Joenextdoor
Posts: 145
Joined: 9/8/2004
Status: offline
|
>Gosh, lets see....nothing in there about socialism either. Nothing in there about income taxes either, so do you really want to go down this road?
>Of course not if they break the law...the law is the law, period, no matter your color, sex, or income group.
>Did I use the word ignorant? I know that not everyone can learn to prgram a computer or become a lawyer, but even if you cannot learn to weld, you can always consider that maybe working more than 40 hours a week might be something you could do. I worked 6 days a week, 60 hours average for YEARS and it did not hurt me. I did what I had to do, and never once expected the IRS to take money from the wealthy and give me some.
>No, I believe your posts confirm a weak mindedness based on your response to my post.
>I don't get refund checks, and will be one who will most likely suffer under his regime.
>Bear Stearns, BOA, Lehman, etc., all took risks beyond what is considered good business practices because they felt that the government was encouraging these crazy mortgage backed security shams. Wall Street works when their greed is balanced by fear of loosing money. The Gov't took away much of the fear from the equation, and greed ran rampant, and as with any bubble, it burst. As far as Exxon, as bad as the numbers sound, their profit percentages are in line with other US businesses, and remember, as stated in a previous post...they employ over 80,000 people.
>Should the rich not be taxed?? thats a dumb question. The rich should pay their fair share in taxes. Cap. gains are currently 15% and Obama espoused in the primaries that it should be 29%. the lower income tax rates are below that, and really, it wouldnt matter anyway. They get all their money back to start with, and under Obama, will get a nice fat Gov't check to boot.
>Let's see.....given that the GOP took power in the 1994 election, much of that credit would go to them, with the Pres. sharing it. Remember, we were undergoing the Dot com revolution where anything with a dot com to it soared and tons of people were hired. This bubble, like all bubbles, crashed hard in 2000, as Bush took office. With that, jobs were lost and tax revenues fell sharply. One year later, we have 9-11, and the huge hit to the economy and the military buildups and recovery efforts. We then started feeling the effects of tremendously higher energy costs which really hurt the economy and was directly felt by the average citizen. Now we have the housing bubble burst, yet again, another bubble, and the Wall Street collapse from the mortgage backed security mess. I don't like the debt, or deficit spending. I don't live in debt, or run my life in a deficit, and don't expect my government to do it either. Truthfully, with all that we have had happen in the last 8 years, I am surprised that the debt and deficit are not worse than they are.
>There are trillions in numbered off shore accounts now that are not working here in this country, and not being taxed here in this country. Under Obama, i expect this number to grow tremendously.
>The "deadbeat asswipes" are the ones who provide jobs. You just have to love Democrats...they love jobs but hate the people who provide them.
>Sky will fall....more brilliance.....no, the sky won't fall, but people will feel more pain from it.
>Exxon could fail and be absorbed by another....in which case, the new company would hopefully retain most of the 80,000 people....either way....a corporation is paying alot of people to work for them....I guess you would rather the Gov't nationalize Exxon and they could become Federal employees??
>I stand by my Great Depression comment.
>Well, let's see, a 3 digit IQ means I am at least 100...well, I guess the "real" genius here must have meant a 2 digit IQ, and therefore implying that I am dumb.
>I am saying that he keeps lowering the range at which you are classified as "middle class" to him. In the end, I believe, that it will wind up being anyone under $50,000 that gets the tax "cut". Bill Clinton rode into office in 92 under the promise of middle class tax cuts, and 28 days into office broke that promise and raised their taxes. We do have precedent for Democratic promise breaking with regard to tax cuts for the middle class.
>And here I thought I covered the Bailout package in a previous post? That money is to be paid back, and is therefore NOT welfare. Any contractor in Iraq is paid money for a service...thats NOT welfare. If you are taking money from the Gov't teat, and you do not have to repay it....it IS welfare. I don't give a damn if you don't have a cell phone, color tv, cigarettes, or booze. If you are sucking the government teat, life is NOT supposed to be rosy, else you might just decide to live your entire life suckling that teat, instead of bettering yourself so that you might buy the phone, tv, cigarettes, and booze with your own damn money, and not mine!
> This is the last post in reply to anything related to taxes, spending, or replying to idiots in general. This was a forum for Gun rights, and I regret that I got into this whole area here. To the ones here for Gun rights only, I apologize to you.
|
RE: This election and the 2nd Amendment. - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread