New taxes

[Legacy Fan]

I'll take a place where you can talk about the appropriate or optimum levels of taxation without heading straight to "lazy welfare freeloaders" and the probability of another civil war. Or even the "tax cuts good/tax hikes bad" nonsense.

 

Doesn't look like we're going to get that in here.

 

What about the shit service we're getting in exchange as we continue to finance this decision-making turd factory every week.

[Guest AdaM]

Anyone wanna move to Australia or Switzerland with me?

[heckofajobbrownie]

And Leg, Obama can get rid of the head of DOT, as he works for him. It's a cabinet post. And he can't get rid of the head of FICA because FICA is a tax. It has no head.

 

He can't fire the head of your local power company because he doesn't run the local power company.

 

As for GM, I think if that's what you believe is going on, I'm going to have a hard time making you see what really is.

[Chicopee John]

I'll take a place where you can talk about the appropriate or optimum levels of taxation without heading straight to "lazy welfare freeloaders" and the probability of another civil war. Or even the "tax cuts good/tax hikes bad" nonsense.

 

Doesn't look like we're going to get that in here.

 

 

I promise I won't rant and rave and attack. I would like to know if you can see a tipping point or points - either in the system collapsing under its own weight or a tipping point where things get ugly? If not the latter, I'd be interested in getting your thoughts in terms of the perfect balance.

 

[Westside Steve]

I'll take a place where you can talk about the appropriate or optimum levels of taxation without heading straight to "lazy welfare freeloaders" and the probability of another civil war. Or even the "tax cuts good/tax hikes bad" nonsense.

 

Doesn't look like we're going to get that in here.

 

 

But that's your MO.

Say things you don't really care to defend and call everybody stupid.

 

So lets have it Heck.

Why NOT raise the tax rate today when you have the votes?

 

And again, your boy promised all this free shit would be paid for by 5% of Americans.

 

At least admit that was [insert euphemism for bullshit] can't ya?

WSS

[choco]

cause you keep dodgin the real issue....

 

 

we have a huge money problem. we are overspending, with declining tax revenue.

 

there's 2 choices: 1) cut spending, 2) raise taxes.

 

those that actually work are pretty adamant about increasing taxes further, as it will only increase the financial pressure they are suffering.....those that dont work are fairly adamant about cutting their benefits....

 

to put it very simply, one segment of the population is needed to sustain the country....another is not. its not the best way to look at it, but we're floundering here as a country, and bad decisions will only make things worse. increasing spending when we knowingly cannot provide the money, even after raising taxes, is suicide. its like a sin tax.....as people quit, you get less revenue. so you have to increase taxes again, repeat cycle.

 

i bet you that once you chop the welfare roles, there'll be quite a few more people willing to clean toilets for a few bucks. oh what to do when she can't buy that new iPhone on the chicago taxpayers dime.

[Legacy Fan]

And Leg, Obama can get rid of the head of DOT, as he works for him. It's a cabinet post. And he can't get rid of the head of FICA because FICA is a tax. It has no head.

Yes, FICA was figuratively speaking. Apologies for thinking this was a place where I could incorporate a figurative example & a literal example in the same sentence.

 

I'm speaking of overhauls of the "fresh faces in power" that were also there 20+ years ago.

 

He can't fire the head of your local power company because he doesn't run the local power company.

 

As for GM, I think if that's what you believe is going on, I'm going to have a hard time making you see what really is.

 

Oh boy!!! No, please, enlighten me.

[Westside Steve]

You're the dip-shit saying "The Rich" are going to pay for it. Obama or anyone else never said that.

 

Way to completely avoid answering to any of the points you were exposed on.

 

Yes Adam, he most certainly did.

We'll be getting more and more services and only 5% of Americans would pay.

The rest would see tax cuts or no change.

 

He gave that answer on his website and in speeches.

 

WSS

 

[Guest AdaM]

Yes Adam, he most certainly did.

We'll be getting more and more services and only 5% of Americans would pay.

The rest would see tax cuts or no change.

 

He gave that answer on his website and in speeches.

 

WSS

 

 

No, he only said that his initial tax plan involved increasing taxes on the top whatever % and the rest would see their taxes go down.

 

This is the whole Joe the Plumber fiasco, remember?

