Obama, Tax Hikes & Congress

[CrimsonCream]

Obama Pushes Tax Hikes in Budget Talks, Calls Aug. 2 'Hard Deadline' on Debt Ceiling

Published June 29, 2011

AP

President Obama called on Republicans Wednesday to drop their opposition to tax increases, saying "everybody else" is sacrificing their "sacred cows" (Really? Like Medicare?) for deficit reduction, GOP lawmakers should be willing to do the same.

The president also warned that Washington will soon run up against a "hard deadline" to strike a budget deal and raise the debt ceiling, rejecting suggestions that the situation is not as dire as the Treasury Department makes it out to be.

Though some Republicans claim the Aug. 2 deadline -- the date when Treasury warns the U.S. will face default if the cap is not raised -- is not firm, Obama warned that it is a serious deadline and that failing to raise the cap could cause investors to pull out of the U.S., leading Treasury to raise interest rates.

The consequences for the U.S. economy will be significant and unpredictable," Obama said, while he denied engaging in "scare tactics." (Liar Liar Pants On Fire.)

"Aug. 2 is a very important date and there's no reason why we can't get this done now."

The president is trying to salvage bipartisan budget talks that fell apart late last week when GOP negotiators bowed out. Obama is trying to find middle ground between the two parties on a plan to cut spending so he can muster a majority in Congress to approve an increase in the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling by Aug. 2.

But Democrats, including Obama, continue to push hard for raising taxes as part of the deal, while Republicans are adamantly opposed to anything that resembles a tax hike. Senate Democrats said at a press conference Wednesday afternoon that the votes may not be there to support a budget deal if revenue increases are not included.

The president showed frustration Wednesday with being called on to resolve the dispute. He suggested Congress should stop going on recess and stay in Washington through the summer until a deal is done.

"You need to be here. I've been here," he said of Congress." (Hey Chump! Was that your twin brother in Iowa?) You stay here, let's get it done."

To get it done, Obama made clear he's pushing for tax increases in addition to spending cuts. Playing political hardball, he characterized the debate for Republicans as a choice between revamping a tax code that favors millionaires and depriving children of government aid. (Bring out the scare tactics.)

"We're going to have to tackle spending in the tax code," he said. "It would be nice if we could keep every tax break there is, but we've got to make some tough choices here if we want to reduce our deficit."

He pushed proposals to end tax breaks for corporate jet owners, as well as for oil and gas companies -- and claimed that everything from food safety to college scholarships to the weather service could be in jeopardy if revenue is not included as part of a deal.

"Ask Republican constituents if they're willing to compromise their kids' safety so some corporate jet owner continues to get a tax break," he said. (Gee.)

Later in the press conference, Obama also praised the U.S. airplane industry as "an area where we still have a huge advantage" globally.

Obama said he and Vice President Biden will work "as long as it takes" to strike a deal with Republicans. He expressed confidence that that could happen.

In his opening remarks, the president also called on lawmakers to renew a payroll tax cut that took effect on Jan. 1, identifying it as one of several measures lawmakers could approve to help create jobs.

The biggest sticking point in the talks has been the issue of tax hikes, which Republicans resolutely oppose. House Speaker John Boehner, speaking on Fox News Tuesday night, reiterated that he opposes any tax increase as part of a deal.

"There are no votes in the Congress ... to raise taxes on anyone, so tax increases are off the table," Boehner said.

The speaker also predicted that the Obama administration will soon issue warnings that Americans might not get their Social Security checks or that doctors might not get Medicare payments if the debt ceiling issue is not resolved in the coming weeks. (And he will. Military too.)

"It is predictable. It is going to come. What we've got to do is continue to press our case with the American people that cutting spending now and dealing with our long-term debt will help create a better environment for job creators in our country," Boehner said.

Obama faced several foreign policy questions at the press conference Wednesday, particularly on Libya. Though lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have criticized the administration's handling of the mission, Obama said the complaints amount to a lot of "fuss." (Again, responsibility for nothing. credit for everything.)

"We have done exactly what I said we would do," Obama said, noting that no U.S. troops are on the ground and NATO allies are playing a big role in what he described as a "limited operation."

The House has twice rebuked the president for his handling of the conflict, but the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday passed legislation authorizing force for a year.

The president on Wednesday again called for Muammar al-Qaddafi to leave power. "He needs to step down. He needs to go," (Both of you do.) Obama said.

Addressing economic woes, Obama also called on Congress Wednesday to pass several measures he claimed would help jump-start the economy.

The president called on Congress to pass free-trade agreements, approve money for infrastructure projects at the state and local level and pass a new patent law.

"I urge Congress to act on these ideas now," he said, touting his administration's efforts to scrutinize government regulations and look at ways to provide help for small businesses and start-ups.

Wednesday's news conference comes amid persistent signals that the economic recovery has slowed. Obama has been stepping up his promotion of job creation initiatives amid evidence that the state of the economy has weakened his job approval standing with the public.

Obama's last full-blown news conference was in March, when turmoil in Libya first drew in the U.S. military and the threatened shutdown of the government was making headlines. Obama has since answered questions in brief sessions with reporters during a European trip and during a joint White House appearance with German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

Obama also recently announced a drawdown of U.S. troops from Afghanistan, prompting criticism by some lawmakers that he was not pulling enough forces out and by others that he was acting too precipitously.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/06/29/obama-to-hold-press-conference-amid-budget-talks/#ixzz1QhBTOkhG

[Caboose]

We are not going to default if the debt ceiling is not raised. This is just another Democrat bogeyman to justify more ridiculous spending.

[SpankyNek]

We are not going to default if the debt ceiling is not raised. This is just another Democrat bogeyman to justify more ridiculous spending.

If we don't, then I don't see any reason to change the status quo...SPEND AWAY!!!

[Caboose]

If we don't, then I don't see any reason to change the status quo...SPEND AWAY!!!

Of course you don't.

[SpankyNek]

Of course you don't.

I am trying to understand what you are saying here. If we aren't going to default, then why is everyone, in every party, so worried?

[Caboose]

I am trying to understand what you are saying here. If we aren't going to default, then why is everyone, in every party, so worried?

Because they know we will have to cut spending on some BS entitlement program or defense program that they are beholden to. We are NOT going to default on our debts.

It is just like a family deciding what to pay each month when they are cash strapped....
Mortgage - pay
Car payment - pay
Utilities - pay
Groceries - pay
Movies - do without
Cable TV - do without
Lady GaGa concert tickets - do without
10 dollars worth of garbage from Starbucks every morning - do without


Treasury bonds and the like are the mortgage and car payments - they will be paid. 10 million dollar grants to <insert liberal arts university here> to do a study to determine if men like big boobs or not = Lady GaGa tickets. You do without until you get your finances in order.

The politicians aren't worried about defaulting.. they are worried about cutting their pet money spending programs.

[SpankyNek]

Because they know we will have to cut spending on some BS entitlement program or defense program that they are beholden to. We are NOT going to default on our debts.

It is just like a family deciding what to pay each month when they are cash strapped....
Mortgage - pay
Car payment - pay
Utilities - pay
Groceries - pay
Movies - do without
Cable TV - do without
Lady GaGa concert tickets - do without
10 dollars worth of garbage from Starbucks every morning - do without


Treasury bonds and the like are the mortgage and car payments - they will be paid. 10 million dollar grants to <insert liberal arts university here> to do a study to determine if men like big boobs or not = Lady GaGa tickets. You do without until you get your finances in order.

The politicians aren't worried about defaulting.. they are worried about cutting their pet money spending programs.

Why would they ever have to cut spending if there is no danger of default?
A family with an unlimited credit limit doesn't care about how much cash they have...Visa works just as well on that cable and Gaga ticket.

If I am never gonna default, I sure as hell ain't cuttin out booby school.

[Caboose]

Why would they ever have to cut spending if there is no danger of default?
A family with an unlimited credit limit doesn't care about how much cash they have...Visa works just as well on that cable and Gaga ticket.

If I am never gonna default, I sure as hell ain't cuttin out booby school.

Because we dont have unlimited credit. Neither does the family in the example. Their credit card is maxed out. They can only buy what they have money in the bank to buy. Do you think its going to be groceries or Lady Gaga tickets?

Our government's credit is maxed out. They can only pay what they have money to cover. Some foreign county cashes in a bunch of treasury bills and at the same time Northwestern University asks for 5 million dollars to study the drinking habits of Thai prostitutes. Guess who gets paid.

[SpankyNek]

Because we dont have unlimited credit. Neither does the family in the example. Their credit card is maxed out. They can only buy what they have money in the bank to buy. Do you think its going to be groceries or Lady Gaga tickets?

Our government's credit is maxed out. They can only pay what they have money to cover. Some foreign county cashes in a bunch of treasury bills and at the same time Northwestern University asks for 5 million dollars to study the drinking habits of Thai prostitutes. Guess who gets paid.

I guess neither one after Aug. 2nd if the Pubs dont start realizing that we need revenue increases along with the cuts.

[Caboose]

I guess neither one after Aug. 2nd if the Pubs dont start realizing that we need revenue increases along with the cuts.

Wrong. The treasury notes (our debt) will get paid whether we have revenue increases or not. Of course the Dems are counting on the naive brainwashed masses to buy this bullsh*t default scare to justify their continued bullsh*t spending.

[SpankyNek]

I am a bit under-educated in the matter, but at who's discretion do the bills get paid when a budget is absent?

Is it the same entity that has the power to get more money printed?

[SpankyNek]

Wrong. The treasury notes (our debt) will get paid whether we have revenue increases or not. Of course the Dems are counting on the naive brainwashed masses to buy this bullsh*t default scare to justify their continued bullsh*t spending.
Under the control of who....who can authorize that spending if cash=0

[pphilfran]

I guess neither one after Aug. 2nd if the Pubs dont start realizing that we need revenue increases along with the cuts.

Both sides are dug in...

Why are Medicare and Medicaid and SS off the table?

How about this?

They want to extend the age to 67...two months a year till we get to 67 from the current 65...

Higher income people would pay more...

The Lieberman/Coburn proposal would streamline Medicare into a single combined annual deductible of $550 for both Part A and B services.

The Lieberman/Coburn proposal would also add an annual “out-of-pocket maximum” of $7,500 so that each Medicare recipient would now have a cap on annual medical costs to protect them from financial hardship or bankruptcy in the event of a major illness. Medicare enrollees do not have this protection now.

http://coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/pressreleases?ContentRecord_id=ae711529-741a-4f52-89eb-4e6ef1c861a7&ContentType_id=d741b7a7-7863-4223-9904-8cb9378aa03a&Group_id=7a55cb96-4639-4dac-8c0c-99a4a227bd3a

A pdf summary is located here... http://coburn.senate.gov/public//index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=36cddfe6-ec32-41b1-a0d2-b3ad7f6675bf

Lieberman, Coburn Reveal Bipartisan Proposal to Save Medicare, Reduce Debt

(WASHINGTON, DC) – Today, Senators Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Tom Coburn (R-OK) revealed their bipartisan proposal to save Medicare and reduce the debt. The Lieberman/Coburn proposal would save more than $600 billion over 10 years, based on reviews of Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates, and up to an additional $100 billion savings from implementing the program integrity provisions. Attached is the background material detailing the proposal.

