When Obama raises the taxes....

[Panic]

I don't, I'm an aircraft mech and my salary varies based upon the year I have. I see where you're going tho and it's a bit of an ad hominem. I've known lots of poor people to buy into your ideology even tho the other way would be more advantageous to them and plenty of rich who know that taxes are best way to avert fiscal trouble. See, for most occupations, most people have to do well for them to do well also, so crushing the little guy by cutting welfare programs might seem like a good idea, but in reality does not work. I don't know if it was this thread or another where I detailed Clinton's success, but why not be empirical about it using history rather than off the cuff, 'Taxes suck?'

Look at the cause and affect of raising versus lowering taxes and the impact to the economy using data, perhaps make an argument from that rather than, 'Hey dude, if you made what I make you wouldn't feel that way.' Because the truth is that economics are far more complex than you or me, the global picture is important and I compel you to show me when we cut taxes for a long time where we've done well. And if you can find that, show me constant examples of that. Then show where periods of tax increase has failed.

When you own a business than talk to me about it. Right now, you have no say.

[EBSB52]

When you own a business than talk to me about it. Right now, you have no say.

Thank you, you've just supported my ad hominem. (knowing you don't understand that makes me happier)

[Panic]

Thank you, you've just supported my ad hominem. (knowing you don't understand that makes me happier)

This is why Obama should have no say. I own my business and make a lot of money...what gives him the right to come in and take my money and give it to someone sitting at home doing nothing for themselves?

[Panic]

EB, you still there? I know you have nothing to offer....you just want Obama in office....just because.....

[Igetp2s]

You people are all looking at the wrong thing. The huge deficit right now has absolutely nothing to do with the tax rate. In fact, tax revenue is (or recently was) at an all time high.

The real problem is out of control spending by Congress. Can anyone possibly argue that Congress just doesn't spend enough money on stupid, wasteful projects just to buy votes?

The real problem with Obama (besides not having any grasp of how to deal with foreign dictators) is that according to him, there is nothing the government shouldn't be paying for. McCain is far from perfect, but at least he has some limitations on wasteful spending (like eliminating the earmarks which are the lifeblood of the bloodsucking Senators we currently have).

The reason Clinton was able to shrink the deficit, is because he was held in check by a Republican Congress. Obama will not have that.

[reno cool]

Correct me if I am wrong...but isn't it the goal of everyone to make more than $250K a year even if we aren't there now?

Even if I don't get to $250K in the next 4 years. Why would I want him to raise the taxes on anyone......once they are up they will never come back down.

yes i know. everybody's a wannabe. thats the American way.

[reno cool]

This is why Obama should have no say. I own my business and make a lot of money...what gives him the right to come in and take my money and give it to someone sitting at home doing nothing for themselves?

this is getting old.

how's he going to do that?

[crisp]

it doesn't really matter if obama gets in or not. if he gets in he'll most likely be gunned down soon. the guys they caught the other day are some of many that are planning his demise.

[MonkeyF0cker]

If you would quit looking at things from such a selfish and narrow perspective, perhaps you would understand. If the consumer class has more purchasing power, then your business should thrive even more when the middle class has greater wealth and those who are impoverished can stand on their feet and become legitimate participants in the economy. That assumes that your business is successful. I too am a business owner. However, the current financial situation in this country calls for fundamental changes in structure. You do realize that the national deficit does indeed need to be addressed and that by simply ignoring it, it becomes an even greater burden? Each household now carries $85,000 in debt due to the Bush budgets. Perhaps, you would rather just write a check in that amount to the government. Or would you rather just pay an additional 3% in taxes every year until it's paid? I know what my choice is.

[Panic]

this is getting old.

how's he going to do that?

do you own a business, reno?

[reno cool]

no

[Panic]

Whats funny, boys...is all these guys saying...its getting old...or this...or that...are guys that have no business and dont make alot of money....must be nice to have a say for my cash.

[reno cool]

don't want your cash. I'm a gambler. Call it a business if you want.

I don't know what business you're in, but it must not require much thought.

[EBSB52]

This is why Obama should have no say. I own my business and make a lot of money...what gives him the right to come in and take my money and give it to someone sitting at home doing nothing for themselves?

You've mistakenly convoluted the whole enormous fiscal US mess. It's easy to do, but illustrate how tax collections and tax distributions have anything whatsoever in common? The US has been a debtor nation since its inception, so there is no real balancing of the budget, we just spend what we need/want to. As for tax collections, we collect what we can by generally following the money. People aren't taxed, money is. Don't want to get taxed, make 25k/yr and quit bitching, but you, like most motivated people, want to make money, so you go get it and then, like most others, hate paying taxes. Reminds me when I hear kids saying they don't want to grow old, I tell them the other option is to die young. Same with taxes, don't like paying taxes, then quit making so much. Again, you aren't being taxed, your money is.

