RE: The wealthy pay too much in taxes

RE: The wealthy pay too much in taxes (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Mercnbeth -> RE: The wealthy pay too much in taxes (3/6/2009 10:15:35 AM)
*~ Fast Reply ~* I think EVERYONE pays too much in taxes; especially when they go for this... quote: More than $2 million will be given to the Center for Grape Genetics. Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer and others asked for that. Almost $2 million for Swine Odor and Manure Management. Democratic Senator Tom Harkin wants that, and no jokes please about how it may be used around Capitol Hill. Almost $1 million for the study of catfish. Alabama Senator Richard Shelby, a Republican, is down with that. A half-million to control fruit flies in Hawaii. Both Democratic senators from the Aloha State want that. And $200,000 for tattoo removals in California. In fact, there are 9,000 earmarks in the spending bill, and every American taxpayer is being ripped off. The really shocking thing here is that in the face of massive corruption on Wall Street and unbelievable government spending, the president would sign this bill. It goes against everything he says he stands for: responsible government spending and federal accountability. Source: OINK OINK Just noticed, some will point to the source being propaganda even if it only points to facts. I'll provide another... quote: Remember how Democrats kept claiming that they included no earmarks in the stimulus package although they really did? Well, this time, neither Democrats nor Republicans are hiding it. And this is not a stimulus bill. This legislation, meant to keep the federal government operating through September, not only includes the $7.7 billion in earmarks but also increases federal spending by $31 billion more than was spent in the most recent fiscal year. At a time when they are telling the American people to be frugal, these hypocrites are spending our money as if there were no "mañana." OINK OINK OINK There you go, appropriate bi-partisan condemnation and focus on hypocrisy. I thought the people voted to "CHANGE!" that and end earmark spending? I think there was even a candidate running on that platform? What a difference winning an election makes. Actually it made no difference since there was NO "CHANGE!"... quote: They point to stiff resistance from Democratic leaders and Obama's reluctance to veto the pending $410 billion legislation as signs that business will continue as usual. The 8,570 earmarks in the bill represent $7.7 billion, according to the nonpartisan group Taxpayers for Common Sense. "NO-PORK!" = OBAMA RHETORIC This has to be made into a banner for this Administration: "This is last year's business. We just need to move on," Peter Orszag, Obama's budget director, said Sunday on ABC's "This Week With George Stephanopoulos." Last year, last administration, last term, last Congress, not us, the 'buck' stops at the last stop - not here. I think it incumbent on any manager to control his expenses and take charge; think the President should do at least at much. It was one of those 'CHANGE!'s promised. EVERYONE pays too much in taxes.

Hippiekinkster -> RE: The wealthy pay too much in taxes (3/6/2009 10:32:31 AM)
More than $2 million will be given to the Center for Grape Genetics. Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer and others asked for that. (grapes are an economically important crop in several states. research into resistance to cold, heat, and disease (such as Pierce's) isn't what I'd call pork.) Almost $2 million for Swine Odor and Manure Management. Democratic Senator Tom Harkin wants that, and no jokes please about how it may be used around Capitol Hill. (toxic waste management) Almost $1 million for the study of catfish. Alabama Senator Richard Shelby, a Republican, is down with that. (development of catfish farming (catfish and hush-puppies are a popular combo in the South) and R&D into breeding, diseases, etc.) A half-million to control fruit flies in Hawaii. Both Democratic senators from the Aloha State want that. (again, agriculture is important to Hawaii. Pineapples, sugar cane, macadamias, onions, papayas, mangos are among important crops) And $200,000 for tattoo removals in California. (tattoo removal can help people move off welfare rolls and into productive employment) That was a fun game!

awmslave -> RE: The wealthy pay too much in taxes (3/6/2009 12:02:15 PM)
Learn from the enemies: Russia has a uniform rate of tax on the income of individuals. As of 2008 tax in Russia is payable at the rate of 13% for an individual on most income. Russian residents pay 9% on dividend income. (Deduction at source). The tax on company profits is made up of 2 rates: - Federal tax - -6.5%. - Regional tax - 17.5% (with a possible incentive reduction of up to 4%). The maximum profit tax is 24%.

