Anti Obama Threads

kingsmith

Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3187230
Dude, don't insult me, by trying to sell me snake oil. You really think I'm that dumb?
First off, how in the HELL can I even start discussing taxes. Without discussing tax rates? THAT IS HOW THEY MEASURE HOW MUCH YOU PAY IN TAXES! There is no way around that.
But hey, never let facts stand in your way...
I asked for more than the simplest facts about taxes taht everyone knows, how can you discuss something throughly by onlt scratching the surface
 

kingsmith

Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3187231
Poor keep getting poorer? You are a moron.
Compare the poor from 25 years ago to the "poor" of today.
25 years ago, 50% owned a car compared to 75% today. Cars have only gotten more expensive as time has gone on....if they are getting poorer how can the afford that more expensive car since their wages and pay keeps decreasing.
25 years ago, 35% owned a dishwasher, now it is 70%.Another item that has become more expensive
25 years ago, No cell phone ownership...since they weren't made really. But now, 50% of the poor own an active cell phone.
25 years ago, only 40% of the poor had air conditioning...another item in which the cost has risen steeply. Today 80% of the poor have airconditioning
So if the system isn't working, it has to be doing something right since these people tht are getting poorer are able to own more items and improve their lifestyle far more than their counterparts from 25 years ago.......
I sometimes wonder if you guys even know what the hell you are saying................
You speak of a standard of living issue, take a broad look at how much the lower class has grown the middle class has shrunk and the rich relatively unchanged
Its called the polarization of the social classes and is based on facts uninfluenced by jaded political ideas.
BUT i'M THE MORON TRY COPING AND PASTING SOMEMORE STATISTICS TO PROVE YOUR INTELLIGENCE
 

kingsmith

Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3187230
Dude, don't insult me, by trying to sell me snake oil. You really think I'm that dumb?
First off, how in the HELL can I even start discussing taxes. Without discussing tax rates? THAT IS HOW THEY MEASURE HOW MUCH YOU PAY IN TAXES! There is no way around that.
But hey, never let facts stand in your way...
Oh and try rereading all the responses to my post they seem alot more insulting than anything I am writing
 

darthtang aw

Active Member
Originally Posted by KingSmith
http:///forum/post/3187235
You speak of a standard of living issue, take a broad look at how much the lower class has grown the middle class has shrunk and the rich relatively unchanged
Its called the polarization of the social classes and is based on facts uninfluenced by jaded political ideas.
BUT i'M THE MORON TRY COPING AND PASTING SOMEMORE STATISTICS TO PROVE YOUR INTELLIGENCE
Ok, no statistics. Let me explain it differently.
If I have 500,000 and invest thus getting a 20% return I now have 600,000.
If I only have 1000 and get the same return I now have 1200
Of course the index margin between the two is going to get wider......the guy with more money can see a bigger return on the investment. Does this mean the system is unfair and the guy with less money is getting screwed...no he is getting the same percentage back on his return....he just doesn't have as much to work with in the beginning.Even with the rich guy getting taxed 75% the index margin would still increase.
And shouldn't standard of living be the final verdict on how well the system works....if more people enjoy a far higher standard of living something must be going right.....
Statistically the working "poor" see a higher rate of monetary growth under republicans than under democrat Presidents.....look it up.
 

kingsmith

Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3187242
Ok, no statistics. Let me explain it differently.
If I have 500,000 and invest thus getting a 20% return I now have 600,000.
If I only have 1000 and get the same return I now have 1200
Of course the index margin between the two is going to get wider......the guy with more money can see a bigger return on the investment. Does this mean the system is unfair and the guy with less money is getting screwed...no he is getting the same percentage back on his return....he just doesn't have as much to work with in the beginning.
Thats is very true but also very basic, what I am saying is their are a host of issues on both sides which allow what is happening to continue, and what is fair and basic in its simplest terms becomes unfair when the specifics are in factored in. I feel we should spend less time looking at the lazy poor who are sapping the system and the ven lazier rich with gross amounts of money and power you are robbing us eveyday, hOWEVER DO WHAT YOU WILL BELIEVE WHAT YOU WILL, and nothing will change you can say youre red Im blue my guy is better than yours, but were all getting screwed
Politics Refuse To Use
 