“We can’t balance our budget without dealing with mandatory spending programs like Medicare. We can’t save Medicare as we know it. We can only save Medicare if we change it. And that’s what the Medicare Reform Plan Tom Coburn and I are proposing will do,” said Senator Lieberman. “Our plan contains some strong medicine but that’s what it will take to keep Medicare alive, but we believe our plan administers that medicine in a fair way. It asks just about everybody to give something to help preserve Medicare. But it asks wealthier Americans to give more than those who have less.”

“Our plan recognizes that continuing Medicare as it is currently structured is a financial impossibility. Medicare as we know it may not exist in five years if Congress does not take steps now to preserve the program. Every year we wait makes the inevitable task of structural reform more difficult. I’m encouraged Senator Lieberman has put a serious and significant Medicare reform proposal on the table,” Dr. Coburn said. “I understand these choices are difficult for members of Congress. I would encourage my colleagues to realize our partisan lines in the sand are being washed away by a rising tide of debt. Taking Medicare off the table won’t protect seniors. Doing nothing and letting seniors fend for themselves is the least compassionate and least responsible option. Our plan will preserve Medicare for current and future enrollees by taking important steps to realign the program with its original intent.”



The proposal also:

• Extends the solvency of Medicare Part A (Hospital Insurance) by allocating half of the savings from the proposal to the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund.

• Reduces Medicare’s 75-year unfunded liabilities by an estimated $10 trillion and significantly reduces the fiscal impact of Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D on the federal budget.

• For the first time in the history of the Medicare program, the proposal will provide seniors with an annual out-of-pocket-maximum benefit within the Medicare program to protect them from bankruptcy in the event of a major illness or long term health condition.

• Contains a three year fix to the Medicare physician reimbursement formula that is paid for and will bring stability and payments to the Medicare provider system, ensuring access for seniors.

• Preserves Medicare as a government program for current and future enrollees.

[Jammin']

Seems logical to do the stuff Phil posted about with regards to Medicaid/care/SS above and raise taxes.

I admit to not knowing much about this though.

[SpankyNek]

Both sides are dug in...

Why are Medicare and Medicaid and SS off the table?

How about this?

They want to extend the age to 67...two months a year till we get to 67 from the current 65...

Higher income people would pay more...

The Lieberman/Coburn proposal would streamline Medicare into a single combined annual deductible of $550 for both Part A and B services.

The Lieberman/Coburn proposal would also add an annual “out-of-pocket maximum” of $7,500 so that each Medicare recipient would now have a cap on annual medical costs to protect them from financial hardship or bankruptcy in the event of a major illness. Medicare enrollees do not have this protection now.

http://coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/pressreleases?ContentRecord_id=ae711529-741a-4f52-89eb-4e6ef1c861a7&ContentType_id=d741b7a7-7863-4223-9904-8cb9378aa03a&Group_id=7a55cb96-4639-4dac-8c0c-99a4a227bd3a

A pdf summary is located here... http://coburn.senate.gov/public//index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=36cddfe6-ec32-41b1-a0d2-b3ad7f6675bf

Lieberman, Coburn Reveal Bipartisan Proposal to Save Medicare, Reduce Debt

(WASHINGTON, DC) – Today, Senators Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Tom Coburn (R-OK) revealed their bipartisan proposal to save Medicare and reduce the debt. The Lieberman/Coburn proposal would save more than $600 billion over 10 years, based on reviews of Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates, and up to an additional $100 billion savings from implementing the program integrity provisions. Attached is the background material detailing the proposal.

“We can’t balance our budget without dealing with mandatory spending programs like Medicare. We can’t save Medicare as we know it. We can only save Medicare if we change it. And that’s what the Medicare Reform Plan Tom Coburn and I are proposing will do,” said Senator Lieberman. “Our plan contains some strong medicine but that’s what it will take to keep Medicare alive, but we believe our plan administers that medicine in a fair way. It asks just about everybody to give something to help preserve Medicare. But it asks wealthier Americans to give more than those who have less.”

“Our plan recognizes that continuing Medicare as it is currently structured is a financial impossibility. Medicare as we know it may not exist in five years if Congress does not take steps now to preserve the program. Every year we wait makes the inevitable task of structural reform more difficult. I’m encouraged Senator Lieberman has put a serious and significant Medicare reform proposal on the table,” Dr. Coburn said. “I understand these choices are difficult for members of Congress. I would encourage my colleagues to realize our partisan lines in the sand are being washed away by a rising tide of debt. Taking Medicare off the table won’t protect seniors. Doing nothing and letting seniors fend for themselves is the least compassionate and least responsible option. Our plan will preserve Medicare for current and future enrollees by taking important steps to realign the program with its original intent.”



The proposal also:

• Extends the solvency of Medicare Part A (Hospital Insurance) by allocating half of the savings from the proposal to the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund.

• Reduces Medicare’s 75-year unfunded liabilities by an estimated $10 trillion and significantly reduces the fiscal impact of Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D on the federal budget.

• For the first time in the history of the Medicare program, the proposal will provide seniors with an annual out-of-pocket-maximum benefit within the Medicare program to protect them from bankruptcy in the event of a major illness or long term health condition.

• Contains a three year fix to the Medicare physician reimbursement formula that is paid for and will bring stability and payments to the Medicare provider system, ensuring access for seniors.

• Preserves Medicare as a government program for current and future enrollees.
I could go for something like this (Of course I wouldn't be affected by the change...)

Do you think that if this concession (Like every other one up to this point) is made by Democrats, that the Republicans would agree to abolish the tax cuts, for starters?

[pphilfran]

No need to worry about the dems putting something like this in place...Reid and Nancy have already slammed it...making people wait up to two years (this would affect me) is just turrible...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/top-democrats-reject-new-plan-to-cut-medicare-spending/2011/06/28/AGoSmhpH_story.html?hpid=z2

Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) termed it “a bad idea.” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) called it “unacceptable.”

“It is unfair to ask seniors to get less in benefits and wait longer to get onto Medicare — all while Republicans back tax breaks for big oil and corporations that ship American jobs overseas,” Pelosi said.

[Jammin']

“It is unfair to ask seniors to get less in benefits and wait longer to get onto Medicare — all while Republicans back tax breaks for big oil and corporations that ship American jobs overseas,” Pelosi said.

I'm sure there's another side of the story to this but it's hard for me to find much fault in the above statement. I assume the dollar amounts involved in reforming Medi/SS and raising taxes on the rich aren't close to the same?

[pphilfran]

If the dems want to increase revenue by 10% they should give up 10% in spending (or some other contorted figure)...

If the pubs want to decrease benefits by 10% they should agree to 10% in revenue increases (or some other contorted figure)...

[SoonerStormchaser]

Before this thread totally de-evolves into another cesspool of craptitude:
_gnzns2CwXk

[pphilfran]

I'm sure there's another side of the story to this but it's hard for me to find much fault in the above statement. I assume the dollar amounts involved in reforming Medi/SS and raising taxes on the rich aren't close to the same?

Overall I agree with the principle of the statement...but to refuse to make compromise on an area that is so important is foolish...

An f'n brain dead person can figure out that adding 2 years and increasing the tax rate on the more highly compensated needs to happen...the changes don't seem to be world shattering...

But Henry and Nancy want to drag in a completely unrelated subject and throw that dead cat on the table to distract from the initial message...

As far as the credits to drill for crude...I don't have a problem with them being pulled...just realize that the cost is going to be passed on to the consumer...you can bet your azz that fuel prices will not go down when the subsidies are removed...

Each and every item needs to be reviewed on an individual, stand alone, basis...

[The Profit]

If the dems want to increase revenue by 10% they should give up 10% in spending (or some other contorted figure)...

If the pubs want to decrease benefits by 10% they should agree to 10% in revenue increases (or some other contorted figure)...




I agree. I would like to see 20 percent cut in spending and 20 percent increase in revenue. Let's get this debt problem resolved. God, I love compromise.

[Jammin']

WE DID IT!!!


U.S.A.s.f.!!!U.S.A.s.f.!!!U.S.A.s.f.!!!U.S.A.s.f.! !!U.S.A.s.f.!!!

[pphilfran]

I agree. I would like to see 20 percent cut in spending and 20 percent increase in revenue. Let's get this debt problem resolved. God, I love compromise.

Profit, notice how close my plan is to the Lieb/Colb plan?

[pphilfran]

WE DID IT!!!


U.S.A.s.f.!!!U.S.A.s.f.!!!U.S.A.s.f.!!!U.S.A.s.f.! !!U.S.A.s.f.!!!

Profit and I have had this discussion numerous times....I think my Vulcan type logic finally overwhelmed him...

[The Profit]

Profit, notice how close my plan is to the Lieb/Colb plan?



It will have more of a chance of passing if they refer to it as the Pphilfran/Profit plan. Besides, it kinda rhymes.

[pphilfran]

It will have more of a chance of passing if they refer to it as the Pphilfran/Profit plan. Besides, it kinda rhymes.

:D

[tcrb]

You guys need to get a room.

[diverdog]

Because we dont have unlimited credit. Neither does the family in the example. Their credit card is maxed out. They can only buy what they have money in the bank to buy. Do you think its going to be groceries or Lady Gaga tickets?

Our government's credit is maxed out. They can only pay what they have money to cover. Some foreign county cashes in a bunch of treasury bills and at the same time Northwestern University asks for 5 million dollars to study the drinking habits of Thai prostitutes. Guess who gets paid.

You mean like some corporations that are leveraged at fifty times earnings? This nation can assume more debt. What you are saying is wrong!

[REDREX]

You mean like some corporations that are leveraged at fifty times earnings? This nation can assume more debt. What you are saying is wrong!
---I hope Barack runs on a "More Debt" platform

[diverdog]

---I hope Barack runs on a "More Debt" platform

I will run onn the more debt platform if you run on the gut SS and Medicare platform. Wanna bet who wins?

[REDREX]

I will run onn the more debt platform if you run on the gut SS and Medicare platform. Wanna bet who wins?--- Who was it that cut $500 Billion out of Medicare?----Oh yea it was Barack---- http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obamacares-medicare-cuts-new-year_525931.html

[diverdog]

--- Who was it that cut $500 Billion out of Medicare?----Oh yea it was Barack---- http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obamacares-medicare-cuts-new-year_525931.html

He was not cutting benefits.

[TitoMorelli]

It will have more of a chance of passing if they refer to it as the Pphilfran/Pprofit Pplan. Besides, it kinda rhymes.

FIFY

[REDREX]

He was not cutting benefits.--- Please explain that one---not to mention that the quality of care will go in the tank

[Caboose]

You mean like some corporations that are leveraged at fifty times earnings? This nation can assume more debt. What you are saying is wrong!

IF it raises the debt ceiling. What do you think we are talking about? If the debt ceiling is not raised we will not default on our debts like our dear lying sack of sh!t President is trying to scare you into believing... we will cut discretionary spending on entitlement programs. This isn't hard to understand.

[hawaii 5-0]

Why do Boehner, Canter and McConnell keep saying "No increase in taxes", when the real statement is "No fair taxes on the wealthy and corporations"?

5-0


Trump/ Fatpockets 2012

[Caboose]

Why do Boehner, Canter and McConnell keep saying "No increase in taxes", when the real statement is "No fair taxes on the wealthy and corporations"?

5-0


Trump/ Fatpockets 2012

Because the wealthy don't already pay their fair share of taxes? What does "fair" mean?

