Maximum Grilled Steelers Forum
Sep 02, 2014 at 23:47 *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
  Home   Forum   Help Calendar Media Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2] 3 ... 5  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Smartest thing she's said yet  (Read 2780 times)
Finnegans Wake
Global Moderator
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 12189
Offline Offline

Posts: 22,244



« Reply #10 on: Oct 30, 2008 at 09:49 »

Oh, and when I get time, I'm going to post a perspective on this whole "Redistribution of Wealth" issue.

Please do.

I've long had a refutation of the flat tax that I've never articulated.  Obama's "socialism" is a tweak of existing tax code nearly a century old.  Basically, rolling back the cash grab for the highest earners that Bush doled out.

Hmmmm, giving more money to the middle class... Yeah, that's a bad thing, because the super-rich sit on their money and the middle class spend it on goods and ser-- oh wait, that would actually help the economy.

Nevermind.

IF Obama was actually taking money from the rich....The new proposed tax increase is for those making $150,000 or more. Um. That is not rich. Saw the link for reference yesterday, but cannot find it today. Even if it is not true, and it is still $250,000 or more, that still is not rich. Is it wealthy in WV? Well, maybe not wealthy, but doing very well. But NYC, are you kidding me? $250,000 is not even remotely close to rich.

I am not rich, I don't make anywhere close to $150,000 or $250,000, but it is 100% wrong on principle alone, IMHO. Really, it doesn't matter, both candidates are socialists anyways. Don't let McCain fool you, he is just a little less socialist. He absolutely voted for the bailout, and nationalization of banks...Um, socialism.

Vote for Bob Barr.

So, Reagan was a socialist?

Really???

Because any president since the tax code was enacted has operated under the same set of rules, with the only difference being one of degree rather than order.  Who gets taxed at what rate gets tweaked, in other words.

So, if you're saying "spreading the wealth" is "socialist," then we've been a socialist country for some time now.

I always thought socialism involved the State owning (or distributing) goods and services.  Some services (police, fire, military, etc.) have always been socialized, as it were, as essential services.  But nothing in what we consider the private sector, at least until W. 

As to the fairness of either tax plan, we can discuss that later.
Logged

Out of my mind on Saturday night...
vinman3
Global Moderator
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 1762
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,783


Master of the Obvious


« Reply #11 on: Oct 30, 2008 at 10:59 »

Oh, and when I get time, I'm going to post a perspective on this whole "Redistribution of Wealth" issue.


Please do.

I've long had a refutation of the flat tax that I've never articulated.  Obama's "socialism" is a tweak of existing tax code nearly a century old.  Basically, rolling back the cash grab for the highest earners that Bush doled out.

Hmmmm, giving more money to the middle class... Yeah, that's a bad thing, because the super-rich sit on their money and the middle class spend it on goods and ser-- oh wait, that would actually help the economy.

Nevermind.


IF Obama was actually taking money from the rich....The new proposed tax increase is for those making $150,000 or more. Um. That is not rich. Saw the link for reference yesterday, but cannot find it today. Even if it is not true, and it is still $250,000 or more, that still is not rich. Is it wealthy in WV? Well, maybe not wealthy, but doing very well. But NYC, are you kidding me? $250,000 is not even remotely close to rich.

I am not rich, I don't make anywhere close to $150,000 or $250,000, but it is 100% wrong on principle alone, IMHO. Really, it doesn't matter, both candidates are socialists anyways. Don't let McCain fool you, he is just a little less socialist. He absolutely voted for the bailout, and nationalization of banks...Um, socialism.

Vote for Bob Barr.


So, Reagan was a socialist?

Really???

Because any president since the tax code was enacted has operated under the same set of rules, with the only difference being one of degree rather than order.  Who gets taxed at what rate gets tweaked, in other words.

So, if you're saying "spreading the wealth" is "socialist," then we've been a socialist country for some time now.

I always thought socialism involved the State owning (or distributing) goods and services.  Some services (police, fire, military, etc.) have always been socialized, as it were, as essential services.  But nothing in what we consider the private sector, at least until W. 

As to the fairness of either tax plan, we can discuss that later.


Fair enough. I know you support Obama Finny, and that is cool by me. He just is too far left for my tastes. McCain, I never have trusted. I never voted for him in any primary he has ran in, and I will not support him now. Nor anyone who voted for the bailout.

