ron Paul on the ticket, but you don't... So what now? Still vote Republican just because for the party affiliation?
Quiklilcav wrote:First off - how is saying that Clinton did this a defense for what Bush has done? (granted I've never actually seen that particular stat to know it its even legit but still...)Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:The spending freely Republicans for the past 40 years has grown our debt so high that some one has to be mature enough to repay it. The Republicans has been giving socialist style tax welfare, to corporations i.e. oil industry, airplane corp, etc . And since the 80's Republicans has been giving tax breaks if you build outside of the states, which is why almost nothing is "Made in the USA." Now the taxing bracket is higher for for the rich, but it is NOT in proportion to the income, the disparity of lower paying taxes gets lower the more you make; making low income people pay more.
If you wanted low tax Republican you should have Ron Paul on the ticket, but you don't... So what now? Still vote Republican just because for the party affiliation?
The Republicans have not had the majority for the last 40 years. Are you seriously believing that? GHW Bush had a Democratic Congress. Clinton had a Democratic congress until 94. GW Bush had a Democratic congress until 2006. None of these presidents had a supermajority that we are about to see. There has always been some semblance of balance, even when there was a majority. There are always a few respectable senators and representatives that don't simply vote with their party, so even with a majority there is not usually the ability of one party to rule. When you have such a large majority, there aren't enough willing to go against the party to matter.
The notion that someone has to do the mature thing and repay it is true, but it will not be done by increasing tax rates on anyone. It will be done by cutting spending. There are too many programs that just suck up money from the economy in general. There are also too many "feel-good" programs to keep the dependant population more dependant on the producers. This isn't taking care of people, it's enabling and encouraging laziness. Remember the concept of Work-fair? Democrats screamed about this being cruel. How could we possibly suggest that people work for their free money? Outrageous! It caused an uproar because the Democrats claimed that the Republicans didn't care about the poor, and people ate it up.
I'd like to know exactly where you pay taxes that it's lower as you make more, because I can tell you that as long as I have been paying them, my taxes have gone up the more I make. With the Bush cuts a few years ago, I noticed a difference, and I was not making a killing. I noticed a difference when the last increase to the child exemption was raised. However, the current system is still a graduated tax that gets heavier as your income increases. It is absolutely not lighter as you suggest.
I don't agree with tax credits for companies that build out of country, but I certainly do not agree with increasing taxes on businesses in general, which is exactly what Obama is going to do. That is one of the quickest ways to increase unemployment and stifle economic growth.
By the way, I love how the Democrats keep pointing out that Bush doubled the national debt in 8 years. They never mention that Clinton tripled it during his 8 years.
Quiklilcav wrote:Here is a clip, for those who haven't seen it, of Obama talking to the plumber about his taxes being increased under his plan.Joe “the Plumber” Wurzelbacher related to Charles “the Crook” Keating for those who remember McCain's old Keating 5 scandal.
Notice a very important point that Obama makes in this: if your revenue is over $250K, your taxes will increase. 95% of businesses in the US are not below this line. Don't be fooled by his double talk. He will raise the taxes on the majority of businesses, and there will be more lay-offs because of it.
The 40% flat tax argument he makes is complete bullsh!t. That statement basicly says that the average taxes now, which would be replaced by a flat tax, is 40%. He's talking about raising the over $250K bracket to 39%, so how could the average possibly be 40%?
Obama is not change. He is more of the same, and part of the tax-happy Democrats in power, interested in redistributing the wealth from the producers to the non-producers.
It is projected that the Senate will be a Democrat super-majority, and with the House, Senate, and Whitehouse all under Democrat control, they will pass any tax increase they want, to fund any program they want, without reproach. I can not think of a stronger reason to vote Republican than this, because if they get the projected control, our country will be at the mercy of one party.
Quiklilcav wrote:Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:The spending freely Republicans for the past 40 years has grown our debt so high that some one has to be mature enough to repay it. The Republicans has been giving socialist style tax welfare, to corporations i.e. oil industry, airplane corp, etc . And since the 80's Republicans has been giving tax breaks if you build outside of the states, which is why almost nothing is "Made in the USA." Now the taxing bracket is higher for for the rich, but it is NOT in proportion to the income, the disparity of lower paying taxes gets lower the more you make; making low income people pay more.
If you wanted low tax Republican you should have Ron Paul on the ticket, but you don't... So what now? Still vote Republican just because for the party affiliation?