[hawaii 5-0]

Because the wealthy don't already pay their fair share of taxes? What does "fair" mean?

For example, when Warren Buffet says he pays less taxes than his secretary, there's something wrong.

If you're looking for a percentage I'm not taking the bait.


5-0


Trump/ Scooter 2012

[Caboose]

For example, when Warren Buffet says he pays less taxes than his secretary, there's something wrong.


5-0


Trump/ Scooter 2012

How about you come up with something better than an anecdote?

Do you realize that on more than one occasion your President has admitted that he still supports raising taxes on the wealthy even if it would result in less revenue? Why do you think that is? It comes back to this silly idea of "fairness" that you are struggling with currently.


Again.. Obama supports raising taxes on the wealthy even if it causes a decrease in revenue. Think about that for a minute. What is the purpose of the government collecting taxes? Let this sink in.

[hawaii 5-0]

How about you come up with something better than an anecdote?

Do you realize that on more than one occasion your President has admitted that he still supports raising taxes on the wealthy even if it would result in less revenue? Why do you think that is? It comes back to this silly idea of "fairness" that you are struggling with currently.


I would say that was made up. Raising taxes = less revenue? Sounds Voodoo.


In 2008 Buffet paid 17.7%. His secretary paid 30%.

I'm sorry my math is so simple but 30 looks higher than 17. In that regard it doesn't look fair.


5-0


Trump/ Archimedes 2012

[Caboose]

I would say that was made up. Raising taxes = less revenue? Sounds Voodoo.

Are you saying that Obama hasn't said he would still support raising taxes if it resulted in less revenue?

The point of this isn't to debate whether or not raising taxes on the wealthy would decrease revenue... it is to make you think about why the President would support it if it did. His reasoning was some vague notion of "fairness". Stop being a zombie for a minute and think about what that means. The sole purpose of the government levying taxes on the population is to generate revenue to fund the functions of government. Yet your president wants to raise taxes on the wealthy even if it would result in decreased revenue. What does that tell you about what Obama sees as the purpose of taxation, comrade?


In 2008 Buffet paid 17.7%. His secretary paid 30%.

I'm sorry my math is so simple but 30 looks higher than 17. In that regard it doesn't look fair.


5-0


Trump/ Archimedes 2012

That is an anecdote, my friend.
Do do some research and find out how much income tax the wealthy pay verses everyone else.

[StoopTroup]

Are you saying that Obama hasn't said he would still support raising taxes if it resulted in less revenue?




That is an anecdote, my friend.
Do do some research and find out how much income tax the wealthy pay verses everyone else.
Does that include researching how much money the rich have vs everyone else and how long before they will have to get a job at Walmart before the Gov't bankrupts them and all of their employees vs how long before everyone else is stealing food from Farm land and sleeping in burned out cars and trailers?

[StoopTroup]

How's this....Keep the tax rates the way they are but quit taxing people and make them exempt once they turn 60. If they start a business and hire Employees....the employees can be taxed but the old folks that go out on a limb at that age don't. They don't pay Property tax, tax for groceries, tax for personal items up to say $100,000 per year and once they go over.....it's only 10% for profits on the business unless they give it to Charity and if they wish to skip the 10% they can start putting the extra in a Trust so that once they are to old to take care of themselves the trust they pay into will be there to handle their needs and once they are broke the Gov't can still kick in. Once they die the money they might have left goes in SSI and can't be touched for anything other than people who need SSI.

The elderly that can do this can't collect SSI once they reach the $100,000 in income.

[Caboose]

Does that include researching how much money the rich have vs everyone else and how long before they will have to get a job at Walmart before the Gov't bankrupts them and all of their employees vs how long before everyone else is stealing food from Farm land and sleeping in burned out cars and trailers?

Wealth envy looks bad on you.

[hawaii 5-0]

"If they don't like it, let them eat cake!" -------da Queen.


Sorry but my peabrain won't let me believe raising taxes for the wealthy brings in less revenue.


5-0


Trump/ Spinner 2012

[Caboose]

"If they don't like it, let them eat cake!" -------da Queen.


Sorry but my peabrain won't let me believe raising taxes for the wealthy brings in less revenue.


5-0


Trump/ Spinner 2012

No one is trying to convince you it does. Not so good at reading comprehension are you?

[hawaii 5-0]

No one is trying to convince you it does. Not so good at reading comprehension are you?



In that regard, no I'm not.

Got some more whoppers?



5-0



Trump/ Jordie 2012

[StoopTroup]

Wealth envy looks bad on you.

Envy? You don't know WTF you are talking about.

I've lived both sides. I'd much rather live modestly than the way a good number of folks i grew up around lived waiting for their monthly trust fund checks to come in and never doing anything for society other than shuck responsibility and blame everyone else for how screwed up things are. I swear to you on a stack of Bibles that I am much happier now than I was as a Kid and I'm alive and raising some very wonderful kids instead of dead or burned out like a huge portion of my Classmates are.

I have no reason for you to ever understand what all I've experienced and why I made the choices I've made but I do know that watching my Father and my Uncle spend most of their lives putting people's faces back together every weekend isn't anything I would have ever been happy doing. I love spending my time with my Family and living on a budget rather than just taking on another partner to lighten the load or sell my soul to a multi-practice that expects you to work until you are burned out.

Screw that.

God sent me on my path and I'm happy where he's taken me. The folks that have all of that dough spend their entire lives protecting it from others who wish to take it away.

Maybe you should go read "A Christmas Carol".

[Caboose]

In that regard, no I'm not.

Got some more whoppers?



5-0



Trump/ Jordie 2012


Well that would explain your utter failure to make any kind of lucid point in this thread.

[Caboose]

Envy? You don't know WTF you are talking about.

I've lived both sides. I'd much rather live modestly than the way a good number of folks i grew up around lived waiting for their monthly trust fund checks to come in and never doing anything for society other than shuck responsibility and blame everyone else for how screwed up things are.

Right, because that's how the world works. It's the wealthy/trust fund people who contribute nothing to to society not the people who pay no taxes at all and live off of government handouts. F*ck the wealthy.. we should tax them some more to make it more "fair".

[Blue]

Caboose= owning everybody in this thread.

[StoopTroup]

Right, because that's how the world works. It's the wealthy/trust fund people who contribute nothing to to society not the people who pay no taxes at all and live off of government handouts. F*ck the wealthy.. we should tax them some more to make it more "fair".

I don't collect any of that Welfare you speak of. I didn't vote for it, I was against it in the 70's and in the early 80's it all got so out of control that most people realized just like most people are beginning to realize now....

That there isn't a damn thing you can do about it but try and balance the whole thing as trying to shut it all down will cause a massive problem similar to a China Syndrome in the Financial Markets.

Nobody trusts the GOP to really fix it....they expect them to take advantage of it. No one expects the Dems to fix it they will likely just make more programs and raise taxes.

Again....

There is a solution....but it would take a few Leaders to make it happen and it would take an entire nation to get their Senators and Representatives to buy into it and then force a newly elected POTUS or the 2 term POTUS I think we are going to end up with to agree with the fix as well.

In the last few months I haven't seen anything from either Party that gives me hope that they can do it.

What I do see is this....

I see two Parties playing Chicken with the US Economy. There is a date in August of next Month they are driving towards and they are headed right at it in a head on collision type of scenario. Eventually someone will swerve or there will be a crash. Now....how will the crash turn out? Will one party die? Will they both die? I doubt it as they aren't all riding in the cars together. They just have a few that are in the cars.

Now...after the wreck the Clean up Crews and the EMTs and the Doctors will all sort it out and other Countries will become very interested in how we could allow these two cars full of drunks to drive straight at each other and we will go on wondering the same thing and then we will have an election.

That election will more than likely decide the fate of our economy as I think the American People are going to have to wake the hell up and boy....I tell you....when they do.....

I'm gonna be watching an OU game I hope instead of talking about all of this BS......lol

Yeah Caboose is owning it....lol Owning what i doubt we will ever know....

[diverdog]

IF it raises the debt ceiling. What do you think we are talking about? If the debt ceiling is not raised we will not default on our debts like our dear lying sack of sh!t President is trying to scare you into believing... we will cut discretionary spending on entitlement programs. This isn't hard to understand.

Which entitlement programs are you talking about? If it is medicare and SS then those programs are in the mandatory spending category along with the service on the debt. If you are talking about things like the EPA or Education then guess what.....there is not enough meat in those programs to cut to run the nation for an extended period of time. So the next best option is to cut defense or take money away from a lot of people who need it.

If we do not increase the debt ceiling then we will start to default on our obligations at some point.

[diverdog]

Are you saying that Obama hasn't said he would still support raising taxes if it resulted in less revenue?

The point of this isn't to debate whether or not raising taxes on the wealthy would decrease revenue... it is to make you think about why the President would support it if it did. His reasoning was some vague notion of "fairness". Stop being a zombie for a minute and think about what that means. The sole purpose of the government levying taxes on the population is to generate revenue to fund the functions of government. Yet your president wants to raise taxes on the wealthy even if it would result in decreased revenue. What does that tell you about what Obama sees as the purpose of taxation, comrade?



That is an anecdote, my friend.
Do do some research and find out how much income tax the wealthy pay verses everyone else.

You are talking strictly about income taxes and not the total amount of taxes paid by everyone. It is true the top 1% pay a large share of income taxes. It is also true they do not pay on the entire amount of income they receive. The "rich" if you want to call them that are paying most of their income tax through capital gains. The rest of us pay not only income taxes but payroll taxes as well. As a percentage of our income we pay very close to the percentage rate that the rich pay because most of their income is excluded from payroll taxes.

Secondly, both Reagan and Clinton raised all kinds of taxes. Hell Reagan put the largest tax increase on the citizens of the US in our history and the economy did just fine. There is absolutely no evidence that raising taxes on the rich to the rate that they paid under Clinton is going to hurt them. To be honest I am less worried about the marginal tax rate then I am about all the tax loopholes that allow people to shield a large percentage of their income from the IRS.

I will also admit that raising taxes on the rich will not balance the budget but it has to be on the table.....everything needs to be on the table.

[diverdog]

I don't collect any of that Welfare you speak of. I didn't vote for it, I was against it in the 70's and in the early 80's it all got so out of control that most people realized just like most people are beginning to realize now....

That there isn't a damn thing you can do about it but try and balance the whole thing as trying to shut it all down will cause a massive problem similar to a China Syndrome in the Financial Markets.

Nobody trusts the GOP to really fix it....they expect them to take advantage of it. No one expects the Dems to fix it they will likely just make more programs and raise taxes.

Again....

There is a solution....but it would take a few Leaders to make it happen and it would take an entire nation to get their Senators and Representatives to buy into it and then force a newly elected POTUS or the 2 term POTUS I think we are going to end up with to agree with the fix as well.

In the last few months I haven't seen anything from either Party that gives me hope that they can do it.

What I do see is this....

I see two Parties playing Chicken with the US Economy. There is a date in August of next Month they are driving towards and they are headed right at it in a head on collision type of scenario. Eventually someone will swerve or there will be a crash. Now....how will the crash turn out? Will one party die? Will they both die? I doubt it as they aren't all riding in the cars together. They just have a few that are in the cars.

Now...after the wreck the Clean up Crews and the EMTs and the Doctors will all sort it out and other Countries will become very interested in how we could allow these two cars full of drunks to drive straight at each other and we will go on wondering the same thing and then we will have an election.