[heckofajobbrownie]

Why don't you explain to me how Obama is "allowing" the company to shit the bed? What do you think bankruptcy is? And where would GM be without government support?

 

No one is denying that the White House wanted Wagoner to step down, and forced him out. Because of his failed record of leadership. Because the American people don't like rewarding failure with taxpayer money. The company needed to transform, and needed someone else to help lead in that transformation.

 

The man failed. If GM was bought by a private company he would have been fired. In this case, the government stepped in and fired him instead.

 

Would you have rather he stayed?

[heckofajobbrownie]

Steve, Obama didn't say what you're saying. Adam is right. You're saying something else.

 

He didn't promise that people would stop paying taxes, and instead the rich would pay instead. That's what you're suggesting. That's not true.

[Guest AdaM]

Why don't you explain to me how Obama is "allowing" the company to shit the bed? What do you think bankruptcy is? And where would GM be without government support?

 

No one is denying that the White House wanted Wagoner to step down, and forced him out. Because of his failed record of leadership. Because the American people don't like rewarding failure with taxpayer money. The company needed to transform, and needed someone else to help lead in that transformation.

 

The man failed. If GM was bought by a private company he would have been fired. In this case, the government stepped in and fired him instead.

 

Would you have rather he stayed?

 

 

At least it would look better on the jobless statistics...

[Westside Steve]

No, he only said that his initial tax plan involved increasing taxes on the top whatever % and the rest would see their taxes go down.

 

This is the whole Joe the Plumber fiasco, remember?

 

Not what I'm talking about Leg.

Yes that's the tax plan but also yes America was to get health care, the pre approved bailouts, and an inderminate (around 4K a year) amount for college.

9not count5ng the percent of GNP to aid Africa)

I'd say just those promises (and there are probably more) constitute BS.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Do you think Obama's plan was ever to give people health care for free?

 

And they're debating the health care plan right now.

 

And the college loans were in return for national service. They'd perform a job for $4000 in college tuition money. That sounds like some out of control spending program to you? Sounds a lot cheaper than hiring someone to do the same thing to me. And good for students.

 

As for spending a percentage of GDP on aid to Africa, I don't recall that. Did he ever promise that? I think you're thinking of various types of scientific research.

 

What part of this is BS? I don't get it.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Oh, don't I know it.

 

Steve's not on that page though.

[Westside Steve]

Do you think Obama's plan was ever to give people health care for free?

Yes.

He said it could be paid for by taxing the rich.

I thought it was either impossible or just bullshit.

He attacked the Romey and Hillary plans that would have required everyone to pay somethinig.

I can live with that.

 

But he campaigned against that.

 

And they're debating the health care plan right now.

So?

 

And the college loans were in return for national service. They'd perform a job for $4000 in college tuition money. That sounds like some out of control spending program to you? Sounds a lot cheaper than hiring someone to do the same thing to me. And good for students.

 

I have no beef with that.

I was under the impression it was going to be a grant to any and all who wanted to attend. I'm not sure it was never presented that way but I could be wrong.

 

As for spending a percentage of GDP on aid to Africa, I don't recall that. Did he ever promise that? I think you're thinking of various types of scientific research.

 

I believe that was a proposal somebody had a link during the electionl.

 

What part of this is BS? I don't get it.

 

You can read my response tot health care in the health care post.

 

But saying we can pay for it all by ending the Bush tax cuts is bullshit.

And again.........

WSS

[Legacy Fan]

Why don't you explain to me how Obama is "allowing" the company to shit the bed? What do you think bankruptcy is? And where would GM be without government support?

 

No one is denying that the White House wanted Wagoner to step down, and forced him out. Because of his failed record of leadership. Because the American people don't like rewarding failure with taxpayer money. The company needed to transform, and needed someone else to help lead in that transformation.

 

The man failed. If GM was bought by a private company he would have been fired. In this case, the government stepped in and fired him instead.

 

Would you have rather he stayed?

To go in reverse:

1. No I would rather he not stayed. But GM, as a publicly traded company, has ways of handling that - unless I missed something on November 4th.

 

2. Even Joe the Plumber could have predicted GM's eventual collapse and need for restructuring. And yes, the American people just put icing on top of the failure cake when we shelled out for these bailouts. I'd like my money back.