Anyway, tax collection and money distribution are not connected in any way. As I wrote, we were a debtor nation upon our conception, the debt was stable other than time so of war, then it spiked. It dropped under Andrew Jackson, in the 1920's before the Great Depression and under Eisenhower, the last true conservative. It also dropped in 1969 as LBJ handed off the presidency to Nixon due to war surplus funds, but then went into the can again. Then, under Reagan, with a war it spike to 250B/yr even with no active war. It stayed there for 12 years, a 3 trillion $ run to hell from no where. Clinton about capped it off and then ass-monkey will have at least an 8-year 5 trillion dollar mess he basically single-handedly created. Are you aware that under Clinton, the Dow Jones went from 3500 to 9800? Now we are several hundred points below that. Other than Hoover has a president ever left the DJ lower then when he inherited it? This may be another first.'

The overall point I'm making is that you can't logically correlate your taxes being raised by virtue of a % increase or by you earning more, to that of some welfare recipient down the street. You could leave the face of the earth and the tax collections system, state and federal couldn't tell the difference; the welfare bum down the street could fall of a cliff and no one would know. So don't take taxes personally, they aren't. Don't like paying taxes, quit making so much money.

Try to come back with something empirical or data-orineted, I don't care what you make nor does it matter what I make. BTW, Warren Buffet, richest man in the world agrees with me, so before you try wage-dropping, try it with him, he's got my back

[crisp]

will books put up odds on will obama be assasinated during his term? i'd take yes for the limit. nicky some odds please?

[EBSB52]

EB, you still there? I know you have nothing to offer....you just want Obama in office....just because.....

Just because I type comprehensive posts doesn't mean I went anywhere...... look, shiney keys

Now let's read your 5-word retort.

[Panic]

Just apply when you need a job....maybe I hire you.

[EBSB52]

You people are all looking at the wrong thing. The huge deficit right now has absolutely nothing to do with the tax rate. In fact, tax revenue is (or recently was) at an all time high.

The real problem is out of control spending by Congress. Can anyone possibly argue that Congress just doesn't spend enough money on stupid, wasteful projects just to buy votes?

The real problem with Obama (besides not having any grasp of how to deal with foreign dictators) is that according to him, there is nothing the government shouldn't be paying for. McCain is far from perfect, but at least he has some limitations on wasteful spending (like eliminating the earmarks which are the lifeblood of the bloodsucking Senators we currently have).

The reason Clinton was able to shrink the deficit, is because he was held in check by a Republican Congress. Obama will not have that.

By congress? Let's see, the congress submitted bills for Bush's 1st 5.5 years and he didn't veto 1. Finally at 5.5 years he did and that was the stem cell bill, not really a fiscal bill at all, so the Republican congress ran the country for most of Bush's term knowing he wouldn't veto, but that is both Bush and congress, considering he didn't veto the spending.

McCain voted 90-95% with Bush, how the hell can you say he is fiscally secure?

As for Clinton, he had success because he shrunk spending, as you started to say. As well, he raised taxes on the rich and look at the result: Dow Jones 3500 - 9800.

[EBSB52]

it doesn't really matter if obama gets in or not. if he gets in he'll most likely be gunned down soon. the guys they caught the other day are some of many that are planning his demise.

Yea, it's pretty easy to kill a president

Never happen.

[crisp]

Yea, it's pretty easy to kill a president

Never happen.

JFK ring a bell. its easy for a sniper far away.

[EBSB52]

If you would quit looking at things from such a selfish and narrow perspective, perhaps you would understand. If the consumer class has more purchasing power, then your business should thrive even more when the middle class has greater wealth and those who are impoverished can stand on their feet and become legitimate participants in the economy. That assumes that your business is successful. I too am a business owner. However, the current financial situation in this country calls for fundamental changes in structure. You do realize that the national deficit does indeed need to be addressed and that by simply ignoring it, it becomes an even greater burden? Each household now carries $85,000 in debt due to the Bush budgets. Perhaps, you would rather just write a check in that amount to the government. Or would you rather just pay an additional 3% in taxes every year until it's paid? I know what my choice is.

Well exactly. I know this kid, I've known him since he was a kid and now he owns a small A/C business for houses/light commercial. We'll call him James the AC guy for McCain followers. Early and mid 20's it was collect welfare, **** the system, smoke dope, **** the military. Now he is doing better and he's a flag waving turd. He loves the military and essentially parrots all right wing rhetoric. The whole thing is greed, he still smokes dope, has no plans of participating in the military and is generally not a true neo-con, but he wants to keep banging the debt machine and not pay taxes so he aligns himself with neo-con ideals. He's the same guy, just that he makes a little money now, so he wants to be greedy and earn more by sacrificing his kid's futures.

But where your post got me was that I told him just that; you need most people to be doing well in order for you to do well, if people are broke, it's heaters during the winter and box fans during the summer. He needs people to have cash, so he needs these neo-cons out.

[EBSB52]

do you own a business, reno?

One last time, Warren Buffet owns a business or 2 and his might be doing a shade netter than yours, so just transpose that question to him.....BTW, he's already answered; THE TAX RATE IS TOO LOW FOR RICH PEOPLE.

[Panic]

One last time, Warren Buffet owns a business or 2 and his might be doing a shade netter than yours, so just transpose that question to him.....BTW, he's already answered; THE TAX RATE IS TOO LOW FOR RICH PEOPLE.