The Republicans have not had the majority for the last 40 years. Are you seriously believing that? GHW Bush had a Democratic Congress. Clinton had a Democratic congress until 94. GW Bush had a Democratic congress until 2006. None of these presidents had a supermajority that we are about to see. There has always been some semblance of balance, even when there was a majority. There are always a few respectable senators and representatives that don't simply vote with their party, so even with a majority there is not usually the ability of one party to rule. When you have such a large majority, there aren't enough willing to go against the party to matter.
The notion that someone has to do the mature thing and repay it is true, but it will not be done by increasing tax rates on anyone. It will be done by cutting spending. There are too many programs that just suck up money from the economy in general. There are also too many "feel-good" programs to keep the dependant population more dependant on the producers. This isn't taking care of people, it's enabling and encouraging laziness. Remember the concept of Work-fair? Democrats screamed about this being cruel. How could we possibly suggest that people work for their free money? Outrageous! It caused an uproar because the Democrats claimed that the Republicans didn't care about the poor, and people ate it up.
I'd like to know exactly where you pay taxes that it's lower as you make more, because I can tell you that as long as I have been paying them, my taxes have gone up the more I make. With the Bush cuts a few years ago, I noticed a difference, and I was not making a killing. I noticed a difference when the last increase to the child exemption was raised. However, the current system is still a graduated tax that gets heavier as your income increases. It is absolutely not lighter as you suggest.
I don't agree with tax credits for companies that build out of country, but I certainly do not agree with increasing taxes on businesses in general, which is exactly what Obama is going to do. That is one of the quickest ways to increase unemployment and stifle economic growth.
By the way, I love how the Democrats keep pointing out that Bush doubled the national debt in 8 years. They never mention that Clinton tripled it during his 8 years.
Bastardking3000 wrote:Joe “the Plumber” Wurzelbacher related to Charles “the Crook” Keating for those who remember McCain's old Keating 5 scandal.
And of course he has admitted that he isn't gonna make anything near enough to actually be taxed more under Obama(aka he basically admitted to being a lair who was trying to play "gotcha" with Obama). Your average plumber makes much, much less than $250,000 so this isn't surprising.
Bastardking3000 wrote:And no this is not gonna lead to unemployment. Your customers{or your customer's customers} not having much money to spend leads to unemployment - and vice-versa if your average people have more money(aka Obama's tax cuts for lower and middle class), then you do more business, make more money, and need to hire more workers. Even if you are one of the few who would pay additional tax - that is more than offset by taking in alot more money.
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T wrote:1. Clinton actually did a surplus in his last years, not "tripled" the deficit.
2. What Obama is going to do is the opposite to WHAT HAS NEVER WORKED... That is the BS of the looser Ronald Reagan of "trickle down economics." Instead of socializing the upper 1% to "trickle" down as it never worked (thank greed for that), instead it will be sent to the working class...you know... the group that moves the economy.
3.You got what I said about the taxes that if it's lower you pay less all backwards there. Read what BastardKing3000 wrote, to explain it for you. Basically the proportion from income to taxed is skewed so that the higher income folks are taxed at a smaller proportion then low income folks.
4. Well if you like cut spending on welfare or "dependent programs," then you've like Clinton's line of work. He cut welfare tremendously and redistributed it into gov't jobs, hence the job employment went up and tax revenue went up and in the end, a surplus to our beautiful national debt that the great Reagan once ballooned.
5. Lastly, you got it all backwards again on who was majority. During the Clinton and W.Bush eras, Republicans held majority during their double 4 year terms. Actually 6 out 8 years.
I hope you realize that I replied you backwards as that's the trend you understand very well.
KevinP (Stabby McShankyou) wrote:
and I'm NOT a pedo. everyone knows i've got a wheelchair fetish.
Harrington (Fiber Faber) wrote:1. Please explain these accounting tricks to me because as far as the government records show there was a surplus of $69.2B in 1998, $122.7B in 1999 and $230B in 2000.
Harrington (Fiber Faber) wrote:As far as Clinton taking credit for the economy upturn in 93 and Bush being blamed for the downturn in 2001 you can not have it both ways, when talking about presidents it was the person before who was really responsible for the direction of the economy...