rulemylife -> RE: The wealthy pay too much in taxes (3/6/2009 12:30:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata FYI Department of the Treasury Fact Sheet 2005 Department of the Treasury Fact Sheet 2004 The search didn't return any later releases with the keywords I was using, but these two should suffice to make the intended point. K. Well, this thread turned in a different direction than I originally intended. Probably my own fault for arguing numbers with someone else earlier. The points I was originally trying to make are: 1) the argument the wealthy pay more tax doesn't take into consideration the many tax advantages they have that allow them to avoid taxes in legal and illegal ways. 2) the excess cash the wealthy have or can gain by tax cuts will not necessarily be sent back into the economy, in my opinion more likely not. The 47,000-52,000 accounts held by U.S. citizens in UBS is not being used to build economic growth here, nor is it being used to pay the account holders' U.S. tax liability. You have to remember too, this is just one bank shielding $14.8 billion from taxable income interest. How many more banks in Switzerland are doing the same and how much taxable income is being withheld? Not to mention other places with favorable off-shore banking laws like Belgium, Belize, and the Cayman Islands that don't cooperate with the IRS and allow US citizens to open secret accounts. Even legally, the wealthy who derive more income from investment benefit more from tax breaks than people whose primary income is from employment. The capital gains tax being a prime example. The point being that the ratio of income to taxes is likely to be accurate among those drawing a paycheck while likely to be inaccurate among those relying on investment income, much of which will not be included in the adjusted gross income figures listed in the treasury report.

Mercnbeth -> RE: The wealthy pay too much in taxes (3/6/2009 12:50:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster More than $2 million will be given to the Center for Grape Genetics. Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer and others asked for that. (grapes are an economically important crop in several states. research into resistance to cold, heat, and disease (such as Pierce's) isn't what I'd call pork.) Almost $2 million for Swine Odor and Manure Management. Democratic Senator Tom Harkin wants that, and no jokes please about how it may be used around Capitol Hill. (toxic waste management) Almost $1 million for the study of catfish. Alabama Senator Richard Shelby, a Republican, is down with that. (development of catfish farming (catfish and hush-puppies are a popular combo in the South) and R&D into breeding, diseases, etc.) A half-million to control fruit flies in Hawaii. Both Democratic senators from the Aloha State want that. (again, agriculture is important to Hawaii. Pineapples, sugar cane, macadamias, onions, papayas, mangos are among important crops) And $200,000 for tattoo removals in California. (tattoo removal can help people move off welfare rolls and into productive employment) That was a fun game! Great "Game" HK! Just remember to keep your hypocrisy in check the next time you complain about any profitable business or individual having an annual 'business meeting' on Necker Island . BTW - I highly recommend it - you can really get a LOT of 'business' done there. From your 'game' and posts, its obvious you support wasting taxpayer's money but are concerned when an individual or successful business spends theirs. Just a tad hypocritical don't you think? Actually I'm wrong. That doesn't sound like hypocrisy - its better described as jealousy. I apply the same standards to both entities. When you are successful and profitable and have discretionary money - spend all you like, anyway you like. The distinguishing major factor is businesses and individuals are limited and, excepting recent 'rewarding failure' government intervention, fail when they spend to much, or too foolishly. They deserve the consequence much to the detriment of non-attentive shareholders, investors, or spouses. The government doesn't get to fail, it gets to print money. The bureaucrats and special interests get to keep it. Taxpayers? All they get to do is pay for it and the interest on the deficit created. Business, individual, or government; fly to Necker, or buy every pig a diaper employing people to change them and hang air fresheners from their ass. Except the US Government is broke, they want taxpayers to pay to freshen a pig's ass. You go ahead and rationalize that's a good idea all you want - meanwhile, I'll continue to fight the battle against it; personally, and through advocacy.