That election will more than likely decide the fate of our economy as I think the American People are going to have to wake the hell up and boy....I tell you....when they do.....

I'm gonna be watching an OU game I hope instead of talking about all of this BS......lol

Yeah Caboose is owning it....lol Owning what i doubt we will ever know....


Stoop:

Have you seen the plan offered by Senator Coons of Delaware called Savego? Go to 8:12 on the video.

http://www.bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/2011/06/senator-coons-promotes-savego-proposal-msnbc

[Sooner5030]

You mean like some corporations that are leveraged at fifty times earnings? This nation can assume more debt. What you are saying is wrong!

don't confuse earnings with revenues.

[OutlandTrophy]

It's as if some of you have herd a few soundbytes and you're pissed off. You're not really sure what you are pissed off about nor why you're pissed off but you just know that you're pissed off.

[sappstuf]

For example, when Warren Buffet says he pays less taxes than his secretary, there's something wrong.

If you're looking for a percentage I'm not taking the bait.

5-0

Trump/ Scooter 2012


I would say that was made up. Raising taxes = less revenue? Sounds Voodoo.

In 2008 Buffet paid 17.7%. His secretary paid 30%.

I'm sorry my math is so simple but 30 looks higher than 17. In that regard it doesn't look fair.

5-0

Trump/ Archimedes 2012

It appears you took your own bait...

[JohnnyMack]

It's as if some of you have herd a few soundbytes and you're pissed off. You're not really sure what you are pissed off about nor why you're pissed off but you just know that you're pissed off.

You smell like farts.

[CrimsonCream]

Which entitlement programs are you talking about? If it is medicare and SS then those programs are in the mandatory spending category along with the service on the debt. If you are talking about things like the EPA or Education then guess what.....there is not enough meat in those programs to cut to run the nation for an extended period of time. So the next best option is to cut defense or take money away from a lot of people who need it.

If we do not increase the debt ceiling then we will start to default on our obligations at some point.

I tell who's responsible for this mess. It is those f*cking corporate jet owners. (What a stupid, silly son of a b*tch.)

Diver, why won't the Dems just quit spending? Why are they so resistent to do so? What is wrong with raising the Debt Ceiling but also have corresponding cuts in spending?

[bigfatjerk]

You can do both of Obama's tax suggestions from yesterday for oil subsidies and Corporate Jets for 100 years and it would cover to about February in one year of Obama's budgets.

We have a spending problem not a revenue problem.

[sappstuf]

I tell who's responsible for this mess. It is those f*cking corporate jet owners. (What a stupid, silly son of a b*tch.)

Diver, why won't the Dems just quit spending? Why are they so resistent to do so? What is wrong with raising the Debt Ceiling but also have corresponding cuts in spending?

Is that the same tax that was extended in 2009? Now if we could just figure out which party was in control of the House, Senate, and Presidency back then we could get to the bottom of this...

[OutlandTrophy]

Is that the same tax that was extended in 2009? Now if we could just figure out which party was in control of the House, Senate, and Presidency back then we could get to the bottom of this...

ahhhh yes, the Democrat Tax Cuts.

[sappstuf]

Obama Blasts Private Jet Tax Breaks Created by His Own Stimulus (http://blog.heritage.org/2011/06/29/obama-blasts-private-jet-tax-breaks-created-by-his-own-stimulus/)

[diverdog]

I tell who's responsible for this mess. It is those f*cking corporate jet owners. (What a stupid, silly son of a b*tch.)

Diver, why won't the Dems just quit spending? Why are they so resistent to do so? What is wrong with raising the Debt Ceiling but also have corresponding cuts in spending?

Crimson I want every thing on the table....

[sooner_born_1960]

Obama Blasts Private Jet Tax Breaks Created by His Own Stimulus (http://blog.heritage.org/2011/06/29/obama-blasts-private-jet-tax-breaks-created-by-his-own-stimulus/)
That's hilarious.

[SpankyNek]

Right, because that's how the world works. It's the wealthy/trust fund people who contribute nothing to to society not the people who pay no taxes at all and live off of government handouts. F*ck the wealthy.. we should tax them some more to make it more "fair".

Trust fund babies and Welfare recipients are equally damaging to the economy at large. Both have "unearned" money..depriving wages from the working folks.

[soonerscuba]

Accelerated depreciation is hardly an Obama invention. Also, I think he doesn't care, he knows there is chance Republicans will go to bat for it and it's good politics on his part.

I'm not saying it's good policy, I just understand the gamesmanship behind it.

[sooner_born_1960]

Who's wages are a trust fund baby taking? What would you suggest be done with the money that someone's grandfather placed in his trust fund?

[diverdog]

Obama Blasts Private Jet Tax Breaks Created by His Own Stimulus (http://blog.heritage.org/2011/06/29/obama-blasts-private-jet-tax-breaks-created-by-his-own-stimulus/)

This is a case of good intentions gone wrong. Generally accelerated depreciation is designed to incent companies to upgrade their equipment. It is not meant to have lawyers buy hummers as happened under President Bush. Obama is probably mad that some of the Wall Street execs we bailed out have used this tax loophole to buy a luxury item and expense it to the taxpayer.

Uggg I hate typing on my iPhone.

[CrimsonCream]

Crimson I want every thing on the table....

But, Diver, why won't the Dems quit spending so much?

[sooner_born_1960]

This is a case of good intentions gone wrong. Generally accelerated depreciation is designed to incent companies to upgrade their equipment. It is not meant to have lawyers buy hummers as happened under President Bush. Obama is probably mad that some of the Wall Street execs we bailed out have used this tax loophole to buy a luxury item and expense it to the taxpayer.

Uggg I hate typing on my iPhone.
I'd say the good intention was to get people to buy airplanes, protecting the jobs of those that build them.

[SpankyNek]

But, Diver, why won't the Dems quit spending so much?

The Dems have done all of the cutting...why is NSA bulletproof?

[Bourbon St Sooner]

Both sides are dug in...

Why are Medicare and Medicaid and SS off the table?

How about this?

They want to extend the age to 67...two months a year till we get to 67 from the current 65...

Higher income people would pay more...

The Lieberman/Coburn proposal would streamline Medicare into a single combined annual deductible of $550 for both Part A and B services.

The Lieberman/Coburn proposal would also add an annual “out-of-pocket maximum” of $7,500 so that each Medicare recipient would now have a cap on annual medical costs to protect them from financial hardship or bankruptcy in the event of a major illness. Medicare enrollees do not have this protection now.

http://coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/pressreleases?ContentRecord_id=ae711529-741a-4f52-89eb-4e6ef1c861a7&ContentType_id=d741b7a7-7863-4223-9904-8cb9378aa03a&Group_id=7a55cb96-4639-4dac-8c0c-99a4a227bd3a

A pdf summary is located here... http://coburn.senate.gov/public//index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=36cddfe6-ec32-41b1-a0d2-b3ad7f6675bf

Lieberman, Coburn Reveal Bipartisan Proposal to Save Medicare, Reduce Debt

(WASHINGTON, DC) – Today, Senators Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Tom Coburn (R-OK) revealed their bipartisan proposal to save Medicare and reduce the debt. The Lieberman/Coburn proposal would save more than $600 billion over 10 years, based on reviews of Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates, and up to an additional $100 billion savings from implementing the program integrity provisions. Attached is the background material detailing the proposal.

“We can’t balance our budget without dealing with mandatory spending programs like Medicare. We can’t save Medicare as we know it. We can only save Medicare if we change it. And that’s what the Medicare Reform Plan Tom Coburn and I are proposing will do,” said Senator Lieberman. “Our plan contains some strong medicine but that’s what it will take to keep Medicare alive, but we believe our plan administers that medicine in a fair way. It asks just about everybody to give something to help preserve Medicare. But it asks wealthier Americans to give more than those who have less.”

“Our plan recognizes that continuing Medicare as it is currently structured is a financial impossibility. Medicare as we know it may not exist in five years if Congress does not take steps now to preserve the program. Every year we wait makes the inevitable task of structural reform more difficult. I’m encouraged Senator Lieberman has put a serious and significant Medicare reform proposal on the table,” Dr. Coburn said. “I understand these choices are difficult for members of Congress. I would encourage my colleagues to realize our partisan lines in the sand are being washed away by a rising tide of debt. Taking Medicare off the table won’t protect seniors. Doing nothing and letting seniors fend for themselves is the least compassionate and least responsible option. Our plan will preserve Medicare for current and future enrollees by taking important steps to realign the program with its original intent.”



The proposal also:

• Extends the solvency of Medicare Part A (Hospital Insurance) by allocating half of the savings from the proposal to the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund.

• Reduces Medicare’s 75-year unfunded liabilities by an estimated $10 trillion and significantly reduces the fiscal impact of Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D on the federal budget.

• For the first time in the history of the Medicare program, the proposal will provide seniors with an annual out-of-pocket-maximum benefit within the Medicare program to protect them from bankruptcy in the event of a major illness or long term health condition.

• Contains a three year fix to the Medicare physician reimbursement formula that is paid for and will bring stability and payments to the Medicare provider system, ensuring access for seniors.

• Preserves Medicare as a government program for current and future enrollees.

The Lieberman/Colburn plan is a very sensible plan with elements that both sides can agree on. But, it doesn't stand a chance because, with the economy in the ****ter, the Democrats see mediscare as their only chance to make gains in 2012.

Gotta love politics.

[SpankyNek]

Who's wages are a trust fund baby taking? What would you suggest be done with the money that someone's grandfather placed in his trust fund?

The thought requires a person to look at a functioning economy as a whole, with a limited amount of capital.

Whether a "non-producer" gets his money from welfare or his dead grandaddy, he's getting a share of the economy without earning it.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Whether a "non-producer" gets his money from welfare or his dead grandaddy, he's getting a share of the economy without earning it.I guess that's one way of looking at it...

[OutlandTrophy]

The thought requires a person to look at a functioning economy as a whole, with a limited amount of capital.

Whether a "non-producer" gets his money from welfare or his dead grandaddy, he's getting a share of the economy without earning it.

that's true but the trust fund kid is not being financed by me and you.


That's a large difference that some people seem to not care about or not understand.

[sooner_born_1960]

And, at least the trust fund baby is out spending the money. You know, putting it back into the economy. I guess grandpa could have just kept it all.

[SpankyNek]

that's true but the trust fund kid is not being financed by me and you.


That's a large difference that some people seem to not care about or not understand.

Oh, I get it...his grandpa was able to print money.

Whether we pay via taxes or by larger than necessary profit margins, the effect is the same.

There is no correlation between how hard one works and earnings.

The idea that one should accumulate more wealth than they are capable of using is IMMORAL.

[SpankyNek]

And, at least the trust fund baby is out spending the money. You know, putting it back into the economy. I guess grandpa could have just kept it all.

You're right...welfare recipients tend to stockpile their egregious sums.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Getting any sum of money from a past on family member isn't in the same ball park as getting welfare...

[SpankyNek]

Getting any sum of money from a past on family member isn't in the same ball park as getting welfare...

Why is that?

Name one reason why one amount is more righteous than the other.

[sooner_born_1960]

You're right...welfare recipients tend to stockpile their egregious sums.
The difference is that the welfare recipient is spending money involuntarily taken from you, and me, and even mongo. Grandpa's money was never mine.

[SpankyNek]

At least welfare requires a minor in NEED...