Harrington (Fiber Faber) wrote:5. What exactly is a "super" super majority? Got to love those media buzz words. The majority will be no more dangerous that the majority that the Republicans had in the early 2000s, Bush vetoed very few bills so it really didn't matter exactly how big the majority was.
Harrington (Fiber Faber) wrote:Typical Republican banter "if the Republicans are not in power there will be terrorist attacks, no jobs, a bad economy and it will be the end of the world" Got to love the Republican fear mongering.
Quiklilcav wrote:
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T wrote:1. Clinton actually did a surplus in his last years, not "tripled" the deficit.
2. What Obama is going to do is the opposite to WHAT HAS NEVER WORKED... That is the BS of the looser Ronald Reagan of "trickle down economics." Instead of socializing the upper 1% to "trickle" down as it never worked (thank greed for that), instead it will be sent to the working class...you know... the group that moves the economy.
3.You got what I said about the taxes that if it's lower you pay less all backwards there. Read what BastardKing3000 wrote, to explain it for you. Basically the proportion from income to taxed is skewed so that the higher income folks are taxed at a smaller proportion then low income folks.
4. Well if you like cut spending on welfare or "dependent programs," then you've like Clinton's line of work. He cut welfare tremendously and redistributed it into gov't jobs, hence the job employment went up and tax revenue went up and in the end, a surplus to our beautiful national debt that the great Reagan once ballooned.
5. Lastly, you got it all backwards again on who was majority. During the Clinton and W.Bush eras, Republicans held majority during their double 4 year terms. Actually 6 out 8 years.
I hope you realize that I replied you backwards as that's the trend you understand very well.
There you go. Start attacking me now. When all else fails, just start trying to cast doubt on your opponent's intelligence.
1. Clinton never had a budget surplus. That was a numbers game that they played (typical accounting tricks) where they looked at a wider group of numbers, so it looked like they balanced the budget, when in reality they just changed the equasion. The debt was just over $2 trillion when he took office, and just under $6 trillion when he left. I will give you that Bush actually increased it by a higher dollar amount, but the bottom line is look at the ratio of increase.
2. Trickle-down worked, and it worked damned well for a decade. The problems in the economy had absolutely nothing to do with lower taxes. In fact, the total tax revenue during the Reagan years increased dramaticly. The funny thing about you saying Reagan was a loser is that Obama regularly references the Reagan years, because he knows how well this country did during them. If you look back at old headlines, you will see that in 92, the economy was on a big upswing. Clinton took the oath of office in 93, and claimed responsibility for the increase in the economy. In 2000, we were at the beginning of a decline in the economy. Bush took the oath in 2001, and they began immediately blaming him for it. By the way, typing it in all caps doesn't make your statement right.
3. The loopholes are not big enough that the rich pay a lower percentage. They still pay more, and the Democrats pound on the notion over and over that because rich keep dollar amounts that are higher than the average Joe, that it's unfair. Gary's "barstool economics" thread hits the nail on the head. This is the underlying emotion behind class warfares.
4. Clinton did not cut those programs. As a matter of fact, he was one of the ones who was claiming that the Republicans were cruel for suggesting work-fare. And again, he never had a surplus.
5. I don't have anything there backwards. Clinton took office with a Democratic majority congress. part way through his presidency, the Republicans regained the majority, where it stayed until 2006. Regardless, no one has ever had the supermajority that we are about to see. If you don't believe this is dangerous, you are simply allowing yourself to be decieved.
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Who is attacking? It was clear your info is indeed backwards. Lastly, I don't "cast doubt on your opponent's intelligence," again it is clear you're lost.
Now stop with the pussy and touchy attitude and focus on the topic in hand.
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:1.No Clinton budget surplus? Really? Lost or just ignorant or oblivious to the notion, or to stupid to admit a tribute?
I'll use reputable independent sources not a right wing propaganda for your teachings.
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/
http://clinton3.nara.gov/WH/Work/102899.html
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/presidentbush/2008/10/budget-deficit.html
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C02E7DF1F3AF930A35751C0A96E958260
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/the_economy/380217.stm
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:3. I don't know how to spell it out for you. I feel like I am talking to a 6 year old, here are pictures and data to show how low the income to taxed ratio is. If you STILL don't get it, the person making $366K a year to $45 billion gets taxed 35%, while a person making low wage is only be taxed a minuscule 15- 20% less.
http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_bracket
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:5. Yes you finally got it, Clinton took office with majority Democrats, but the remaining 6 it was Republicans.