I do like the fair tax though....Seems reasonable. http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_main
Logged

It's a hot night. The mind races. You think about your knife; the only friend who hasn't betrayed you, the only friend who won't be dead by sun up. Sleep tight, mates, in your quilted Chambray nightshirts.
Finnegans Wake
Global Moderator
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 12189
Offline Offline

Posts: 22,244



« Reply #12 on: Oct 30, 2008 at 11:56 »

Penso hates the fair tax.

It puts an undue burden on those who buy $100 puffy shirts.
Logged

Out of my mind on Saturday night...
steelerfaninCO
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 1270
Online Online

Posts: 1,471



« Reply #13 on: Oct 30, 2008 at 12:58 »

That crazy socialist Teddy Roosevelt was the first one to enact a progressive tax system, so it has been around for quite a while. What you have to remember, is that most people making over 250k a year usually don't pay even the current 36% of what they earn because any CPA worth a shit can get you a ton of deductions. I can tell you this through personal experience. Am I super psyched to be paying more taxes? Of course not, but if you make 20k a month(which is "only" 240k a year), at 39%, you still bring home over 12k a month. As Vin pointed out, tough to live well in Manhattan on that, but pretty much everywhere else in the country, you can live very well on 12k (take home) a month. And unless Congress closes a lot of the loopholes in the tax code, at the end of the year, your CPA will be lessing your tax burden.

I am definitely for another tax system though. Wouldn't mind a national sales tax, or a true flat tax with no deductions. The current system is way to complicated and is easily manipulated by the wealthy.

What we need is compassionate capitalism, not compassionate conservatism.

And even as a registered Libertarian, I can't vote for Barr. That guy is no Libertarian, and he can't change his record as a Republican Congressman from Georgia or being a total douche about impeaching Clinton. And I am pretty pissed at the Party for selling out their ideals and nominating him purely as a marketing strategy by putting a well known name on the ticket. Buts thats another story. I did vote for down ticket Libertarians here in CO.
Logged
pensodyssey
Halfsharkalligator halfman.
Global Moderator
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 8119
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,699



« Reply #14 on: Oct 30, 2008 at 13:07 »

Penso hates the fair tax.

It puts an undue burden on those who buy $100 puffy shirts.

Whatever I can do for my country.
Logged

A shabby Charlie Brown.
leighclay
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 3979
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,192



« Reply #15 on: Oct 31, 2008 at 23:55 »

Fair enough. I know you support Obama Finny, and that is cool by me. He just is too far left for my tastes.

I'd be interested to know why, exactly, you think he's too far left?  Especially when you see so many moderate Republicans endorsing him.
Logged

I'm still the one with the boobs.
Finnegans Wake
Global Moderator
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 12189
Offline Offline

Posts: 22,244



« Reply #16 on: Nov 01, 2008 at 08:07 »

Fair enough. I know you support Obama Finny, and that is cool by me. He just is too far left for my tastes.

I'd be interested to know why, exactly, you think he's too far left?  Especially when you see so many moderate Republicans endorsing him.

Powell is a socialist.

Buckley is a commie.

Logged

Out of my mind on Saturday night...
vinman3
Global Moderator
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 1762
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,783


Master of the Obvious


« Reply #17 on: Nov 01, 2008 at 08:53 »

Fair enough. I know you support Obama Finny, and that is cool by me. He just is too far left for my tastes.

I'd be interested to know why, exactly, you think he's too far left?  Especially when you see so many moderate Republicans endorsing him.

Powell is a socialist.

Buckley is a commie.



Now now now Finny. Sarcasm will get you everywhere Smiley

I don't like his stance on gun control. The second amendment to the Constitution gives Americans the right to bear arms, and he has consistently voted to restrict those rights. I am not a gun fanatic, in fact, I only own one 4-10 shotgun. However, the second amendment is one I strongly believe in for self protection, hunting, and legal uses. Gun control laws take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, not criminals, they will still find ways to get guns.

I don't believe in the nationalization of our health care system. Now while Obama's plan doesn't go as far as Hill's, I think it will lead us down the road.

I don't know that I like an open dialogue with Iran, as long as Ahmadinejad is still intent on building a nuclear weapon program. That dude is bad news. I do agree with Obama about The Bush Doctrine to a point (see, I can be agreeable). We shouldn't act alone, unless an imminent threat or attack has occurred. Clearly, Iraq was not an imminent threat, but they had been a thorn in the world's side for a long time. I supported the war from the beginning, and do not support withdrawing until the country can defend itself. I think Iraq really needs to work more swiftly at getting there. But I do keep in mind that the United States still has bases in Germany and Japan, over 60 years later. Having a base in Iraq is likely going to happen, with the Iraqi government taking control of their security. At least I hope so.