[OutlandTrophy]

I like how Spanky keeps changing the debate.

[SpankyNek]

The difference is that the welfare recipient is spending money involuntarily taken from you, and me, and even mongo. Grandpa's money was never mine.
BS.

How did grandpa get his MONEY????

Did he own a mint?

I would bet that he got it from other folks....

[sooner_born_1960]

BS.

How did grandpa get his MONEY????

Did he own a mint?

I would bet that he got it from other folks....
Other folks who voluntarily purchased his goods or services.

[sooner_born_1960]

Obviously, spankynek is simply advocating socialism.

[SpankyNek]

I like how Spanky keeps changing the debate.

I guess I could frame it into the argument by saying I believe that if the Government were to take control of all accumulated wealth passed to NON dependents, We would be solvent and thriving.

Stockpiled money is a HUGE issue re: our current situation.

[Caboose]

There is no correlation between how hard one works and earnings.

Why should there be?



The idea that one should accumulate more wealth than they are capable of using is IMMORAL.

Oh, now it is a moral issue. You see the tax code the same way Comrade Obama sees it... not as a revenue collection mechanism like it was intended, but as a tool to punish the evil wealthy... as an instrument to bring about your puerile notions of social justice.

[OutlandTrophy]

I guess I could frame it into the argument by saying I believe that if the Government were to take control of all accumulated wealth passed to NON dependents, We would be solvent and thriving.

Stockpiled money is a HUGE issue re: our current situation.


Ho lee ****!!! At least you have the balls to just come right out advocating the confiscation of citizen's belongings by the Government.

[SpankyNek]

Why should there be?




Oh, now it is a moral issue. You see the tax code the same way Comrade Obama sees it... not as a revenue collection mechanism like it was intended, but as a tool to punish the evil wealthy... as an instrument to bring about your puerile notions of social justice.

If we are going to levy taxes, it is important to be as righteous as possible in their implementation/affect, right?

[SpankyNek]

Ho lee ****!!! At least you have the balls to just come right out advocating the confiscation of citizen's belongings by the Government.

What rights are we to don upon dead citizens?

[OutlandTrophy]

Excuse me sir, we have determined that your house is too big, Spanky's family is going to move in with you.

[OutlandTrophy]

What rights are we to don upon dead citizens?

What? You are wanting to seize assets from living people, their heirs. This is amazing.

[bigfatjerk]

What constitutes as too rich to keep your wealth? The poor in our country are among the richest people in the world by percentage. Are they too rich too?

[olevetonahill]

Oh, I get it...his grandpa was able to print money.

Whether we pay via taxes or by larger than necessary profit margins, the effect is the same.

There is no correlation between how hard one works and earnings.

The idea that one should accumulate more wealth than they are capable of using is IMMORAL.


I guess I could frame it into the argument by saying I believe that if the Government were to take control of all accumulated wealth passed to NON dependents, We would be solvent and thriving.

Stockpiled money is a HUGE issue re: our current situation.


You are really Hillary just trollin us aint ya.:rolleyes:

[SpankyNek]

Excuse me sir, we have determined that your house is too big, Spanky's family is going to move in with you.

I have never advocated anything close to this...I am not on Welfare. There is, however, a good argument to pass that money into infrastructure, for EVERYONE.


What? You are wanting to seize assets from living people, their heirs. This is amazing.
I am claiming that those assets are not theirs, they produced nothing or risked anything for such a windfall.

[diverdog]

But, Diver, why won't the Dems quit spending so much?

Both parties spend a lot.

[OutlandTrophy]

Spanky, I know your dad really wanted you to have his wedding ring when he died but you didn't do anything to earn it. We are going to melt it down to feed the family across the tracks.

[CrimsonCream]

Both parties spend a lot.

But why won't they quit spending money we don't have? Can't they see the end result?

[OutlandTrophy]

I have never advocated anything close to this...I am not on Welfare. There is, however, a good argument to pass that money into infrastructure, for EVERYONE.


I am claiming that those assets are not theirs, they produced nothing or risked anything for such a windfall.


That my friend is IMMORAL.

Proverbs 13:22

A good person leaves an inheritance for their children’s children,
but a sinner’s wealth is stored up for the righteous.

[SpankyNek]

That my friend is IMMORAL.

Proverbs 13:22

A good person leaves an inheritance for their children’s children,
but a sinner’s wealth is stored up for the righteous.

I hear eating lobster is pretty bad too...

[CrimsonCream]

There is no correlation between how hard one works and earnings.

Oh, really now.

I don't suppose then your Dad ever told you that if you worked hard you'll get ahead. Instead, he probably told you not to worry about being a positive contribution to society because Government will take from the doers and give it to the lazy.

Is that about it?

[diverdog]

that's true but the trust fund kid is not being financed by me and you.


That's a large difference that some people seem to not care about or not understand.

Sure we are financing trust fund babies. Look up Charitable Lead Trust.

[SpankyNek]

Oh, really now.

I don't suppose then your Dad ever told you that if you worked hard you'll get ahead. Instead, he probably told you not to worry about being a positive contribution to society because Government will take from the doers and give it to the lazy.

Is that about it?
Nope.

I learned this after busting my a$$ for a couple of years digging ditches and bucking bales.

Thank God (I guess that's who get's the credit for it) I am smart enough, and contain enough psycopathy that I am rewarded financially nowadays without having to work very much at all. I am very thankful for the LUCK that put me where I am.

Not everyone gets that opportunity, though.

[Caboose]

I have never advocated anything close to this...I am not on Welfare. There is, however, a good argument to pass that money into infrastructure, for EVERYONE.

Then there is a good argument that every dime you earn should be passed into infrastructure.



I am claiming that those assets are not theirs, they produced nothing or risked anything for such a windfall.

You are arguing that people do not have the right to provide anything for their children. You can't buy formula for your baby, the baby produced nothing and risked nothing. Your baby formula money should instead be passed to the state and used for infrastructure for everyone. In fact why should you get a paycheck at all? You should be placed into a job that suits your abilities and the needs of the state as determined by a bureaucracy and in return the state will provide you with food, shelter, and clothing. After all, your individual whims and desires and aspirations may not be in accordance with the needs of the collective, so this is the only righteous path.


Thank GOD we have such self appointed arbiters of morality, righteousness, and cosmic justice as SpankyNek and President Obama.

[hawaii 5-0]

Well that would explain your utter failure to make any kind of lucid point in this thread.



Arguing with an idiot is pointless. My time is better spent clipping coupons.



5-0



Trump/ Buzz 2012

[hawaii 5-0]

It appears you took your own bait...



The percentage I was referring to is the percentage of how much the wealthy should be paying in taxes.


5-0


Trump/ Mel 2012

[Caboose]

Arguing with an idiot is pointless. My time is better spent clipping coupons.



5-0



Trump/ Buzz 2012

Sounds like something someone would say when they know they have nothing of substance to add to the conversation.

[SpankyNek]

Then there is a good argument that every dime you earn should be passed into infrastructure.
What argument would that be...I merely stated that about "Unearned" funds





You are arguing that people do not have the right to provide anything for their children. You can't buy formula for your baby, the baby produced nothing and risked nothing. Your baby formula money should instead be passed to the state and used for infrastructure for everyone. In fact why should you get a paycheck at all? You should be placed into a job that suits your abilities and the needs of the state as determined by a bureaucracy and in return the state will provide you with food, shelter, and clothing. After all, your individual whims and desires and aspirations may not be in accordance with the needs of the collective, so this is the only righteous path.
Again, I never said anything of the sort. I said transference, upon death, to NON dependents is immoral.



Thank GOD we have such self appointed arbiters of morality, righteousness, and cosmic justice as SpankyNek and President Obama.

Some like Nietzsche, some like Kant, some like Socrates, Some like Confucious, some like Karl Rove.

To each their own, I guess.

[diverdog]

But why won't they quit spending money we don't have? Can't they see the end result?

Crimson:

Can you be more specific? A good chunk of the stimulus was tax cuts, unemployment payments, medicaid/medicare and infrastructure. No matter who would be in office right now we would have trllion dollar deficits. The economy killed revenues. I think in really good times the government should only spend 96% of receipts and the rest goes into a rainy day fund. Many states do this and they have done okay in the downturn.

[OutlandTrophy]

Sure we are financing trust fund babies. Look up Charitable Lead Trust.

I did. You should read it again. We are not financing people that are recipients of a Charitable Lead Trust.

[OutlandTrophy]

Nope.

I learned this after busting my a$$ for a couple of years digging ditches and bucking bales.

Thank God (I guess that's who get's the credit for it) I am smart enough, and contain enough psycopathy that I am rewarded financially nowadays without having to work very much at all. I am very thankful for the LUCK that put me where I am.

Not everyone gets that opportunity, though.

You should give 40% of your wealth to those that have never been afforded the opportunities that you have been.

[SpankyNek]

You should give 40% of your wealth to those that have never been afforded the opportunities that you have been.

CHurch gets 10%, Fed gets about 25%, and I am a really good tipper/Christmas gift giver.

I'm in the ballpark.

[OutlandTrophy]

Spanky, I know you really wanted to have those scrapbooks of your parents and grandparents when they were kids but you didn't do anything to earn it. We are going to give it to the family across the tracks so they can burn them to stay warm this winter.

[SpankyNek]

BTW, if my country needs it, I can hold off on giving to my church's new building fund and giving playstations away.

Tax me Uncle Sam....I am here to help.

[OutlandTrophy]

BTW, if my country needs it, I can hold off on giving to my church's new building fund and giving playstations away.

Tax me Uncle Sam....I am here to help.

so you don't take any deductions on your tax return?

[EnragedOUfan]

What if we could have a national sales tax? Would that help? Or are sales tax only paid to the state? To me, if you made all sale taxes become national and then added just 1%, I think that would be huge...........

Otherwise, its ridiculous not to raise taxes. When the GOP controlled house is willing to cut programs that are part of America's history and upcoming, that's bullsh#t. We're all going to get old and we should treat our seniors with respect. Pretty soon, you'll have to be 75 to get on medicare.

People with crap wages will never be able to afford to save enough for retirement. Never. Making 10-12 dollars an hour leaves very little money to put aside for retirement, especially when you add in everyday/neccessity expenses. But if Social Security is gutted, then what? Should have saved more when you held a sh#t paying job all your life?

Get rid of pell grants, keep student aid and place more emphasis on scholarships. More emphasis from the federal side should be forced onto the states to put more emphasis on students to perform better in school. We should mock the European system.........Administer a test in high school, if you pass it, you can go to the University, if not, you go to a trade school....Students would more likely try harder.

The one thing that drives me away from Bachmann is her anti regulation attitude. All of these politicians are idiots when they campaign this. If they could provide Regs that are useless, OK. But they don't......And if Bachmann was to cut minimum wage, this country would turn into chaos. Does she really think Americans could get out of the hole making $5.15 with prices the way they are now? Bachmann is an idiot and its scary that she really has the possibility of becoming President.....

[SpankyNek]

so you don't take any deductions on your tax return?

Nope, my (ex) wife gets all of those.

[OutlandTrophy]

Nope, my (ex) wife gets all of those.

heh. riiiiiiggggghhhhhhhht.

[diverdog]

I did. You should read it again. We are not financing people that are recipients of a Charitable Lead Trust.