Harrington (Fiber Faber) wrote:...What exactly is a "super" super majority? Got to love those media buzz words. The majority will be no more dangerous that the majority that the Republicans had in the early 2000s, Bush vetoed very few bills so it really didn't matter exactly how big the majority was...
Quiklilcav wrote:Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Who is attacking? It was clear your info is indeed backwards. Lastly, I don't "cast doubt on your opponent's intelligence," again it is clear you're lost.
Now stop with the pussy and touchy attitude and focus on the topic in hand.
I'm far from lost, buddy. And there is no pussy attitude. My point was that it's a typical "tactic", if you can actually call it that, of liberals, when confronted with plenty of solid facts, to start resorting to a more personal attack. I take nothing personal, and quite frankly, the more rediculous arguments you post, the less I can take you seriously, so why would I even be upset and touchy over it?
Quiklilcav wrote:Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:1.No Clinton budget surplus? Really? Lost or just ignorant or oblivious to the notion, or to stupid to admit a tribute?
I'll use reputable independent sources not a right wing propaganda for your teachings.
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/
http://clinton3.nara.gov/WH/Work/102899.html
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/presidentbush/2008/10/budget-deficit.html
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C02E7DF1F3AF930A35751C0A96E958260
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/the_economy/380217.stm
Not lost, not ignorant. Fully aware of the truth, which it is clear you are not. Again, there you go trying to call me stupid. You have no substance, so redirect your argument to be a personal attack. It is only you who loses credibility when you do so.
The reputable independant sources you linked are merely quotes of Clinton himself making the claims. There are absolutely zero facts in them. The first one is directly quoting Clinton, and stating as such. They are not even making an argument, simply reporting the statements made. So, although CNN is a reputable source, it's not the source of the fact to back up your claim, Clinton himself is. Are you claiming he is an independant reputable source?
The second one is simply a report issued by the Clinton administration. Again, are you quoting him as the source?
Quiklilcav wrote:Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:3. I don't know how to spell it out for you. I feel like I am talking to a 6 year old, here are pictures and data to show how low the income to taxed ratio is. If you STILL don't get it, the person making $366K a year to $45 billion gets taxed 35%, while a person making low wage is only be taxed a minuscule 15- 20% less.
http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_bracket
Once again, you make my argument for me. How is it unfairly balanced toward the rich when you can clearly see that the percentage of income paid increases with wealth? I highlighted in red one of the most important arguments on the liberal side that really shows the true class warfare mentality, which is that somehow the percentage should be far heavier on those who make more. The bottom line is that even if everyone paid the same percentage (true flat tax), the rich would still pay far more than the poor in real dollars. The problem with this whole thought process of taking more of someone's money because they are successful is a punitive attitude, not that of fairness. This can not be argued. It's as black and white as you can get.
Now I'm sure that your basis for using the link to moneychimp (which is a great tool, but simply doesn't make your argument) is that it shows how the actual tax paid doesn't equate to the bracket that someone is in, but if you do a few theoretical exercises, you will see that no matter what amount you put in there, the more money you make, the higher percentage you pay. To put it simply for you, the more money someone in the top bracket makes, the higher percentage of their income is in that 35% bracket, so it brings up the actual percentage. It's a simple law of averages. So easy, a caveman can do it.
Quiklilcav wrote:[Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:5. Yes you finally got it, Clinton took office with majority Democrats, but the remaining 6 it was Republicans.
I finally got it? Seriously, you are most definitely delusional. That is exactly what I stated yesterday, in response to your claim that the Republicans have had control for 40 years. I spelled it out by year, and somehow you missed it entirely.
I have been following this stuff closely for longer than I have been able to vote, and I'm well informed by multiple sources, both liberal, conservative, and the few true non-biased ones that exist, and I look at what actually goes on in the country and to the people around me when changes are made. Anyone who really knows me will tell you that I'm very well informed and aware of what's going on, and I don't take a stand based on something I heard, but on something I have researched.
As for this debate, I'm done even trying to get through to you, because you are simply too ignorant and arrogant to look at the facts. You are missing the points in even your own links, while claiming that I am lost, ignorant, and oblivous. I fully enjoy a good debate with anyone that can make an argument with good solid facts, particularly ones that make me think, but I will not waste my time further with your childishness.