RE: Financial Reality

RE: Financial Reality (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

lockedaway -> RE: Financial Reality (7/25/2011 10:16:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: Original: lockedaway Your posts are getting dumber and dumber. Yours have yet to attain so humble a level. quote: Original: lockedaway Look, she got money from her family...Yes???? Now answer my question that you are soooo desperately trying to skirt. Do you give a fuck about whether she got money from her family? Yes or No Do you care whether she loses it or increases it? Yes or No Do you care whether anybody gets money from their family? Yes or No Are you jealous of people that receive a large inheritance or win a lottery? Yes or No? Fuck, man, those are a few very simple questions. I guess the reason why you don't want to answer this is because they reveal too much about your character. Your guess is about as fucking wrong as is your general ignorance, your knowledge and facts are lacking, you haven't much to note in the way of character. So when you write the story of your life, leave my chapter out ,ok? Don't fucking tell me what I think, cuz you don't know, and haven't the capacity to understand it, and do not continue this tiring presumtion of impugning my character with your innuendos, you will find that a losing proposition. People who hold the ideas that you do who are for the most part neo-Nazis, corporate appeasers, and convicted child molesters. I dont give a fuck about any of that shit, and you never asked me the question, but my answers would be No......No.....No..&..No. Same as yours. I am pointing out that the money was pretty much stolen from its creator, and was not come by thru hard work or any form of the 'American Dream'. It is a piss poor example of that, Joe the Plumber hyperbole. It is Gus Hall style orgasmic and closer to what you have been ranting against without reason. Hey, she has done ok, and after all, it wasnt her that robbed her father, it was her father that robbed his father. But it is not an opportunity readily available to Americans, to rob someone and become a millionaire. And it is not the American Dream to rob the creators of wealth, any more than it is the American Dream to rob the creators of the right of their labor and to make a decent profit themselves. But the ideological rants that are being spewed have little to do with the fact that we borrowed, and borrowed and borrowed, and increased our paychecks and borrowed and borrowed, and it is not fiscally responsible, and the folks who loaned us that money want to get paid. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL I asked you very simple questions and you won't answer them. I guess that's my answer. :) Hey...are you going to travel by personal conveyance to Fargles house and drink Sterno with him?

mnottertail -> RE: Financial Reality (7/25/2011 10:19:00 AM)
Hey, are you going to the neo-con suck off at the minneapolis airport same as last year, you going for the big trophy? What the fuck are you talking about, learn to read and comprehend. Let me make this tough for you, maybe then you will get it. I answered your asswipe questions that have nothing to do with nothing. go to the search bar and put this in: I dont give a fuck about any of that shit, and you never asked me the question, but my answers would be No......No.....No..&..No. Same as yours. and author: mnottertail. see what pops up.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Financial Reality (7/25/2011 10:26:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail A case in point is the failure of the last Democratic Congress and President to even pass a budget, which is a direct violation of the US Constitution. I uh, would like to see that citation, I uh, don't know about that. You are correct, Ron. Not a "direct violation". Simply a moral failure to manage the nation's financial health, and a failure to follow the law in the Budget Act of 1974. Firm

lockedaway -> RE: Financial Reality (7/25/2011 10:31:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Hey, are you going to the neo-con suck off at the minneapolis airport same as last year, you going for the big trophy? What the fuck are you talking about, learn to read and comprehend. Let me make this tough for you, maybe then you will get it. I answered your asswipe questions that have nothing to do with nothing. go to the search bar and put this in: I dont give a fuck about any of that shit, and you never asked me the question, but my answers would be No......No.....No..&..No. Same as yours. and author: mnottertail. see what pops up. No...I'm not going. I don't follow events like that. But I see that YOU do. Well...hey...to each his own. Let me tell you, Fargle wouldn't have shared his Sterno with you anyway!