Jackie Onassis used this type of trust to pass on her wealth to JFK jr virtually tax free. Most of that money was void of US taxes before it was placed in the trust. I bet as a percentage of taxes paid the Onassis paid far less than you and I. This is an issue of fairness and I believe everyone needs to pay their fair share of taxes.

The second issue is one of morality. We have asked the current generation to fight and die in all these wars and then we are going to turn around and make them pay for it. That is not right and I do not care if the effective tax rate goes to 50% to pay these bills. We have asked them to sacrifice for us and then we cry like little babies if we are asked to pay a little bit more in taxes or less in benefits.

[Caboose]

What argument would that be...I merely stated that about "Unearned" funds

And you appointed yourself as the arbiter of what constitutes "unearned". Why stop at inheritance? After all we can just as easily justify the righteousness of seizing your entire paycheck for the good of the collective. Since you are in support of this line of thought we should start with you. Describe your job duties and your income and the board will determine how much of that income you have actually "earned", the rest you will give to the government. Put your money where your mouth is.





Again, I never said anything of the sort. I said transference, upon death, to NON dependents is immoral.

Telling someone they do not have the liberty to transfer the wealth they have earned to their offspring is IMMORAL. Cut the BS. You are simply anti-individual, and anti-liberty.




Some like Nietzsche, some like Kant, some like Socrates, Some like Confucious, some like Karl Rove.

To each their own, I guess.

And the developmentally retarded like Marx.

[EnragedOUfan]

Jackie Onassis used this type of trust to pass on her wealth to JFK jr virtually tax free. Most of that money was void of US taxes before it was placed in the trust. I bet as a percentage of taxes paid the Onassis paid far less than you and I. This is an issue of fairness and I believe everyone needs to pay their fair share of taxes.

The second issue is one of morality. We have asked the current generation to fight and die in all these wars and then we are going to turn around and make them pay for it. That is not right and I do not care if the effective tax rate goes to 50% to pay these bills. We have asked them to sacrifice for us and then we cry like little babies if we are asked to pay a little bit more in taxes or less in benefits.

diverdog, you make an excellent point.

[The Profit]

diverdog, you make an excellent point.



Diver always makes excellent points.

[Caboose]

BTW, if my country needs it, I can hold off on giving to my church's new building fund and giving playstations away.

Tax me Uncle Sam....I am here to help.

BS. Your country has needed it for several years now. How much of your personal wealth have you donated to the government above and beyond what you were required by the IRS?

I bet you are very generous with other people's money, just never your own.

[CrimsonCream]

Nope.

I learned this after busting my a$$ for a couple of years digging ditches and bucking bales.

Thank God (I guess that's who get's the credit for it) I am smart enough, and contain enough psycopathy that I am rewarded financially nowadays without having to work very much at all. I am very thankful for the LUCK that put me where I am.

Not everyone gets that opportunity, though.

Good for you.

I do think the vast majority people can make opportunity if they so wish. I used the GI Bill for an undergraduate degree at OU and two graduate degrees from Jacksonville State University. All three while working full-time jobs.

It's there for the effort.

[SpankyNek]

BS. Your country has needed it for several years now. How much of your personal wealth have you donated to the government above and beyond what you were required by the IRS?

I bet you are very generous with other people's money, just never your own.

I have tried to over pay...they simply just send it back. I would have NO PROBLEM paying a higher tax rate.

[SpankyNek]

Good for you.

I do think the vast majority people can make opportunity if they so wish. I used the GI Bill for an undergraduate degree at OU and two graduate degrees from Jacksonville State University. All three while working full-time jobs.

It's there for the effort.

Do you view the GI bill as socialist?

I don't.

[OutlandTrophy]

Do you view the GI bill as socialist?

I don't.

It's no more socialist than a paycheck is.

[OutlandTrophy]

Jackie Onassis used this type of trust to pass on her wealth to JFK jr virtually tax free. Most of that money was void of US taxes before it was placed in the trust. I bet as a percentage of taxes paid the Onassis paid far less than you and I. This is an issue of fairness and I believe everyone needs to pay their fair share of taxes.

The second issue is one of morality. We have asked the current generation to fight and die in all these wars and then we are going to turn around and make them pay for it. That is not right and I do not care if the effective tax rate goes to 50% to pay these bills. We have asked them to sacrifice for us and then we cry like little babies if we are asked to pay a little bit more in taxes or less in benefits.


don't let the % sign confuse you. I can assure you that the two of us combined have not paid anywhere near the same amount of money in taxes as the Onassis' have.

[SpankyNek]

And you appointed yourself as the arbiter of what constitutes "unearned". Why stop at inheritance? After all we can just as easily justify the righteousness of seizing your entire paycheck for the good of the collective. Since you are in support of this line of thought we should start with you. Describe your job duties and your income and the board will determine how much of that income you have actually "earned", the rest you will give to the government. Put your money where your mouth is.


Here we go with the "hard work" argument again. If we are to demonize the welfare state because they are lazy, then so are ALL that gain from no effort. I have every belief that I can be happy with what I am given...many others, not so much. I don't strive to have a better boat than you, a bigger house than you, etc. I have, in the last 10 years, lived in the woods of montana, in a barn, with no running water. I was happy. Then I found out that it wouldn't make my spouse happy, so I moved on. Don't get all preachy with me, greed is NOT human nature...it is YOUR nature.



Telling someone they do not have the liberty to transfer the wealth they have earned to their offspring is IMMORAL. Cut the BS. You are simply anti-individual, and anti-liberty.
You are wholly right, there is nothing more moral than financial-centrism and "wealth liberty"

Explain to me the liberty afforded to a child born of a meth addict in Idabel...it's all about doing the right thing.






And the developmentally retarded like Marx.

Never mentioned him....is that your limited view of philosophy?

I can tell you that going back to the ancient greeks there is a common belief that one SHOULD do what they are best at, to the best of their ability.

If the guy that invented the Microchip had, instead, decided to be a floor trader just because it paid more, it is immoral. He is cheating boyh himself and the world at large.

[CrimsonCream]

Well, isn't he?

Mark Halperin has been suspended indefinitely by MSNBC for calling President Obama a "dick" live on air.

The suspension came just hours after Halperin, a top editor for Time and a regular on "Morning Joe," profusely apologized for the remark, which came during Thursday's "Morning Joe" broadcast.

MSNBC's statement read:

Mark Halperin's comments this morning were completely inappropriate and unacceptable. We apologize to the President, The White House and all of our viewers. We strive for a high level of discourse and comments like these have no place on our air. Therefore, Mark will be suspended indefinitely from his role as an analyst.

Halperin also issued a statement:

I completely agree with everything in MSNBC’s statement about my remark. I believe that the step they are taking in response is totally appropriate. Again, I want to offer a heartfelt and profound apology to the President, to my MSNBC colleagues, and to the viewers. My remark was unacceptable, and I deeply regret it.

Time magazine, where Halperin is Editor-At-Large, issued a statement of its own, saying it had warned Halperin about the comments:

Mark Halperin’s comments on air this morning were inappropriate and in no way reflective of Time’s views. We have issued a warning to him that such behavior is unacceptable. Mark has appropriately apologized on air, via Twitter and on The Page.

Halperin's is the latest in a string of suspensions that MSNBC has issued over the past year. Most famously, the network suspended Keith Olbermann for undisclosed donations to Democratic candidates in the 2010 election.

It also suspended Joe Scarborough for making undisclosed donations and, most recently, yanked host Ed Schultz for a week for calling radio host Laura Ingraham a "slut."

Halperin's gaffe came on Thursday, when he was commenting on Obama's Wednesday press conference. He first asked host Joe Scarborough, "Are we on the seven-second delay?" implying that he wanted to speak freely but not have his comments broadcast.

Scarborough and co-host Mika Brzezinski assured Halperin that he could speak freely and anticipated a controversial remark. Halperin said:

"I thought he was kind of a dick yesterday."

Scarborough was in disbelief over Halperin's comment and quickly directed his attention off-camera, saying, "Delay that. Delay that. What are you doing?"

Halperin apologized after the hosts realized that the show's new executive producer was not familiar with the seven-second delay button.

"Joking aside, this is an absolute apology. I shouldn't have said it. I apologize to the President and the viewers who heard me say that," Halperin said.

"We're going to have a meeting after the show," Scarborough said.

Scarborough also made light of the incident, telling his producer, “I would tell you what I think of him, but he doesn’t know what button to push."

Brzezinski actually made a similar slip of her own earlier this year, fumbling with the word "dip." The show earned a seven-second delay in 2008 when Scarborough used the f-word live on air.

[CrimsonCream]

Do you view the GI bill as socialist?

I don't.

Why would I?

The GI Bill is/was an opportunity for being dramatically underpaid and away from home for three years. It also held the possibility of being a more productive citizen.

[pphilfran]

I would say that was made up. Raising taxes = less revenue? Sounds Voodoo.


In 2008 Buffet paid 17.7%. His secretary paid 30%.

I'm sorry my math is so simple but 30 looks higher than 17. In that regard it doesn't look fair.


5-0


Trump/ Archimedes 2012

Your problem is you believe everything you hear...

If you were to do a little simple research you would find the following...

In 2008 Mr. Buffet paid his sec 60k for the year...

What is the maximum amount of tax that she would have paid?

I will say she has no interest deductions...no dependents...no cap gains...I won't even use those afforded to her, the standard and personal deducions..

SS (this is a payroll tax, not income tax)- she will pay 7.65% on the total 60k...$4590...

Income tax - I won't give her a single deduction...not even the legal deductions like herself as a dependent or the standard deduction...


The first $8025 is taxed at 10%....$803
$8025-$32550 at 15%....$3679
$32550 - $60000 at 25%...$6863

Let's add em up...SS/Med and each tax bracket

4590+803+3679+6863=$15,934...

So if she is dumb *** a post and takes absolutely no deductions she paid $15,934 in income and payroll taxes...

What % of 60,000 is $15,934?

26.5571%

Include Nebraska state tax and she goes up about 33%...

If we toss in sales tax she is probably closer to 40%...he shoulda used that number it looks even more impressive...it wouldn't have been any more inaccurate than the 30% he quoted...

Mr. Buffet ain't no dummy...he takes a extremely low salary...cause he is such a good guy...and pays the maximum amount on that tiny sum....

But he has cashed in on all types of LTCG securities to make up for the low salary..and surprise, surprise the tax rate on LTCG is less than half he income tax rate...who'd have thunked it?

We have separate issues...and each will require a different solution...

We have SS/Medi...basically defined benefit plans...all gross income is taxes up to around 104k and then at a lower Medi rate for higher incomes...deductions do not do squat to lower the payment...interest income and cap gains are not taxed...

Income taxes...income is calculated after a series of convoluted deductions...cap gains and interest income are taxed...LTCG at a lower rate..STCG is taxed the same as earned income....

Different animals...different solutions needed...

[diverdog]

don't let the % sign confuse you. I can assure you that the two of us combined have not paid anywhere near the same amount of money in taxes as the Onassis' have.

Outland that is the only fair way to look at it.

The Onassis' are an easy target because the have a history of tax evasion.

[OutlandTrophy]

is it fair that roughly 50% of our population pays 0% of their income to the IRS?

What about those that actually get a bigger check from the IRS than what they have paid to theIRS?

Are either of those fair?

[CrimsonCream]

I bet you are very generous with other people's money, just never your own.

Sounds like Margaret Thatcher.