Hippiekinkster -> RE: The wealthy pay too much in taxes (3/6/2009 2:28:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster More than $2 million will be given to the Center for Grape Genetics. Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer and others asked for that. (grapes are an economically important crop in several states. research into resistance to cold, heat, and disease (such as Pierce's) isn't what I'd call pork.) Almost $2 million for Swine Odor and Manure Management. Democratic Senator Tom Harkin wants that, and no jokes please about how it may be used around Capitol Hill. (toxic waste management) Almost $1 million for the study of catfish. Alabama Senator Richard Shelby, a Republican, is down with that. (development of catfish farming (catfish and hush-puppies are a popular combo in the South) and R&D into breeding, diseases, etc.) A half-million to control fruit flies in Hawaii. Both Democratic senators from the Aloha State want that. (again, agriculture is important to Hawaii. Pineapples, sugar cane, macadamias, onions, papayas, mangos are among important crops) And $200,000 for tattoo removals in California. (tattoo removal can help people move off welfare rolls and into productive employment) That was a fun game! Great "Game" HK! Just remember to keep your hypocrisy in check the next time you complain about any profitable business or individual having an annual 'business meeting' on Necker Island . BTW - I highly recommend it - you can really get a LOT of 'business' done there. From your 'game' and posts, its obvious you support wasting taxpayer's money but are concerned when an individual or successful business spends theirs. Just a tad hypocritical don't you think? Actually I'm wrong. That doesn't sound like hypocrisy - its better described as jealousy. I apply the same standards to both entities. When you are successful and profitable and have discretionary money - spend all you like, anyway you like. The distinguishing major factor is businesses and individuals are limited and, excepting recent 'rewarding failure' government intervention, fail when they spend to much, or too foolishly. They deserve the consequence much to the detriment of non-attentive shareholders, investors, or spouses. The government doesn't get to fail, it gets to print money. The bureaucrats and special interests get to keep it. Taxpayers? All they get to do is pay for it and the interest on the deficit created. Business, individual, or government; fly to Necker, or buy every pig a diaper employing people to change them and hang air fresheners from their ass. Except the US Government is broke, they want taxpayers to pay to freshen a pig's ass. You go ahead and rationalize that's a good idea all you want - meanwhile, I'll continue to fight the battle against it; personally, and through advocacy. Point out to me where I have ever been "concerned" about what an individual spends money on. Corporations, now, that's another story. I favor eliminating the Corporation as a business entity. That's another discussion, though. You are joking when you say that shareholders are inattentive, right? When Fidelity owns about 5% of all publicly traded companies all by itself? Do you think the employees of Edward Johnson III even care who the CEOs are? All they care about is total return. I understand you think you would do much better if there were no government. I understand that, if it weren't for that evil government, you would be ruler of the Universe. I see how you begrudge every dime you have to pay in taxes. Well, you and I see things differently. I used to see things very much like you do, but I made some philosophical decisions about what kind of society I want to live in, and it sure isn't the one you want.

DMFParadox -> RE: The wealthy pay too much in taxes (3/6/2009 5:37:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster More than $2 million will be given to the Center for Grape Genetics. Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer and others asked for that. (grapes are an economically important crop in several states. research into resistance to cold, heat, and disease (such as Pierce's) isn't what I'd call pork.) Almost $2 million for Swine Odor and Manure Management. Democratic Senator Tom Harkin wants that, and no jokes please about how it may be used around Capitol Hill. (toxic waste management) Almost $1 million for the study of catfish. Alabama Senator Richard Shelby, a Republican, is down with that. (development of catfish farming (catfish and hush-puppies are a popular combo in the South) and R&D into breeding, diseases, etc.) A half-million to control fruit flies in Hawaii. Both Democratic senators from the Aloha State want that. (again, agriculture is important to Hawaii. Pineapples, sugar cane, macadamias, onions, papayas, mangos are among important crops) And $200,000 for tattoo removals in California. (tattoo removal can help people move off welfare rolls and into productive employment) That was a fun game! None of these issues require government intervention. More than $2 million will be given to the Center for Grape Genetics. (Vinyards are investing millions as well.) Almost $2 million for Swine Odor and Manure Management. (This is the only one I'd agree is worthwhile, because pig manure is a class 4 CDC hazard due to the biology involved. Very dangerous to leave this stuff lying around.) Almost $1 million for the study of catfish. (Could be paid for by fishing companies.) A half-million to control fruit flies in Hawaii. Both Democratic senators from the Aloha State want that. (If this is so important to Hawaiian agriculture, then the agriculturalists should band together and do something about it... themselves. Not via federal fiat.) And $200,000 for tattoo removals in California. (Perhaps the $200k should be spent educating employers on why it's o.k. to accept employees that have tattoos, seeing as how more 20somethings have them than don't these days.) Programs such as these are better served if they come from the people affected, in almost all cases. I'd prefer if the option to hand over our cash to 'Teh Gubbermints' and beg them to give it back in these forms simply didn't exist; but since it does, I wish it were used with extreme discretion. Not like this.