Bush failed where he had every chance to succeed after 9/11, most especially in Afghanistan. There is no reason why the Taliban and al qaeda should be active in Afghanistan 7 years after 9/11. Period. On that, Obama and I agree.

You know me and my wacky stance on "global warming," well Obama and I don't exactly see eye to eye on that. I think we should do what we can to be good stewards of this planet for our kids, but I still don't think that man affect on the climate is minimal compared to that ball of fire in the sky, volcanoes, and other natural causes. Now man has polluted the water, air, and land, and certainly we need to do better at cleaning things up.

I want energy independence and the elimination of oil as the driving force in our country. The reality is we are not going to get there right away. So we do absolutely need to use the resources the United States has at its disposal. Drill in Alaska, drill off the coast, get the oil shale from the Rockies, etc. Fuck OPEC. I just don't see an Obama presidency doing that.

I do like his thoughts on education.

I don't like the tax increases, because I believe that those increases will absolutely be across the board before it is all said and done. But in the meantime, they will hurt many small businesses, and then hurt the employees. I am for the fair tax or even a flat tax with no loopholes.

I am for small government, less taxes. The past eight years has got us lower taxes, but WOW how the government has grown. It will grow more with Obama.

I guess when it boils down to it. I don't trust the man. I don't trust McCain either.

Hope that helps clarify my position as a crazy right winger Smiley
Logged

It's a hot night. The mind races. You think about your knife; the only friend who hasn't betrayed you, the only friend who won't be dead by sun up. Sleep tight, mates, in your quilted Chambray nightshirts.
steelerfaninCO
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 1270
Online Online

Posts: 1,471



« Reply #18 on: Nov 01, 2008 at 10:40 »



[/quote]


I don't know that I like an open dialogue with Iran, as long as Ahmadinejad is still intent on building a nuclear weapon program. That dude is bad news.


[/quote]
 

Clearly Ahmadinejad is a dangerous idiot, but you have to understand he is not the leader of Iran. The Supreme Ayatollah rules the country, and Ackwhatthefuckmandida job is basically a figurehead, with no real power. He also had a tough relection campaign, and thats when he said alot of the crazy shit he has been saying, trying to appeal to his right wing hardline base. People have to understand that Iran is not Iraq. Iraq is a made up country, by the Brits circa 1917. Iran, or Persia, has been a society for over 5000 years. They were building aqueducts thousands of years before the Romans. In other words, these are intelligent people who need to be respected, no matter what their stupid theocracy is saying.

How would open dialogue with Iran hurt? Especially in regards to their nuclear program? Look where shunning N. Korea got us. Didn't talk to them, and they went ahead and developed the bomb. We start talking to them, and they become more open to stopping their program. Just imagine what the US would do if , say Russia, refused to talk to us while demanding we get rid of our nuclear stockpile. We'd give them the finger.

Just because we talk to them, doesn't mean we agree with them, condone their actions, and support them. But how can we demand things from them from afar without engaging them? Do as I say, not as I do? Also, do we as a sovereign nation, have the right to tell other sovereign nations what they can, or cannot do? Surely, the rest of the world didn't want us to get the bomb, and we are still the only country to use nuclear weapons on another country. We need to sit down with them, tell them what we would like to see happen and how we can help them if they want to work with us. If they tell us to fuck off, then we tell them what consequences that will have. We can still be tough while talking to them, and we don't have to validate their crazy positions while doing it either. But not sitting down at the table with them, IMO, is the wrong move. It can't hurt, and can only help. Just my .02.
Logged
vinman3
Global Moderator
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 1762
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,783


Master of the Obvious


« Reply #19 on: Nov 01, 2008 at 12:05 »

Maybe so. I do know about how the Ayatollahs are the real leaders in Iran, but Ahmadinejad is the man in the forefront. If they conceded the nuclear program, then I would be open for talk. I just don't want to make concessions prior to them changing their point of view especially in regards to nukes.
Logged

It's a hot night. The mind races. You think about your knife; the only friend who hasn't betrayed you, the only friend who won't be dead by sun up. Sleep tight, mates, in your quilted Chambray nightshirts.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 ... 5  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
SimplePortal 2.3.5 © 2008-2012, SimplePortal
| Sitemap
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!