"Socialism is good until you start to run out of other people's money."

---Margaret Thatcher

[pphilfran]

Diver always makes excellent points.

Yes he does...even if he is a stinking banker....jk....

[CrimsonCream]

Yes he does...even if he is a stinking banker....jk....

Diver is a rational liberal and not a Loon or a brown banana eater.

[pphilfran]

DD is putting the problem on a plate and trying to serve it up to some of you...but you refuse to gorge yourself at his feast...

It is loopholes and deductions that anybody can use....but the very well off are the only ones that can afford to benefit from those loopholes...

[OutlandTrophy]

Our problem is not a revenue problem. We have a spending problem.

[SpankyNek]

Our problem is not a revenue problem. We have a spending problem.

When there is not enough revenue for CONTRACTUAL spending, it is a revenue problem.

[OutlandTrophy]

sounds like someone signed some CONTRACTS that they shouldn't have aka spending more than you have

ps why are we capitalizing CONTRACTS and CONTRACTUAL??

[pphilfran]

Our problem is not a revenue problem. We have a spending problem.

Currently we have a revenue problem...we will be under 15% of GDP for 3 straight years...pulling in the 18-19% like the good old days ain't gonna be enough...

We must get into the 20-21% range to have a prayer...to get that we go back to the Clinton tax structure, we should see 19%...and then raise the cap on SS to 140k...that would get us in the ballpark...

[pphilfran]

I wouldn't initiate that tax structure today...we must first get the economy moving...

The key to revenue growth is GDP growth....

[OutlandTrophy]

I wouldn't initiate that tax structure today...we must first get the economy moving...

The key to revenue growth is GDP growth....

I can agree to that.

[SpankyNek]

sounds like someone signed some CONTRACTS that they shouldn't have aka spending more than you have

ps why are we capitalizing CONTRACTS and CONTRACTUAL??

I just did it for emphasis. We are only spending what we have promised to spend. Whether the contracts should have been signed then becomes a moot point, and the problem becomes manning up and paying what we owe.

We are going to have to cut spending, congress will never agree as to where to cut, and one side is saying tax increases are off of the table.

We are in trouble.

[tcrb]

We are in trouble.

I will agree with this.

[pphilfran]

Don't like the revenue increases?

We have lost a years worth of revenue over the last 4 years....lost, gone for forever...

At the same time our spending went out of control...between wars, unemployment, bailouts, Medi Part B, and party agenda I can't seem to find a place where we actually tried to control what we spent...

So every 2 years we are spending 3 years worth of money...

Servicing of the long term debt is now at the point of being uncontrollable...by 2016 we will be paying over a half trillion a year just to service the debt...that is more than double the projections for this year...through 2016 the slowest annual growth on this mandatory interest expenditure is 14%...

[pphilfran]

I just did it for emphasis. We are only spending what we have promised to spend. Whether the contracts should have been signed then becomes a moot point, and the problem becomes manning up and paying what we owe.

We are going to have to cut spending, congress will never agree as to where to cut, and one side is saying tax increases are off of the table.

We are in trouble.

Hell yes we are...

But when the plan is finally forced down their throats the masses will rise in protest at the coming cuts and tax increases....Vive La Greece?

[CrimsonCream]

"You need to be here. I've been here. I've been doing Afghanistan, bin Laden and the Greek Crisis."

----"Sleaze" in his National Television Address referring to Congress


"What a stupid, silly son of a b!tch!"

----Forrest Gump referring to Obama's Address relative to his 33 Fundraisers (Bush had 3 at the same point), 17 Golf Outings and numerous Overseas Trips

[diverdog]

is it fair that roughly 50% of our population pays 0% of their income to the IRS?

What about those that actually get a bigger check from the IRS than what they have paid to theIRS?

Are either of those fair?

They do pay payroll taxes.

There are two billionaires who pay no taxes as well.

I would also ask you how many rich kids serve on the front line vs poor kids.

[diverdog]

Currently we have a revenue problem...we will be under 15% of GDP for 3 straight years...pulling in the 18-19% like the good old days ain't gonna be enough...

We must get into the 20-21% range to have a prayer...to get that we go back to the Clinton tax structure, we should see 19%...and then raise the cap on SS to 140k...that would get us in the ballpark...

Phil that is the issue. People think they are paying a lot in taxes but they are not. Really the entire tax code needs to be destroyed.

[CrimsonCream]

I would also ask you how many rich kids serve on the front line vs poor kids.

It is unfair.

I sometimes think it would be fair for everybody to serve two years like they did back in the 50s.

[okie52]

I would also ask you how many rich kids serve on the front line vs poor kids.

Why is that relevant?

[CrimsonCream]

Phil that is the issue. People think they are paying a lot in taxes but they are not. Really the entire tax code needs to be destroyed.

Actually, I wouldn't mind paying more in taxes if the politicians would cut spending and quit p*ssing the money away on stupid stuff and corrupt organizations.

[CrimsonCream]

Why is that relevant?

I think maybe he's saying the Rich have a decided advantage over the Poor in terms of buying their way out of negative situations. Like draft deferments.

[okie52]

I think maybe he's saying the Rich have a decided advantage over the Poor in terms of buying their way out of negative situations. Like draft deferments.

True, when they had a draft. Now its a volunteer army. Nobody is forced to join.

[OutlandTrophy]

They do pay payroll taxes.

There are two billionaires who pay no taxes as well.

I would also ask you how many rich kids serve on the front line vs poor kids.

I didn't ask about payroll taxes. I'm also not asking about local sales taxes. We are talking about the national deficit and money paid into the nation's coffers to pay for our Federal Government. I do like how you attempted to sidestep my question.

I don't believe it.

I have an honorable discharge, do you? It's rather asinine to bring military service for rich and poor people. It appears to me that you are doing nothing more than participating in class warfare. It's a shame. It's also pathetic.

[StoopTroup]

I think maybe he's saying the Rich have a decided advantage over the Poor in terms of buying their way out of negative situations.

Oh yeah.....

Man the NFL sure has gone to great lengths making sure this guys pics in a NFL Uniform never see the face of GIS History...


Ex-NFL Linebacker Shot Millionaire Six Times, Prosecutor Says

http://img1.yardbarker.com/media/a/c/ac0dc23f1f6814192cf326ab407dc19369e6fe96/medium/Carolina_Panthers_v_e8e8.jpg?stamp=1308837243


Ex-NFL Linebacker Shot Millionaire Six Times, Prosecutor Says

In opening statements in Eric Naposki's murder trial, the prosecution says the defendant was in debt when he shot his lover's wealthy boyfriend. Ladera Ranch woman also involved.

A former NFL linebacker was in debt and bouncing from one job to another when he shot his lover’s wealthy boyfriend six times in the chest at his Balboa Coves home in 1994, a prosecutor told jurors Monday during opening statements in the murder trial of Eric Naposki.

Naposki, 44, faces one count of special-circumstances murder for financial gain in the death of Bill McLaughlin. Ladera Ranch resident Nanette Ann Packard—McLaughlin's girlfriend, who was also in a relationship with Naposki, according to the district attorney’s office—is charged with one felony count of special-circumstances murder for financial gain. A pretrial hearing for Packard is scheduled July 8.

“At the end of this case, you are going to want to hold this guy accountable—I guarantee it,” Deputy District Attorney Matt Murphy said during his opening statements in the trial, which is being held at the Central Justice Center in Santa Ana.

After a short football career with the New England Patriots and Indianapolis Colts in the late 1980s, Naposki moved to Orange County. He owed his ex-wife thousands of dollars, had bad credit and drove a car registered to his father, Murphy said.

What a terrible guy! :rolleyes:

[diverdog]

I didn't ask about payroll taxes. I'm also not asking about local sales taxes. We are talking about the national deficit and money paid into the nation's coffers to pay for our Federal Government. I do like how you attempted to sidestep my question.

I don't believe it.

I have an honorable discharge, do you? It's rather asinine to bring military service for rich and poor people. It appears to me that you are doing nothing more than participating in class warfare. It's a shame. It's also pathetic.

I am DAV.

No the righties are the one who is participating in class warfare. At every corner you guys bring up the poor as if they contribute nothing to this nation. They do in more ways than the military.

Warren Buffet also famously said that if there is class warfare then his class won and it ain't even close. Do you care to challenge that statement?

You also have no idea how tax revenue is being spent. For decades the surplus on SS has been swept into the general budget. That is a defacto income tax. This surplus has also masked for decades the true nature deficit spending. Now we are seeing the full effects.

To be perfectly honest all taxes are treated as general revenue.

[sappstuf]

I have tried to over pay...they simply just send it back. I would have NO PROBLEM paying a higher tax rate.

I'm here to solve your problem....

https://www.pay.gov/paygov/forms/formInstance.html?agencyFormId=23779454

[sappstuf]

This is a case of good intentions gone wrong. Generally accelerated depreciation is designed to incent companies to upgrade their equipment. It is not meant to have lawyers buy hummers as happened under President Bush. Obama is probably mad that some of the Wall Street execs we bailed out have used this tax loophole to buy a luxury item and expense it to the taxpayer.

Uggg I hate typing on my iPhone.

I think Charles has pinpointed how important this tax is to our debt...


“I did the math on this. If you collect the corporate jet tax every year for the next 5,000 years, you will cover one year of the debt that Obama has run up. One year.

“To put it another way, if you started collecting that tax at the time of John the Baptist and you collected it every year — first in shekels and now in dollars — you wouldn’t be halfway to covering one year of the amount of debt that Obama has run up.”

Obama mentioned that tax 6 times... He really doesn't have a clue.

[OutlandTrophy]

I'm glad that Obama is taking this serious and is willing to sit at the table with the lawmakers as often as it takes to get a solution to this problem. That's what leaders do.

[bigfatjerk]

I think Charles has pinpointed how important this tax is to our debt...



Obama mentioned that tax 6 times... He really doesn't have a clue.

He also said if we collect the oil subsidy and the Jet tax for 100 years you would cover up to February of one of Obama's annual budgets so far. Those taxes really don't matter in the grand scheme of things. Any tax raise doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things. The only taxes that really bring in money are the ones that are already pretty high. And rich people find ways to not pay those taxes as much or pay them in bonds which don't go directly to the government.

[CrimsonCream]

I'm glad that Obama is taking this serious and is willing to sit at the table with the lawmakers as often as it takes to get a solution to this problem. That's what leaders do.

Stuff like this is what makes the Clown a scumbag.

"You need to be here. I've been here. I've been doing Afghanistan, bin Laden and the Greek crisis."

Lets see. Iowa last week. Philadelphia this week for two fundraisers. The guy is a chronic liar.

[diverdog]

He also said if we collect the oil subsidy and the Jet tax for 100 years you would cover up to February of one of Obama's annual budgets so far. Those taxes really don't matter in the grand scheme of things. Any tax raise doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things. The only taxes that really bring in money are the ones that are already pretty high. And rich people find ways to not pay those taxes as much or pay them in bonds which don't go directly to the government.

What are you talking about? Tax rates are at all time lows during my lifetime.

[sappstuf]

What are you talking about? Tax rates are at all time lows during my lifetime.