Hippiekinkster -> RE: The wealthy pay too much in taxes (3/6/2009 6:24:02 PM)
DMFparadox: >snip< Maybe fruit flies are coming in on planes, like the snakes from Guam. How do growers combat that? Fishing companies? They're farm-raised. How many farms do you know of that have their own labs? or can afford to hire scientists? Except for big Agra, which already gets billions in subsidies that I never hear the right-wingers bitch about. Grape genetics: http://thefruitblog.blogspot.com/2006/12/pixie-new-grape-for-genetic-studies.html http://oak.cats.ohiou.edu/~ballardh/pbio480/thisetal2006-winegrapegeneticdiversity.pdf http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/grapebreeding2010/pdf/ISHS_1stAnnouncement.pdf Here's a comment from an article cited below: " It's easy to point at line items and laugh at them if you have no idea what they are intended to do. "Oh, haw haw, honey bees, how absurd." Well, in fact, honey bee research is vital to our agriculture industry, which depends upon them for pollination. Similarly, Mormon Crickets are a huge pest, and cause massive trouble in Utah. But I'm sure it's easier to just sit back and call them "pork" without actually doing any, you know, reporting. Weird that I would expect a reporter to actually report the facts, isn't it. And peanut research? Insane! Unless, uh, we just had a major health scare with our peanut industry. Fortunately that hasn't happened. Er... Also, note that virtually all of these projects will, in fact, create jobs. How crazy that a stimulus bill would create jobs. Wacky stuff. " http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/02/fiscal-responsi.html Another comment on the same article: " Each of these items is a particular and complex issue. Much of this so-called pork is actually necessary spending needed to preserve crop production, save human lives and facilitate commerce. Actual pork comes in the form of million dollar bonuses for CEO's, money that disappears from the economy by being spent on useless and overpriced luxury items like second mansions and corporate jets. Unless you are willing to carefully research and intelligently discuss each issue, which as a responsible journalist you should be willing to do, please refrain from expressing pointless and uninformed opinions." Needless to say, I agree with both opinions. Laymen aren't qualified to judge the merits of scientific research.

Hippiekinkster -> RE: The wealthy pay too much in taxes (3/6/2009 7:11:41 PM)
Speaking of the wealthy paying too much in taxes, aren't tax cuts for the rich supposed to allow them to invest in more jobs, more factories, more everything? Huh? Isn't one of the rightie talking points "the poor don't create jobs?" (Middle-class small businessmen actually create jobs by going into debt to start a business, like I did, but we'll let that pass...) So take a look at these graphs showing job losses starting from peak employment. The 2nd Bush 43 Recession has as steep a loss curve as any recession in the 20th century. Where are all those TAX-CUT JOBS? Huh? http://flowingdata.com/2009/02/10/4-different-looks-at-job-losses-during-recessions/ Don't tell me it's another right-wing lie!!! Oh noes! [sm=rofl.gif][sm=rofl.gif][sm=rofl.gif][sm=mrpuffy.gif][sm=mrpuffy.gif][sm=mrpuffy.gif][sm=ubanana.gif][sm=ubanana.gif][sm=ubanana.gif]

