Why any online gambler would ever vote republican is beyond me.
-
Comment -
Nope - America has a revenue problem .. income tax revenues are at their lowest level since 1951, and the Republicans want to cut the level for the "rich" even more ... if you don't have money coming in - you can't have money going out ... tax on middle classes are lower now too ... by all means cut the wasteful spending and slash revenue for all programs (welfare, defense etc) .. but that is not nearly going to be enough to get the deficit in check .. taxes are going to have to go up ... for middle class, for the "rich" and for businesses .... if they don't .. we're going to still be here in 20 years time saying the exact same thing.
"Individual income taxes came to just $2,900 per capita in 2010, down 36 percent from more than $4,500 in 2000. Total income taxes and income taxes per capita declined even though the economy grew 16 percent overall and 6 percent per capita from 2000 through 2010.
Corporate income tax receipts fell 27 percent and declined 34 percent per capita, even though profits boomed, rising 60 percent.
Payroll taxes increased slightly overall, but slipped per capita because the nation's population grew five times faster than the number of people with any work. The average wage also declined slightly.
You read it here first. Lowered tax rates did not result in increased tax revenues as promised by politician after pundit after professional economist. And even though this harsh truth has been obvious from the official data for some time, the same politicians and pundits keep prevaricating. Some of them even say it is irrelevant that as a share of GDP, income tax revenues are at their lowest level since 1951, when Harry S. Truman was president.
No matter how many times advocates of lower tax rates said it, tax rate cuts did not pay for themselves, did not spur economic growth, did not increase jobs, and did not make America better off."Comment -
We are living itComment -
This is indeed true. But it can't happen without first being predicated by a greater erosion of the Constitution--a quest championed by progressives for over a century now.
Support of draconian fascist leaders is always the people's response when the rule of law becomes meaningless and hollow. And no one cheapens the law better than the liberal excuse makers and their endless supply of race hustlers and ambulance chasers. So when the people rise up with their crosses and flags, know that you will only have yourself to blame.No more of that talk, or I'll put the leeches on you.Comment -
Invest in Excel or a calculator because math is obviously tricky for you. Eliminate un-needed pork spending, stop fighting wars of aggression against countries who have neither attacked nor threatened the U.S. and scale military spending to an appropriate level for national defense instead of national offense, phase out the ponzi schemes of Medicare and Social Security, and eliminate most all welfare (disability, EBT, housing, Medicaid, etc) and the Fed and every state budget in America would be well in the black.Comment -
haha, funny - so your answer is to spend nothing at all on anything .. and everyone lives happily ever after ... man they must inbreed heavily where you are from ...
fcuk the elderly, the kids, the poor and needy .. as long as i'm alright .. screw everyone else .. i'm so glad you are part of the caring sharing party that is sinking so fast because of outdated attitudes like yours :0)
Who needs death panels when people like you would rather "socially cleanse" the needy in one fell swoop. Hitler was a pussy cat in comparison.Last edited by jw; 06-23-11, 03:14 PM.Comment -
We need the old, sick and poor to have easy access to suicide methods
If the poor commit suicide en masse, wages will rise
As far as old people and sick people who are too poor to take care of themselves, we need to encourage them to commit suicide
We should open suicide centers for the poor and the elderly and the sick, and provide ways for them to die quickly and cheaply
We can pay for the suicide centers with a tax on the middle class, which will in itself increase middle class suicides further, pushing wages up even moreComment -
Some of the most liberal states have the most server online gambling laws. So its just not republicans, if democrats thought this law was so unjust they had two years to fix it, obviously its not on their priority list.Comment -
What happened to the tax-exempt churches taking care of the old and poor and needy? Isn't that why were granted tax-exempt status? Why is it that the people clamoring for raising taxes never, ever bring up the idea of removing the tax-exempt status from churches?
If somebody can't take care of themself and their family and friends and local tax-exempt church refuse to take care of them then why is it exactly that the government feels that it is their right to rob me of my money to support these people? Since all of the caring, bleeding hearts out there feel so strongly about taking care of these people from cradle to grave then why not just make social programs run via voluntary contributions. Surely all of these people would just open up their wallets and support these programs. I mean just look at how much good they have done America the past few decades. The "war on poverty" has essentially eliminated poverty hasn't it? Wait....what is that? Poverty has increased ever since these programs were inacted? Unfathomable. I guess doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result really is insane.Comment -
I'm be 100% in favor of taxing all of them - as far as I am concerned they are all 100% running a "business"
Whenever I drive past one of these "megachurches" that probably cost tens of millions to build .. you have to ask yourself how many hungry, homeless people they could have fed with that kind of money ..
You really have no clue how real life works ...
... well done you for being so great that the shit has so far avoided hitting your fan .. I can only hope that one day here real soon you get to experience the crap that some people find themselves in through no fault of their own.