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3187231
Poor keep getting poorer? You are a moron.
Compare the poor from 25 years ago to the "poor" of today.
25 years ago, 50% owned a car compared to 75% today. Cars have only gotten more expensive as time has gone on....if they are getting poorer how can the afford that more expensive car since their wages and pay keeps decreasing.
25 years ago, 35% owned a dishwasher, now it is 70%.Another item that has become more expensive
25 years ago, No cell phone ownership...since they weren't made really. But now, 50% of the poor own an active cell phone.
25 years ago, only 40% of the poor had air conditioning...another item in which the cost has risen steeply. Today 80% of the poor have airconditioning
So if the system isn't working, it has to be doing something right since these people tht are getting poorer are able to own more items and improve their lifestyle far more than their counterparts from 25 years ago.......
I sometimes wonder if you guys even know what the hell you are saying................
Come on, THAT is what you are going to use to defend your points? Usually you do better than that!
All those things you mentioned are standard living conditions by 21st century standards. My guess is 25 years ago the rich people didn't have a lot of those things either. It's a moot point.
All I know, is that if you are somehow smart enough or fortunate enough to be making five million dollars a year, then you sure as heck ought to be able to hire an attorney and tax specialist who can hide and protect your money.
I'm not saying I think what the ultra wealthy are doing is bad per se, I'm just saying it's sad that the American Tax system is setup to allow it.
Heck, if I had a net worth of ten billion dollars and I could shield most of it in trusts and foundations and other tax exempt places, you can bet your butt I'd be doing the EXACT same thing.
But look at it this way:
The guy working at Burger King makes his $8 an hour, and of that, he gets hit up for social security, medicare/caid, local, state, federal taxes, school districts, etc usually to the tune of around 18-20% of his take home pay.
So let's assume he works 40 hours a week full time, which means before taxes he'll earn about $16,640 a year. After taxes, he's going to take home $13,312 a year. Easy and straight forward. He has no choice, the taxes come out of his check before he ever sees it.
Now let's look at the guy who owns a multi million dollar company. His reported yearly earnings are let's say $500,000. He gets taxed at an even higher rate than Burger King guy because he makes a lot more. Fair enough.
What people ALWAYS fail to mention, is that through the tax loopholes, this guy also takes $200,000 and puts it in a GST trust fund. Another $100,000 in a charitable trust. $350,000 goes towards a salary of a non-profit that he runs. Another couple hundred thousand change hands enough times to where it can't even be traced back to his company. And let's not forget business expenses and charity tax write offs, which could be the biggest scam in the history of the wealthy in America.
So even though he is being taxed at a much higher rate for his reported $500,000 than Burger King guy, think how much of his actual earnings have been sheltered and therefore NOT taxed. In reality, he made 3 million that year, of which only $500,000 was actually taxed.
I'd like to see Burger King guy try and do the same...
Didn't think so
p.s. - The reason I know all of this, is because my recently deceased grandparent ran a company just like the one above, and one thing I learned from he and all his country club buddies is that the government will only tax what you let them see. He did it, they did it, everyone did it who was making that kind of money. Yet Uncle Sam looks the other way
 

kjr_trig

Active Member
Originally Posted by TheClemsonKid
http:///forum/post/3187193
Like the guy above said, you obviously have never taken a look at the history of the American tax code. It was specifically engineered to help the rich* keep their money while average Joe Sixpack** gets killed and there isn't much he can do about it.
*Rich - Top 1% with reported net worth over 5 million dollars.
**Joe Sixpack - Average two person household making < $100,000 a year
Trickle down economics works quite nicely.
How about me, I'm in between "Joe Sixpack" and "Rich"....Why is my household giving 35% of our hard earned income when the Sixpack family is only giving 25% in taxes.

Help me out here comrade
 

darthtang aw

Active Member
Originally Posted by KingSmith
http:///forum/post/3187250
Thats is very true but also very basic, what I am saying is their are a host of issues on both sides which allow what is happening to continue, and what is fair and basic in its simplest terms becomes unfair when the specifics are in factored in. I feel we should spend less time looking at the lazy poor who are sapping the system and the ven lazier rich with gross amounts of money and power you are robbing us eveyday, hOWEVER DO WHAT YOU WILL BELIEVE WHAT YOU WILL, and nothing will change you can say youre red Im blue my guy is better than yours, but were all getting screwed
Politics Refuse To Use
To get screwed you first have have lost something or been slighted. How are you getting screwed when someone else is able to get richer? Has this affected your lifestyle or qulity of living at all? No it has not. In fact historically as the index margin between the rich and the middle/poor classes have grown, the quality/standard of all three has increased as well.
No, this is just pure Jealousy on the part of people to accost those making far more money than them by screaming unfair....even though your quality of living has done nothing but increased over time. You just don't have as much as the guy next door is all this is. Sad really.
 