Mercnbeth -> RE: The wealthy pay too much in taxes (3/6/2009 9:10:20 PM)
quote: are joking when you say that shareholders are inattentive, right? When Fidelity owns about 5% of all publicly traded companies all by itself? The very fact that you are aware of it shows that with attention people can be aware. I say they should be, or not invest. Be inattentive and fail and suffer the result. What I'm really surprised about is how much you support all those pork issues when 100% of the money will be going to a corporation of one sort or another. They may employ a few people, but not without a net profit, derived from your tax money. You're advocating for the corporate welfare you allege to abhor. What's with that? quote: I understand you think you would do much better if there were no government. The issue is spending not government. The concept was spending money you don't have and can't afford. I'm not advocating anarchy, only responsibility, a concept that shouldn't be difficult to grasp. quote: I understand that, if it weren't for that evil government, you would be ruler of the Universe. Necessary?

Lordandmaster -> RE: The wealthy pay too much in taxes (3/6/2009 10:08:47 PM)
Right, I mean states and municipalities should provide all their services without having to tax us, and roads should build and maintain themselves, and industries should continue to pollute without having to pay their fair share of the social and economic costs... Ah, Collarme! quote: ORIGINAL: corysub We have already seen increases in the tax on consumer items, the States are already strapped for funds and so local taxes will probably have to be raised, the proposed tax on carbon emissions is estimated to bring about $650 billion to the U.S. Treasury..and guess who is going to pay that bill too! The most insidious tax will actually be should the proposal to eliminate the deduction of taxes (read tax increase) for home mortgage interest...one of the last tax advantaged transaction left to the average guy. There was even a tax on mileage driven being considered but the administration backpeddled fast enough on that one to turn ski milk into cream. We all really have to be vigilent and become activists against the tax increases coming our way.

Hippiekinkster -> RE: The wealthy pay too much in taxes (3/6/2009 11:52:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: are joking when you say that shareholders are inattentive, right? When Fidelity owns about 5% of all publicly traded companies all by itself? The very fact that you are aware of it shows that with attention people can be aware. I say they should be, or not invest. Be inattentive and fail and suffer the result. What I'm really surprised about is how much you support all those pork issues when 100% of the money will be going to a corporation of one sort or another. They may employ a few people, but not without a net profit, derived from your tax money. You're advocating for the corporate welfare you allege to abhor. What's with that? And you know where the money is going how? You don't. You're making an assumption. It could very well be going to state Unis or state Agricultural labs. I don't know, either, but I'm not assuming that I know where the money will ultimately be spent. quote: quote: I understand you think you would do much better if there were no government. The issue is spending not government. The concept was spending money you don't have and can't afford. I'm not advocating anarchy, only responsibility, a concept that shouldn't be difficult to grasp. So are you saying that you want a government that doesn't spend anything? Or that only spends responsibly according to your notion of what is responsible? I happen to think that a very high percentage of military spending is completely unnecessary to defend the US of A. I think the military is the biggest pork-barrel of all, by far. Are you willing to stop sending billions to Halliburton, Boeing, Lockheed, Raytheon, etc., much of which can't even be accounted for? Obama has said that no-bid and cost-plus contracts are going the way of the USSR. Why is it that I never read any complaints about such obvious graft and fraud from you before? If you want to tackle spending money we don't have and can't afford, all the welfare queens on the planet are a drop in the bucket compared to the military contractors. Instead of worrying about a piddly half-million to HI for fruit-fly control, why not worry about the billions that have been STOLEN by Cheney's friends, like the guys who run Blackwater? quote: quote: I understand that, if it weren't for that evil government, you would be ruler of the Universe. Necessary? Don't want you to spend so much time with Richard Branson that you forget all about us little people, who actually like having a government to do that which we cannot, such as pave roads, make sure drugs are safe (or at least not have an FDA which is bought and paid for by Purdue, Glaxo, et alia), and all that other good stuff, including keeping unethical, morality-lacking rapacious Capitalists from cloning Bhopal and the Exxon Valdez and Thalidomide and Enron and... it's a subtle point, don't worry about it. BTW, show me where I supported any of the expenditures you listed in our little "game". I didn't. I merely provided plausible explanations as to what the money could be going for. I know it's a lot less sensational than "Billions pissed away on Pig!" on Wingnut.con, but it might be helpful to actually know what the money is really going for, rather than displaying patently false "indignation". Not that you would do that; I'm speaking in general terms here. Peace.