Comment -
haha, funny - so your answer is to spend nothing at all on anything .. and everyone lives happily ever after ... man they must inbreed heavily where you are from ... fcuk the elderly, the kids, the poor and needy .. as long as i'm alright .. screw everyone else .. i'm so glad you are part of the caring sharing party that is sinking so fast because of outdated attitudes like yours :0) Who needs death panels when people like you would rather "socially cleanse" the needy in one fell swoop. Hitler was a pussy cat in comparison.
Comment -
Cut down defense spending by 30% and right there you have a few trillion added to balancing the deficit. Heck we can even skim a $100 billion and put it towards something that might actually be good for our nation as a whole....like the education of our children.Comment -
There are nowhere near enough wealthy republicans to soak via taxes to pay for all the deadbeat liberal democrats like NYSportsGuy living in the U.S.Fcuk Sarah Palin she's a gimmick. Bush the Second was just a plain embarrassment. Republicans need to get off their greedy arses and start helping to fix the economy and the deficit by stop vetoing laws to raise taxes on corporations and the rich so we can finally look like a rational and responsible country again by balancing our budget. Enough with this nonsense right-wingers....seriously grow up and read a book for once.
The only words liberal democrats have in their limited vocabulary is "raise taxes on the rich, raise taxes on the rich".
The U.S. is falling apart at the seams because the number of deadbeat liberal democrats is increasing sharply while the number of hard-working conservatives is decreasing.
After sucking up their 99 weeks of unemployment benefits, liberals trash conservative politicians who have the nerve to say enough is enough.
Wealthy conservatives are FAR MORE INTELLIGENT than any blood-sucking liberal democrat and if you try and raise their taxes, they will simply outsource more jobs and there will be less jobs available for the select few liberal democrats that actually want to work.
Many amendments were added to our country's constitution giving more and more people the right to vote. All of these new voters (who our founding forefathers saw fit to exclude) vote overwhelmingly democratic. At the very least, it should be a requirement that all voters have a high school degree and there needs to be some sort of reasonable poll tax levied on all voters (even $20 would do the trick) to ensure that each and every vote was properly thought out.
Liberals often cite the Constitution's original voting requirements as proof of their argument that what was written then is no longer applicable today. At the time of the writing of the Constitution, only male land owners were permitted to vote; women were entirely prohibited. Liberals, therefore, say that although that may have been acceptable in society when the Constitution was written, it is unacceptable today.
The process proscribed within the Constitution allowed the document to be amended, and without the help of any judicial interpretation. The founding fathers believed, as I do, that the long term welfare of our nation is best served by an informed, invested electorate. Thus, I question the assumption that the original intent fails at all ? not only for these reasons, but due to the fact that women were not allowed to vote then because they were not regarded as well enough educated or informed, and that only property owners were thought to have enough of an investment in the long term welfare of the state to qualify as voters.
This was the framer?s original intent ? they believed that such a requirement to qualify to vote was not unreasonable. Would we not be better off today if that principle were applied? It might have been better if the Constitution were more clear, stating outright that only informed citizens with a vested interest are allowed to vote, but clearly, the idea as it was manifested at the time of the writing is a sound one. If anyone today is regarded as well-informed, and non-land owners as vested, let them vote. But preserve the integrity of the system and erect a bar over which people must climb before voting. We will all be better off.
Instead, it has been determined that anyone should be able to vote, even though too many voters have no earthly idea what policy or party serves them best. National research demonstrates that more people know who Paula Abdul is than who know the three branches of government. This extension of voting rights to anyone and everyone has led to a huge bloc of people voting on emotion and only for their immediate gratification, as opposed to what best serves the country and even themselves in the long run. These voters are like the farmers who eat the seed corn and are therefore unable to plant in the spring.
The popular idea today is that the more people who vote, the stronger our democracy will become, helping everyone to feel he has a role in decision making. But more important for political stability is the economic welfare of the country. Hitler earned just 2% of the vote in the election before the Depression, but with economic hard times as a catalyst, he won outright. Can you think of any modern-day similar situation? Long term economic welfare would be much better served in a system that filtered qualified voters ? those with at least a rudimentary knowledge of how our government works. This is not a new or radical idea ? we require that vehicle drivers be licensed by passing tests before we allow them behind the wheel. Since the very welfare and viability of our country is at stake, especially our national security, should we tolerate anything less?
Some may say this is unfair, that everyone should vote, but is the system as it is set up today fair? Under our everyone-can-vote current system, one group can vote themselves another group?s private property, something certainly unfair and unlikely to occur if only property owners were voting. In the short run, expropriating private property may benefit a few, but in the long run it is ruinous for everyone.
The constitutional restrictions on voting (as they were written) should have been replaced, not eliminated. I won't speculate on what criteria should be applied, but real standards need to be set.
Our founding fathers were brilliant. They took the selfishness in human nature and, through capitalism and private property, harnessed it so as to do the greatest public good for the greatest number of people. We should listen closely to everything they said. After all, this experiment we call the United States of America has produced the greatest country in the history of mankind.Comment -
How did the wealthy get wealthy? They were either born into it or SOMEONE showed
them how to become wealthy. I don't think it's an intelligent issue.