 

3. Fcuk GM. Let them fail. Oh wait, we just did. Bankruptcy is only allowing them to restructure without really worrying about paying back their creditors (now the American Taxpayer). Be honest with yourself about what bankruptcy really is/means, rather than what it's hiding. I have family who had 35+ years as an engineer in the safety dept. that lost their future because of how two dogshit letters metaphorically represent this fanciful idea of a stable American economy. He had nothing to do with the shitty decision making that gave us the Hummer, the electric car (the 1st one) and every other catastrophe that has plagued GM recently. He just made sure the Retards who bought these piles of shit didn't die when they backed into their mailbox exiting the driveway.

 

And without the government, GM would be in the same place as the Edsel, and the Pinto and every other fail that gets replaced by a better product.

[heckofajobbrownie]

So let me get this straight, Steve - you were wrong about the college tuition thing. You don't mind that anymore now that you know what it is.

 

You were wrong about his proposals on aid to Africa.

 

As for his health care plans, you're wrong about that too. He is not proposing that the government provide free health care. They're for providing a public insurance option for those who don't choose a private option. That's quite different than saying it's free. Not only is it going to have to be paid for by taxes, but you'll also have additional charges - deductibles, co-pays, prescription drug charges - just like every other insurance plan.

 

It's not free. Everyone who works will pay for this.

 

If you want to make the case that some Americans will receive subsidized insurance and you hate that, go ahead. If you want to make the case that progressive taxation is horrible, you can do that too. But both of those would be complaints that pre-date Barack Obama.

[calfoxwc]

So, anything really stupid or bad or distasteful to libs, is okay if Obama does it because

 

it also happened before Obama.

 

Got it.

 

Obama does good works, because ...

 

I forgot again.

[Westside Steve]

So let me get this straight, Steve - you were wrong about the college tuition thing.

maybe. Maybe not.

 

You don't mind that anymore now that you know what it is.

No Heck. I didn't mind it before but as we've been discussing there are limits as to what eliminating the evil Bush tax cuts can pay for.

I've always liked the idea of some kind of communtiy service but there are costs involved too.

It's not a money making plan.

http://blog.mlive.com/chronicle/2008/06/ob...offer_4000.html

 

You were wrong about his proposals on aid to Africa.

 

I don't think I was. In what way?

3% isn't significant?

 

As for his health care plans, you're wrong about that too. He is not proposing that the government provide free health care.

 

Well that's not true no matter what you wish.

 

They're for providing a public insurance option for those who don't choose a private option.

 

With no requirements which IMO are necessary. If he flips on it I like it better.

 

That's quite different than saying it's free. Not only is it going to have to be paid for by taxes, but you'll also have additional charges - deductibles, co-pays, prescription drug charges - just like every other insurance plan.

 

It's not free. Everyone who works will pay for this.

 

But that wasn't the campaign promise.

It was that eliminating Bush's tax cuts would pay for it.

Many of us knew that was a crock of shit.

 

If you want to make the case that some Americans will receive subsidized insurance and you hate that, go ahead.

 

Hate? Just disagreeing with the empty suit isn't hate unless you're, well you.

Lots of people should be subsidized BUT a lot MORE should be paying. And at least one of his anti Hillary ads cried that her plan could cost a family of four something like 1400 bucks.

Pretty damn reasonable isnt' it?

Is health care worth less than cable TV?

 

If you want to make the case that progressive taxation is horrible, you can do that too. But both of those would be complaints that pre-date Barack Obama.

 

And only a fool buys your red herring.

Progressive taxation has its use.

But like everything (besides your love for Obama) excess is bad..

 

I say be wary that too few wind up supporting too many.

 

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

3 percent of GDP would be significant. But that's not what he proposed. Which is why you're wrong. Once again, I think you're thinking of his statements about research funding, which he suggested we should fund at ...3% of GDP.

 

And once again, public health insurance wouldn't be "free" for the people who would choose that option. And suggesting that paying for it by rolling back the Bush tax cuts wouldn't make it "free" either. When people pay taxes for something, as well as out of pocket expenses, it's not free. I don't know why this is hard for you to grasp.

 

Nor is the administration proposing to pay for its health care plans by rolling back the Bush tax cuts. That's simply not true.