CreativeDominant -> RE: The wealthy pay too much in taxes (3/7/2009 7:31:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant quote: ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant quote: ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster The wealthy don't pay enough in taxes relative to the benefits they derive from not only using more government services, but being able to accumulate wealth at a much fsater rate than the middle class due to unequal, regressive treatment of taxes on labor vs. Cap gains taxes. Here's a good essay on why progressive taxation is more fair: http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=125&subsecID=163&contentID=1398 They avail themselves of more government services? I don't see any wealthy people on the welfare rolls, the Medicaid rolls, at the homeless shelters, seeking taxpayer-funded abortions, etc.. So what government services are they getting...paid for with taxpayer dollars...that you cannot avail yourself of? Here ya go: http://www.zompist.com/richtax.htm All kinds of things the rich use that the poor don't. I don't care if you believe it or don't. And how much money was pissed away on the rich to keep them from wetting their beds over "Communism" since 1945? The entire fucking military exists for the rich. You know, hippie...your arguments might come across more persuasively if you used something other than a liberal blog which seems to delight not only in bashing conservative principles but capitalism itself along with anything else that fits in more along American values. Your beliefs are clearly indicated by your laughter over the short piece further down knocking conservatives by twisting their beliefs. The military clearly serves to enrich the already-rich? No, its purpose is to save folks like you who wouldn't pick up a gun to defend the country that you are content to live in while bashing those who made it possible for you to enjoy it. I have my DD214. How about you? Or are you like Rush? If memory serves, he got out of serving because he had a boil on his ass. Or Darth Cheney? "I had better things to do, bitches." Actually, I served with the 82nd Airborne from 1974 - 1978, making sergeant in 2 of those years. I was in during the time when they weren't holding parades every time the soldiers came home. I did get spit on though while proudly wearing the uniform through airports...

samboct -> RE: The wealthy pay too much in taxes (3/7/2009 8:30:52 AM)
"(or at least not have an FDA which is bought and paid for by Purdue, Glaxo, et alia), " HK- While I agree with many of your points- especially with regards to the gross mismanagement prevalent amongst defense contractors- the above comment does a grave disservice to most of the people who work in the FDA who've had to live with inept management at the top and systemic cuts. Yet the amount of data that gets submitted with a new drug has grown dramatically over the past several decades and there's been increasing congressional pressure to review compounds faster- yet there have been cuts amongst the people that actually do the work. Furthermore, there's still no mechanism to monitor compounds once they hit the marketplace- a lack that most of the FDA reviewers find deplorable. It's a broken system, like so many in our gov't. CD As a card carrying member of the ACLU, I guess I pass for a liberal these days. Please note that if we've learned anything from the past, its that we should support our troops, regardless of our political affiliation or whether we believe that the war in Iraq was just. Thank you for your service sir. Sam