And yet....

http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/income-tax-equityPNG_1.png

[pphilfran]

http://money.cnn.com/2011/07/04/news/economy/debt_ceiling_debate/index.htm

They are talking about a trillion in cuts over 10 years...with the majority in the later years...not enough...100 billion the first year would be fine, about a 3% cut...the second year it should be another 100 billion and continue on with the cuts..after 10 years we need to have cut a total of at least 500 billion a year...and 500 billion in cuts in 2021 will only be less than 10% of the 2021 budget...so that is not asking for too f'n much...

Our leadership is not taking the spending cuts seriously..

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Huge spending cuts, and maybe some targeted tax hikes.

That's how the deal to raise the debt ceiling is shaping up. Details are thin, as negotiations have been carried out behind closed doors and involve only a few of Washington's heaviest hitters.

This much is known: Lawmakers must raise the nation's $14.3 trillion legal borrowing limit soon. The Treasury Department says that on Aug. 2 it will run out of money to pay the nation's bills in full and on time.

That's only a few weeks away. So what's it gonna take?

The group of lawmakers who participated in negotiations led by Vice President Joe Biden have already identified more than $1 trillion in budget cuts.

Republicans want far more.

But already, $1 trillion in cuts is entering uncharted territory. The cuts would be some of the biggest in history.

"It sounds as if the package is going to be all spending cuts with a few symbolic revenue increases," said Isabel Sawhill, an economist who studies fiscal issues at the Brookings Institution and worked in the Clinton administration.
Debt ceiling FAQs: What you need to know

The $1 trillion in cuts would probably be spread out over the next decade or so, meaning roughly $100 billion less in federal spending each year, although the savings might be larger in later years.

Sawhill said the cuts are likely to be focused on non-security discretionary spending, a small section of the budget that includes funding for food inspectors, the FBI and education grants, among many other programs and services people associate with government.

"The public is going to be a lot more concerned when they see the details and not just the abstraction of less spending," Sawhill said.

That's something Obama clearly has on his mind as well. He made the point in a press conference this week.

"I've said to some of the Republican leaders, you go talk to your constituents, the Republican constituents, and ask them are they willing to compromise their kids' safety so that some corporate jet owner continues to get a tax break," Obama said. "And I'm pretty sure what the answer would be."
Obama to Congress: Do your job

On the revenue side, the White House wants to close loopholes that benefit the owners of private jets, and raise taxes on hedge fund managers who pay lower tax rates on so-called "carried interest."

Additional proposals would change how business inventory is taxed, and eliminate government subsidies for oil and gas companies.

But not if Republicans have anything to say about it. The party's leaders have put up a united front on the issue. Tax hikes will not be considered, they say.

There is a common theme. The proposals spare the middle class and instead focus on corporations and the wealthy. The White House says they focus on "unnecessary" and "unjustifiable" tax breaks.

The revenue increases won't make much of a dent, at least not compared to $1 trillion in spending cuts.

Ending the tax break for owners of private jets, for instance, would only save a few billion dollars, hardly enough to fund the Food and Drug Administration.

"I understand the populist appeal," Sawhill said. "But those numbers are very small."

However, one additional proposal pushed by Democrats could add up to real money.

The White House wants to limit deductions taken by the wealthiest Americans. Depending on the details, that could quickly add up to increased revenue in the hundreds of billions.

Still, those tax increases will only touch a fraction of Americans, while the spending cuts will spread the pain around.

"Americans don't have a firm grasp on what it means to cut a trillion dollars," Sawhill said. "They think it's someone else's trillion dollars."

[pphilfran]

What are you talking about? Tax rates are at all time lows during my lifetime.

Data from the Obama budget... http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

Fed revenue from personal income taxes (includes cap gains and div) and SS/Med are at or near the highest levels ever...

In the 50's the combined revenue from the above personal sources accounted for 9.4% of GDP
60's 11.2% of GDP
70's 13.2% of GDP
80's 14.8%
90's 15.0%
2000's 14% (we had two recessions in the 2000's)

From 2000 -2008 (only the early recession) we pulled in 14.7%

During WWII we only pulled in about 10% from those same sources....

I do not include rate increases on state, property, sales, or the million other taxes we all get hit with...

DD, you are better than that...don't try to force feed me a bunch of bullchit about taxes being at the lowest level in your lifetime...

As a whole we are paying far more in taxes today than anytime in history...since the 50's, personal taxes, as a percent of GDP, have grown 50%...

[Sooner_Tuf]

I can't speak for anyone else but I know I am paying more taxes than I did thirty years ago. I pay taxes for things my father didn't. I pay more in property taxes than my grandfather or great grandfather paid for land itself.

I'm about taxed out. It doesn't really matter if they raise them even more, I can't pay more. Like most American small businesses I will cut back what we do to avoid the excessive taxes. Which means we will employ fewer people and purchase fewer goods in the process.

The solution is simple. Make people go back to work by cutting the all the free couch money. Make Government smaller. If you are too lazy to work that is your problem, it shouldn't be everyone else's like it is now.

[pphilfran]

How much did our leadership spend each decade?

Same data source...first number is total spending...second number is total shortfall in GDP..all tax sources...

50's 17.6%....-.4%
60's 18.6%....-.8%
70's 20%.......-2.1%
80's 22.2%....-3.9%
90's 20.7%....-2.2%
2000's 20%....-2.4%
2000-2008 19.5%....-1.2%

Future projections from budget...

2011-2016 23.1%...5.4%



During WWII we spent over 40% of GDP...wow...

Hard to believe that we actually spent less in this century than anytime since the 60's...

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

I would say that was made up. Raising taxes = less revenue? Sounds Voodoo.


In 2008 Buffet paid 17.7%. His secretary paid 30%.

I'm sorry my math is so simple but 30 looks higher than 17. In that regard it doesn't look fair.


5-0


Trump/ Archimedes 2012

I just want to point out something here. Buffett's salary is $100k a year which is what he lives on. The dude drives an average car, lives in an average house, etc. After Med/401k 17% average tax is about right. 99.9999999999% of his wealth is in unrealized gains.

The reason his secretary probably paid more is one of the several scenarios -> 1) she makes more than he does or more likely 2) she did something that he's never done -> sold shares of berkshire/hathaway.

There are very few methods in our tax system for individuals to hide from the taxman. Outside of these methods, if you earn more in each type of income you'll pay more in taxes (please note that ordinary income/capital gains are separate silos here).

Some examples to skirt this are 1) municipal income, 2) previous losses (capital/business/etc), 3) Business/Farm loopholes (mainly ones that are bent by filers allowing them to get credit for normal activities as bus/farm), 4) charity/student loan interest

edit -> just want to point out that unrealized gains (like buffetts) aren't taxed

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

On the jet tax -> My biggest issue with private jets is not corporations, its non-profits and the government. Talk about abuse of the system. When you see that Nancy Pelosi is costing us 650k a year on military jets (100k for catering), the real way you start saving money is cut that program.

I mean this isn't rocket science, we could take a team of 5 people on this board, give us 2 weeks carte blanche and we could save the country 50 million/year.

What we are seeing is the result of our last constitutional amendment -> they couldn't vote themselves a pay raise, so they are voting themselves 100's of perks.

[StoopTroup]

On the jet tax -> My biggest issue with private jets is not corporations, its non-profits and the government. Talk about abuse of the system. When you see that Nancy Pelosi is costing us 650k a year on military jets (100k for catering), the real way you start saving money is cut that program.

I mean this isn't rocket science, we could take a team of 5 people on this board, give us 2 weeks carte blanche and we could save the country 50 million/year.

What we are seeing is the result of our last constitutional amendment -> they couldn't vote themselves a pay raise, so they are voting themselves 100's of perks.

you might save money but you won't fix what's wrong....

[pphilfran]

I just want to point out something here. Buffett's salary is $100k a year which is what he lives on. The dude drives an average car, lives in an average house, etc. After Med/401k 17% average tax is about right. 99.9999999999% of his wealth is in unrealized gains.

The reason his secretary probably paid more is one of the several scenarios -> 1) she makes more than he does or more likely 2) she did something that he's never done -> sold shares of berkshire/hathaway.

There are very few methods in our tax system for individuals to hide from the taxman. Outside of these methods, if you earn more in each type of income you'll pay more in taxes (please note that ordinary income/capital gains are separate silos here).

Some examples to skirt this are 1) municipal income, 2) previous losses (capital/business/etc), 3) Business/Farm loopholes (mainly ones that are bent by filers allowing them to get credit for normal activities as bus/farm), 4) charity/student loan interest

edit -> just want to point out that unrealized gains (like buffetts) aren't taxed

His sec DID NOT pay 30% in fed taxes and SS/med...she made 60k and the top rate at the time was 25%..

[JLEW1818]

stay hot barack hussein

[StoopTroup]

stay hot barack hussein

Dude....he's on vacation.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

If you want to make things completely fair tax wise, then there needs to be a flat tax on all income with everyone getting the same initial deduction. Everyone would be treated the same and the tax rate would still be progressive.

The numbers may need to be adjusted(tax rate and exemption), but I'll use 20k and 20% to make the math simple.

For example, give every person a 20k exemption(married couple 40k).

Every dollar one earns above the exemption gets taxed at 20%.

Taxpayer 1 makes 40K and is single. He pays 20% of 20k or 4K. His rate is 10%. If married, he pays 0%.

Taxpayer 2 makes 100k and is single. He pays 20% of 80K or 16%. If married he pays 12%.

Taxpayer 3 (Buffet's secretary) makes 200K. Tax on 180 = 36k or 18%

Buffet makes billions and pays 20% on everything above the 20K exemption or 19.99%.

This type of tax would help the retired folk who depend on dividends or capital gains since their rate would be 20% after the exemption.


Everyone gets the same exemption. Every dollar above the exemption gets treated the same. As you make more, the effective tax rate is still progressive. What isn't fair about this?

The biggest issue here that no one has explained is how you deal with capital gains (both realized and unrealized), municipal bond income, and small business deductions (sole proprieter/LLC/LLP/Partnerships).

Flat taxes work great for 1040EZ filers, where it bogs down is when you consider the above which are so entwined in the tax code that doing anything about them is going to send ripples through the financial markets.

For example, if municipal bond income is taxed at 10% - the same as regular bond income - there will be no market for municipal bonds.

If capital gains is taxed at 10%, maybe good things will happen maybe they won't. The question would be would more people invest in capital projects or would they take real earnings (since there wouldn't be a difference in tax treatment like there is now). Whatever you did, there would have to be something done about the loophole for businesses that are not taxed on capital gains.

Small Business is where this gets dicey. A lot of businesses don't operate at a 10% profit margin on sales. If you allow all small business deductions then you still have the problem that small businesses would be paying 25% whereas corps would be paying 10%.

[soonercoop1]

I am DAV.

No the righties are the one who is participating in class warfare. At every corner you guys bring up the poor as if they contribute nothing to this nation. They do in more ways than the military.

Warren Buffet also famously said that if there is class warfare then his class won and it ain't even close. Do you care to challenge that statement?

You also have no idea how tax revenue is being spent. For decades the surplus on SS has been swept into the general budget. That is a defacto income tax. This surplus has also masked for decades the true nature deficit spending. Now we are seeing the full effects.

To be perfectly honest all taxes are treated as general revenue.

Really? Class warfare...We haven't seen anything close to the full effects as yet. Wait until we feel the effects of all this QE BS. As someone that has been calling for the drastic reduction of the federal government and their power for decades...just wait and see exactly what happens when the liberal/progressive funding stops with this inevitable drastic decrease...:D