There are some pretty dumb rich people out there. Some live like poor hermits with
millions under their mattress. Some hit the lottery and the money is gone by the next
year. Sports players live like they are going to be getting their salaries forever.
There are probably more rich people who filed for bankruptcy than poor people.
Wealthy get more tax deductions than the average person, to avoid paying in.
It all boils down to the low man on the pole. They get the shaft and have to pay for
everything.
Voting? Too bad, you're stuck with what you got. Get over it. Power to the people!Comment -
I disagree with most of this post, but I'll just focus on a few points.
First, there is no big secret to getting rich. Its all about taking risks, and obviously finding/waiting for the ones that have the best chance of succeeding. Intelligence also plays a huge factor in becoming wealthy, its not just getting lucky and having someone teach you. It takes an incredible amount of drive and willpower to become wealthy (in most cases). Also, very few people are just born into it, to the point where they become Paris Hilton's and just party all the time.
Yes, there probably are more rich people that filed for bankruptcy, but that's because they know the value of taking risks. It seems that you're implying that the rich are dumb, lazy and lucky, whereas the poor are smart, hard-workers, and unlucky. As a whole, that is a ridiculous thing to imply. Sure, there are examples on both sides that fit that description, but I can assure you that most wealthy people work more than you can imagine.
Finally, the wealthy pay an absurd amount of the overall taxes in this country. 50% of people don't even pay taxes! Guess which part of the totem pole almost all of those people are on?Comment -
Never implied the rich were lazy, that's how they get rich, through hard work and opportunity.
The bottom totem pole, not necessarily taxes, is EVERYTHING that makes the world go round.
Middle class on down, spend more of their earnings than the rich. They are the driving force
of any economy. When they are suppressed with no work or a fear of no work, economies
crumble. They will sit on their cash (if they have any). The impact of high fuel and food
will impact us the most. Any increase in anything, trickles down to us. The bottom pole sitters.
But, you know all of this. So, taking more risks means, if you fail, the govt has your back?
I would love to go all in on some bets, a business or stocks and have the govt watch my back.
Take the govt equation out of Wall street and see how big they go all in. In other words, have
Wall st. operate like we do on our bets. If they win, they keep it. If they lose, no deductions.
If Wall st. is anything like sports betting, when 99% of people lose, Wall st. would collapse.
If you think about it, Wall st. players are non essential contributers to anything, but paying their
capital gains taxes, only if they win. That would be small, because they can claim their losers.
Just my opinion.Comment -
but thanks for playing .. even if it was just to repeat whatever "they" told you to believe ..
Comment -
Elections do indeed have consequences. We are all feeling the effects of the 2008 presidential election. Some of you may enjoy this economy some may not. It is all in the eyes of the beholder. In Wisconsin the elected lawmakers in 2011 created a 300 million dollar budget surplus from a 3 billion dollar defict without laying any public sector workers. Tell me what works?
Go PackComment -
Lol, nice unbiased articlehttp://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/0...rprise-to-them
but thanks for playing .. even if it was just to repeat whatever "they" told you to believe ..
Obviously the 50% figure refers to income taxes... it goes without saying that everyone pays sales tax (if your state has them) and all the other random taxes. It also goes without saying that income tax is the BIGGEST tax people face, and almost half don't pay anything for it. I thought it was pretty obvious I was referring to income tax...
Your article jumped all over Ryan's budget proposal and the 25% proposed rate on the rich... convenient how it ignores the proposed rate for people making less than 6 figures (10%). As long as the rich get hosed, though, right?
Comment -
Sorry, I thought it was understood... only 2 states don't have sales tax, so anyone who bought anything in any of the other 48 paid some sales tax. Is it logical to think that 50% of Americans stayed in those 2 states the whole year? Of course not.
My bad for assuming people could understand that
Edit- kinda funny that you'll call me out for that, and yet I bet you think GE didn't pay any taxes last year. Am I right?Last edited by rsnnh12; 06-24-11, 05:01 PM.Comment -
Interesting thread...
One of this country's biggest problems is that there's no strong third party, so it's consistently a choice of the lesser of two evils... Other countries keep things in check with other powerful presences, not to mentioned better-informed populaces who don't just accept what their chosen form of media feeds them. They get out in the street and don't just accept having all their necessary programs de-funded.
People need to recognize that the economic downfall here comes from to corporate greed and that's all... The corporations run this country, and until people take back some control over their governement, we're not coming out of this downturn. Did you know that individuals pay four times more in income taxes than corporations do, because of all kinds of loopholes written into bills due to lobbyists? Yup, and those corps were all able to get their bailout money... funny how what was supposed to "create jobs" did no such thing.Comment -
the pukies banning online gambling sums them up pretty wellComment -
Hey liberals,
Say bye bye to barack for meComment