Hippiekinkster -> RE: The wealthy pay too much in taxes (3/7/2009 7:48:14 PM)
[/quote] I have my DD214. How about you? Or are you like Rush? If memory serves, he got out of serving because he had a boil on his ass. Or Darth Cheney? "I had better things to do, bitches." [/quote]Actually, I served with the 82nd Airborne from 1974 - 1978, making sergeant in 2 of those years. I was in during the time when they weren't holding parades every time the soldiers came home. I did get spit on though while proudly wearing the uniform through airports... [/quote] Well, I'm happy for you. This researcher here http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1276799/posts sez: " In 1998 sociologist and Vietnam veteran Jerry Lembcke published "The Spitting Image: Myth, Media and the Legacy of Viet Nam." He recounts a study of 495 news stories on returning veterans published from 1965 to 1971. That study shows only a handful (32) of instances were presented as in any way antagonistic to the soldiers. There were no instances of spitting on soldiers; what spitting was reported was done by citizens expressing displeasure with protesters. Opinion polls of the time show no animosity between soldiers and opponents of the war. Only 3 percent of returning soldiers recounted any unfriendly experiences upon their return. So records from that era offer no support for the spitting stories. Lembcke's research does show that similar spitting rumors arose in Germany after World War I and in France after its Indochina war. One of the persistent markers of urban legends is the re-emergence of certain themes across time and space. There is also a common-sense method for debunking this urban legend. One frequent test is the story's plausibility: how likely is it that the incident could have happened as described? Do we really believe that a "dirty hippie" would spit upon a fit and trained soldier? If such a confrontation had occurred, would that combat-hardened soldier have just ignored the insult? Would there not be pictures, arrest reports, a trial record or a coroner's report after such an event? Years of research have produced no such records." I don't know why anyone would be waiting around airports to spit on soldiers in 74 and 75 anyway. The last troops in Nam came home in 73. March 29, 1973 - The last remaining American troops withdraw from Vietnam as President Nixon declares "the day we have all worked and prayed for has finally come." http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/vietnam/index-1969.html I'm sure you won't mind if I don't believe you about that spitting thing, will you?

Hippiekinkster -> RE: The wealthy pay too much in taxes (3/7/2009 8:04:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: samboct "(or at least not have an FDA which is bought and paid for by Purdue, Glaxo, et alia), " HK- While I agree with many of your points- especially with regards to the gross mismanagement prevalent amongst defense contractors- the above comment does a grave disservice to most of the people who work in the FDA who've had to live with inept management at the top and systemic cuts. Yet the amount of data that gets submitted with a new drug has grown dramatically over the past several decades and there's been increasing congressional pressure to review compounds faster- yet there have been cuts amongst the people that actually do the work. Furthermore, there's still no mechanism to monitor compounds once they hit the marketplace- a lack that most of the FDA reviewers find deplorable. It's a broken system, like so many in our gov't. Oh, I understand that just doing their jobs was nigh-on impossible for the honest, hardworking people who toiled under Bush's political appointees. We all understand that rendering government ineffective was a primary goal of the Neocons. I was referring to the "leadership" of the FDA. " In 2006, the Union of Concerned Scientists determined that even FDA scientists themselves felt ineffective at doing their true job – protecting us – because of pressure from the Bush administration. Among the findings: Three in five scientists said they knew of cases where commercial interests inappropriately attempted to change an FDA action. One fifth said they were asked by FDA decision makers to provide “incomplete, inaccurate or misleading information to the public.” Nearly two in three said that the laws and regulations that govern the FDA need “change for the agency to better serve the public.” Only half felt the FDA is acting effectively to protect the public health. " http://eco-chick.com/2008/11/07/under-president-obama-will-the-fda-finally-do-its-job/

Mercnbeth -> RE: The wealthy pay too much in taxes (3/7/2009 8:55:36 PM)
quote: show me where I supported any of the expenditures you listed in our little "game". I didn't. I merely provided plausible explanations as to what the money could be going for. I know it's a lot less sensational than "Billions pissed away on Pig!" on Wingnut.con, but it might be helpful to actually know what the money is really going for, rather than displaying patently false "indignation". Well, feel free to answer directly. Are you in favor of the corporate welfare added into the budget or not? At at point when the country's grandchildren have been committed to paying on the interest for a Trillion dollar deficit approved by this Administration I think "Billions pissed away on Pig!" deserves a bit of consideration especially by a President elected on a commitment of transparency and "No Earmark!" platform. The money isn't essential and the corporations and special interests should be told to find another source, at least for now; don't you think? Or are this Administrations versions of Halliburton insiders just more palatable to you? Me? The indignation was real then, and real now - then again it isn't motivated by political agenda or even wishful thinking; just pragmatism. You?