You still talking, EB? Amazing....you should be in bed. You boss wont be happy if you're late.

[Panic]

Shiny keys and all.

[rm18]

I used to see the secret service always around Dan Quayle's daughter in VA it is not easy to kill a president.

[EBSB52]

JFK ring a bell. its easy for a sniper far away.

Oh yea, good point, our secret svs technology is about the same. It's almost as if you want to see that, how creepy.

Besides, then you have Biden and after that Pelosi....perhaps take the intelligent path and fix your party so they're more desireable.

[EBSB52]

You still talking, EB? Amazing....you should be in bed. You boss wont be happy if you're late.

Ah yes, you haven't addressed any of the data or citations I have pressnted, hence you have acquiesced. Go look it up

[Panic]

Ah yes, you haven't addressed any of the data or citations I have pressnted, hence you have acquiesced. Go look it up

Learn how to spell, kid...maybe thats why you still make 8/hr.

[Panic]

oh......

[guitarjosh]

By congress? Let's see, the congress submitted bills for Bush's 1st 5.5 years and he didn't veto 1. Finally at 5.5 years he did and that was the stem cell bill, not really a fiscal bill at all, so the Republican congress ran the country for most of Bush's term knowing he wouldn't veto, but that is both Bush and congress, considering he didn't veto the spending.

McCain voted 90-95% with Bush, how the hell can you say he is fiscally secure?

As for Clinton, he had success because he shrunk spending, as you started to say. As well, he raised taxes on the rich and look at the result: Dow Jones 3500 - 9800.

Clinton had success because Greenspan kept pumping money into the economy and the .com/tech bubble. Raising taxes had little to do with it.

[EBSB52]

Learn how to spell, kid...maybe thats why you still make 8/hr.

So it's down to quick and typing and an inadvertent error, the merits have escaped you? Kid? Thx, I wish, I'm 46. BTW, I am an FAA licensed mechanic, inspector, pilot, a tandem skydiving instructor, FCC GROL, and I have a BS in Justice,.... kid. I would ask what your position is, but I imagine you would inflate the hell out of it.

And after we compare cock sizes, the issues are still the issues, that's where the ad hominem comes in....altho still a mystery to you. If you want to wage drop, go to Warren Buffet, he thinks as I do in regard to taxes and wealth and pays a tad bit more than you do.

Again, you have failed to even touch any of the other data I provided, color me shocked. The intelligent approach would be for you to try to impeach the data and historical events that I have provided.... I don't expect that.

[EBSB52]

Clinton had success because Greenspan kept pumping money into the economy and the .com/tech bubble. Raising taxes had little to do with it.

I don't look at Greenspan as being a big factor during Clinton's time, he just kept the interest rates stable. However, the dot.com boom was important. The way I look at is that Clinton received a great era, even tho he did inherit the tail end of a recession, but he did prudent things with it. OTOH, Bush received the end of a great economic era, but 911 and other things made it a bad era, but in good GWB fashion he made the worst of it.

In a vacuum Bush is still a POS and Clinton did well. Perhaps it would have been better to have the presidents reversed. As for Greenspan pumping cash, I don't know the numbers of cash genration during all the president's time, but that contradicts the fact that the US dollar soared during Clinton's time, usually the dollar suffers as it dillutes via mass production.

[Panic]

So it's down to quick and typing and an inadvertent error, the merits have escaped you? Kid? Thx, I wish, I'm 46. BTW, I am an FAA licensed mechanic, inspector, pilot, a tandem skydiving instructor, FCC GROL, and I have a BS in Justice,.... kid. I would ask what your position is, but I imagine you would inflate the hell out of it.

And after we compare cock sizes, the issues are still the issues, that's where the ad hominem comes in....altho still a mystery to you. If you want to wage drop, go to Warren Buffet, he thinks as I do in regard to taxes and wealth and pays a tad bit more than you do.

Again, you have failed to even touch any of the other data I provided, color me shocked. The intelligent approach would be for you to try to impeach the data and historical events that I have provided.... I don't expect that.

46 and still don't have sh!t to show for it? Nice. And you ridicule me?

[MonkeyF0cker]

Clinton had success because Greenspan kept pumping money into the economy and the .com/tech bubble. Raising taxes had little to do with it.

You do realize that Greenspan was the Fed Chairman for most of Bush's Presidency as well, right? And that despite many of Greenspan's warnings on deficit control and fiscal responsibility, the Bush administration continued to spend at a record pace... Sorry to say, but you can't have it both ways.

[EBSB52]

46 and still don't have sh!t to show for it? Nice. And you ridicule me?

Who says? I have a house and comfortable life. I ridicule you for not being able to empirically debate. That's the neo-con ramble tho; never got a job from a poor guy, better here than there, etc.... The Dems will embarrass you guys again when we fix the mess. Then what can ya say, 81-93 neo con trash ****s the country for 3 trillion and climbing, 93-01Clinton fixes it and leaves a gem, 01 forward, Ass-clown ****s it and jacks the debt 5 trillion, 09-17 Obama fixes it...... see the trend? And still the rhetoric......

Try addressing the points.