 

And this is why I have such a hard time having a discussion with you. Because your premises are so often false. And when I try and point out how they're false, you insist that they're true. Or you insist that trying to point out facts means I'm in love with Obama. It's so boring.

 

I see one defendable point in your whole screed - that you think the tax code is becoming too progressive. You want to shift the burden off the rich and place it more on the middle class. Okay.

[BrownIndian]

cause you keep dodgin the real issue....

 

 

we have a huge money problem. we are overspending, with declining tax revenue.

 

there's 2 choices: 1) cut spending, 2) raise taxes.

 

those that actually work are pretty adamant about increasing taxes further, as it will only increase the financial pressure they are suffering.....those that dont work are fairly adamant about cutting their benefits....

 

to put it very simply, one segment of the population is needed to sustain the country....another is not. its not the best way to look at it, but we're floundering here as a country, and bad decisions will only make things worse. increasing spending when we knowingly cannot provide the money, even after raising taxes, is suicide. its like a sin tax.....as people quit, you get less revenue. so you have to increase taxes again, repeat cycle.

 

i bet you that once you chop the welfare roles, there'll be quite a few more people willing to clean toilets for a few bucks. oh what to do when she can't buy that new iPhone on the chicago taxpayers dime.

 

Excellent post.

 

[Westside Steve]

3 percent of GDP would be significant. But that's not what he proposed. Which is why you're wrong. Once again, I think you're thinking of his statements about research funding, which he suggested we should fund at ...3% of GDP.

 

And once again, public health insurance wouldn't be "free" for the people who would choose that option. And suggesting that paying for it by rolling back the Bush tax cuts wouldn't make it "free" either. When people pay taxes for something, as well as out of pocket expenses, it's not free. I don't know why this is hard for you to grasp.

 

I do.

The same reason a discussion with you ends in horseshit.

You prefer a stupid wordgame to honesty.

OK you're right.

Nothing in the whole world is free. everything costs somebody something.

But that isn't and never was the point.

The point is that the empty suit (among other campaign bs) said it'd be paid for by eliminating Bush's tax cuts.

Said so in speeches through his flunkies and on the Obama Revision website.

 

I'm sure it's been edited.

And even if you want to belabor the word "free" sure Heck. If my ice cream bill is 100$ and somebody's forced to pay half for me I get 50 bucks worth of free ice cream.

Free to me.,

 

 

Nor is the administration proposing to pay for its health care plans by rolling back the Bush tax cuts. That's simply not true.

 

But that was the false promise.

 

And this is why I have such a hard time having a discussion with you. Because your premises are so often false. And when I try and point out how they're false, you insist that they're true. Or you insist that trying to point out facts means I'm in love with Obama. It's so boring.

 

It's boring to listen to your nit picking blind defense. Hey you can admit "yeah we didn't really think we could deliver on that one but hey all's fair in love war and a campaign." but....

 

I see one defendable point in your whole screed - that you think the tax code is becoming too progressive. You want to shift the burden off the rich and place it more on the middle class. Okay.

 

Hey that might be a good idea. When average Americans see how much the bloated and inefficent shit costs them they may rethink.

If somebody else is paying who cares?

 

But mostly I'd like to trim the waste.

And lower business costs.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

It's not nit-picking when you're completely misinformed, and it's not nit-picking when you're inaccurately describing the position you're opposing. You can't oppose something if you don't know what it is.

 

When a middle class person who earns $50,000 a year pays thousands of dollars in state and federal taxes, and will pay also pay out of pocket for health care in a public plan, it's simply not correct to suggest that they're getting it for "free".

 

But funny that you mentioned lowering business costs as being a priority. It's one of mine too. That's why I'm for reforming our completely insane health care system, which is a huge drag on American business, not to mention American families.

[Westside Steve]

[quote name='heckofajobbrownie' date='Jun 9 2009, 02:15 PM' post='76871'

 

But funny that you mentioned lowering business costs as being a priority. It's one of mine too. That's why I'm for reforming our completely insane health care system, which is a huge drag on American business, not to mention American families.

 

I agree with you there.

 

But young healthy people have got to buy in.

 

WSS

 

BTW the % of GDP seems to be a different issue than the research (which I fully expect to be wasted) so I was mistakijng the 3% if that's the number I used.

 

WSS