LookieNoNookie -> RE: The wealthy pay too much in taxes (3/7/2009 9:06:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife The argument has been made here that repealing the Bush tax cuts on those making more than $250K per year will hurt the economy. It seems to fall into two parts. The first being that the upper income earners are taxed at at unfair rate and the income they pay in taxes would be put to better use by their increased purchasing power to stimulate the economy. The second being that we should be cutting taxes for the upper income brackets because it will stimulate business investment and economic growth. This seems to suggest the opposite on both counts: UBS: 47000 in U.S. used accounts to dodge taxes - Crain's New York (AP) - UBS AG now says it had about 47,000 accounts held by Americans who didn't pay U.S. taxes on their assets, but Switzerland's biggest bank isn't providing the names of any more of them to the U.S. government.................... UBS has accepted responsibility for helping tens of thousands of Americans hide assets from the U.S. government and turned over the names of about 300 U.S. clients. But the bank is not giving the Internal Revenue Service the names of all U.S. citizens who maintained secret accounts with the bank............................... "We cannot allow an environment to develop where wealthy individuals can go offshore and avoid paying taxes with impunity," said IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman........................ UBS on Feb. 18 agreed to pay $780 million in fines and restitution for conspiring to help American citizens violate their country's tax laws by hiding assets — estimated to be worth at least $14.8 billion — from the U.S. government. In the deal struck in federal court in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., the Justice Department agreed to defer criminal prosecution of UBS in exchange for the payment of fines and restitution, and the names of up to 300 U.S. clients. (But for the current economy), no one making that kind of money feels like the tax changes will hurt them. No one making 250K is going offshore. Trust me. The tax changes on 250K will affect them...not at all. $2,000,000....most assuredly.

LookieNoNookie -> RE: The wealthy pay too much in taxes (3/7/2009 9:11:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth *~ Fast Reply ~* I think EVERYONE pays too much in taxes; especially when they go for this... EVERYONE pays too much in taxes. (I sense some trepidation here).

Hippiekinkster -> RE: The wealthy pay too much in taxes (3/7/2009 10:16:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: show me where I supported any of the expenditures you listed in our little "game". I didn't. I merely provided plausible explanations as to what the money could be going for. I know it's a lot less sensational than "Billions pissed away on Pig!" on Wingnut.con, but it might be helpful to actually know what the money is really going for, rather than displaying patently false "indignation". Well, feel free to answer directly. Are you in favor of the corporate welfare added into the budget or not? Again, what corporate welfare? You show me where the money ends up for each particular budgetary item and I'll tell you if I favor it or not. But to just assert that everything in the stimulus package is "corporate welfare" is poisoning the well. quote: At at point when the country's grandchildren have been committed to paying on the interest for a Trillion dollar deficit approved by this Administration I think "Billions pissed away on Pig!" deserves a bit of consideration especially by a President elected on a commitment of transparency and "No Earmark!" platform. The grandkiddies you are so worried about were committed by the Busheviks to paying the interest on over 10 trillion in debt, or double the amount that Bush inherited from Clinton. " As of January 20, 2009, the total U.S. federal debt was $10.627 trillion (an increase of 85.5 percent over the previous eight years). [30]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_States I don't remember a single post of yours decrying this staggering debt number. quote: The money isn't essential and the corporations and special interests should be told to find another source, at least for now; don't you think? Or are this Administrations versions of Halliburton insiders just more palatable to you? Me? The indignation was real then, and real now - then again it isn't motivated by political agenda or even wishful thinking; just pragmatism. You? What source? Tell me. Are they supposed to stand on the corner and panhandle? Because banks sure aren't lending. What corporations and special interests? You keep asserting this, as though continually repeating it will make me believe you are right. Guess again. As far as your indignation being driven by pragmatism, why don't you come up with your plan to stimulate the world's largest economy without spending a dime. Then take it to Capitol Hill, because I'm fairly certain the Congress isn't hanging on to your every word here. You say you aren't driven by a political agenda, but from where I sit, it sure looks like you filter everything through your ideology. Me? Whatever works, works. If it takes spending 800 billion for a shot in the arm, that's what it takes.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.09375