darthtang aw

Active Member
Originally Posted by TheClemsonKid
http:///forum/post/3187252
Come on, THAT is what you are going to use to defend your points? Usually you do better than that!
All those things you mentioned are standard living conditions by 21st century standards. My guess is 25 years ago the rich people didn't have a lot of those things either. It's a moot point.
All I know, is that if you are somehow smart enough or fortunate enough to be making five million dollars a year, then you sure as heck ought to be able to hire an attorney and tax specialist who can hide and protect your money.
I'm not saying I think what the ultra wealthy are doing is bad per se, I'm just saying it's sad that the American Tax system is setup to allow it.
Heck, if I had a net worth of ten billion dollars and I could shield most of it in trusts and foundations and other tax exempt places, you can bet your butt I'd be doing the EXACT same thing.
But look at it this way:
The guy working at Burger King makes his $8 an hour, and of that, he gets hit up for social security, medicare/caid, local, state, federal taxes, school districts, etc usually to the tune of around 18-20&#37; of his take home pay.
So let's assume he works 40 hours a week full time, which means before taxes he'll earn about $16,640 a year. After taxes, he's going to take home $13,312 a year. Easy and straight forward. He has no choice, the taxes come out of his check before he ever sees it.
Now let's look at the guy who owns a multi million dollar company. His reported yearly earnings are let's say $500,000. He gets taxed at an even higher rate than Burger King guy because he makes a lot more. Fair enough.
What people ALWAYS fail to mention, is that through the tax loopholes, this guy also takes $200,000 and puts it in a GST trust fund. Another $100,000 in a charitable trust. $350,000 goes towards a salary of a non-profit that he runs. Another couple hundred thousand change hands enough times to where it can't even be traced back to his company. And let's not forget business expenses and charity tax write offs, which could be the biggest scam in the history of the wealthy in America.
So even though he is being taxed at a much higher rate for his reported $500,000 than Burger King guy, think how much of his actual earnings have been sheltered and therefore NOT taxed. In reality, he made 3 million that year, of which only $500,000 was actually taxed.
I'd like to see Burger King guy try and do the same...
Didn't think so
p.s. - The reason I know all of this, is because my recently deceased grandparent ran a company just like the one above, and one thing I learned from he and all his country club buddies is that the government will only tax what you let them see. He did it, they did it, everyone did it who was making that kind of money. Yet Uncle Sam looks the other way
Problem with your post, is the rich guy pays more in medicare, sales, social, due to the fact those taxes are at a set percentage. These taxes the rich guy does not have any write off ability with.
The guy making 8 an hour will pay no state or federal taxes as he will get it all back, while the guy making a butt load of money will be paying out ATLEAST 40% even after deductions and such.
If anything the guy with less money makes out more as he keeps a larger percentage of his money when it is all said and done.
Standard of living is the end all of this debate. If your standard of living is increasing steaqdily....so much so that the poor people are able to live full lives with much more ease does it matter how big the gap is.
Someone explain to me why it is bad if the index margin between the rich and the poor/middle keeps growing. How does this lessen the quality of life for the poor/middle class?
 

scsinet

Active Member
Originally Posted by TheClemsonKid
http:///forum/post/3187145
You think it's terrible that WalMart doesn't give their employees affordable health care, a decent wage, and they put all the Mom and Pop's out of business, yet if you had to pay $3.50 for a gallon of milk as opposed to the current $2.50 you would have an armed revolution in Bentonville, Arkansas.
This made me laugh out loud. I finally have something to agree with you on.

Of course it's ironic that you speak of an armed revolution when you want to take away everyone's guns, but that's another topic
 

kingsmith

Member
I should have never broke my rule, but I could not help but step into the corner of THE KID, its nice to see a ray of reasonable
thought in these political threads
Politics Refuse to use
 

uneverno

Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3187001
btw (halfway jokingly) my point was, if Bush was as much of a moron as Obama, there would have been more Bush bashing threads.
Fair enough. No offence, but the syntax you used in your original statement confused me. I now understand your statement.
As a minor counterpoint, may I suggest that agreement w/ an opinion is not indicative of its validity?
I.e. Bush can't be branded a Conservative just because there was an (R) behind his name.
I may disagree, but I do understand Conservative ideals. Bush hardly embodied them.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3187001
Just because bush didn't come up with the idea of spreading our ideals, that all men are created equal and they are endowed by our creator with unalienable rights, of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Doesn't mean that it isn't a dang good idea. We don't need new ideas, we need the good ideas already out there to win out in the minds of the people...
BTW wasn't it the "great" obama the one who ran on "new" ideas. (Like new because we don't remember the 30's. And FDR's great depression...
btw (halfway jokingly) my point was, if Bush was as much of a moron as Obama, there would have been more Bush bashing threads. The reason there are soo many Obama bashing threads is because he is that incompetent.
I first heard that on Glen Beck, the one time I actually listened to him. I don't remember who's article he was reading. But it is a fun conspiracy theory. The idea was to devaluate our currency soo much, so it would be cheaper for us to pay off our debt. Since it was worthless, and alot of our debt is to be paid off in U.S. Dollars anyway.
I saw that but this was a different deal. This idea was other countries would own so much of our debt, and the debt was so large there would have to be a restructuring as a way to prevent a world wide economic collapse.
 

reefraff

Active Member
A few interesting facts
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg2064.cfm
The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various gov-ernment reports:
* Forty-three percent of all poor households actu-ally own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
* Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
* Only 6 percent of poor households are over-crowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
* The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in

[hr]
, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
* Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.
* Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
* Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
* Eighty-nine percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.
 

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3187424
Fair enough. No offence, but the syntax you used in your original statement confused me. I now understand your statement.
As a minor counterpoint, may I suggest that agreement w/ an opinion is not indicative of its validity?
I.e. Bush can't be branded a Conservative just because there was an (R) behind his name.
I may disagree, but I do understand Conservative ideals. Bush hardly embodied them.
Judging from the nationalization that has been going on like the autos, medicine, and cap and trade, although Bush wasn't what i'd like to see, there is a huge difference...
 

uneverno

Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3187467
Judging from the nationalization that has been going on like the autos, medicine, and cap and trade, although Bush wasn't what i'd like to see, there is a huge difference...
Sorry, again I'm missing your point.
Are the only options available to the government Nationalization or Laissez-faire?
 
Top