mnottertail -> RE: Financial Reality (7/25/2011 10:44:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail A case in point is the failure of the last Democratic Congress and President to even pass a budget, which is a direct violation of the US Constitution. I uh, would like to see that citation, I uh, don't know about that. You are correct, Ron. Not a "direct violation". Simply a moral failure to manage the nation's financial health, and a failure to follow the law in the Budget Act of 1974. Firm The House has never failed to pass an annual budget resolution since the current budget rules were put into place in 1974, according to a Congressional Research Service report. The budget resolution is a non-binding document whose main purposes are to set discretionary spending caps for the coming fiscal year, lay out the framework of the majority's fiscal policy and create the option of easing legislation through the Senate via fast-track reconciliation procedures. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said Wednesday that it will be difficult to pass a budget because of the mid-term elections and large deficit projections. He noted that Congress didn't pass a final resolution that could pass both the House and Senate in 1998, 2002, 2004 and 2006, when Republicans controlled at least one chamber. While the House has always passed at least its version of the budget annually for the past 35 years, the Senate didn't pass a resolution in 2002. So, it is a little murky in the who did what to who game.. It may be that the republicans will find themselves in the same situation as the democrats were. They certainly haven't passed their budget on time, which is concievably as large a moral failure, and one wonders if it will be done at all, n-est ce pas? But it is as artificial as the debt ceiling, and a signal to the outside world of our intent and policy, and by god, this country doesn't have one. And hasn't had one for more than the last couple years. But a non-binding chunk of fluff is the least of our actual problem here.

hlen5 -> RE: Financial Reality (7/25/2011 10:55:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: hlen5 I consider myself a Libertarian. I don't agree with a 100% estate tax, I just want things to be FAIR. I don't begrudge someone keeping what they earned (as long as it wasn't at the exploitation of others). 1. What is "fair"? 2. What is "exploitation"? Firm Fair to me is everyone paying the same amount of taxes porportional to their income. For example, everyone should pay 10 percent (or whatever is deemed necessary) with no tax loopholes. I think a national sales tax has merit, but not a value added tax. Exploitation to me is being unfair to your workers. It's making people work only up to touching distance of full time hours so you don't have to pay benefits and then have 4 family members on Forbe's list of the 500 Wealthiest People (and I think the Waltons are in the top ten or twenty). I get the fact that Sam Walton reorganized distribution more efficiently, but why should someone who is busting thier ass have to go to a free clinic to get their children taken care of? I find that unfair. I understand that small business owners take the risk of failure. I want it to be more lucrative to start a business in the US then to send jobs overseas. I find it unfair for companies to "headquarter" themselves out of the country so they don't have to pay taxes. The reason we have a minumum wage is because workers were being exploited.

Musicmystery -> RE: Financial Reality (7/25/2011 11:08:06 AM)
quote: I think a national sales tax has merit, but not a value added tax. Why not?

Marini -> RE: Financial Reality (7/25/2011 11:14:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hlen5 quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: hlen5 I consider myself a Libertarian. I don't agree with a 100% estate tax, I just want things to be FAIR. I don't begrudge someone keeping what they earned (as long as it wasn't at the exploitation of others). 1. What is "fair"? 2. What is "exploitation"? Firm Fair to me is everyone paying the same amount of taxes porportional to their income. For example, everyone should pay 10 percent (or whatever is deemed necessary) with no tax loopholes. I think a national sales tax has merit, but not a value added tax. Exploitation to me is being unfair to your workers. It's making people work only up to touching distance of full time hours so you don't have to pay benefits and then have 4 family members on Forbe's list of the 500 Wealthiest People (and I think the Waltons are in the top ten or twenty). I get the fact that Sam Walton reorganized distribution more efficiently, but why should someone who is busting thier ass have to go to a free clinic to get their children taken care of? I find that unfair. I understand that small business owners take the risk of failure. I want it to be more lucrative to start a business in the US then to send jobs overseas. I find it unfair for companies to "headquarter" themselves out of the country so they don't have to pay taxes. The reason we have a minumum wage is because workers were being exploited. [sm=goodpost.gif] People are going to start waking up and the truth will set us free. Whatever happened to wanting a country to be ABLE to take care of themselves? When will people start to admit that unbridled capitalistic outsourcing has contributed to ruining this country???

hlen5 -> RE: Financial Reality (7/25/2011 11:24:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: I think a national sales tax has merit, but not a value added tax. Why not? As I understand it, those who consume more would pay more for a nat'l sales tax. With a value added tax, items are taxed at every step of production. An example I saw of VAT (many, many years ago) had tax being the bulk of the cost of an item. With an national sales tax, you have two homes, you pay tax on two homes. I only have one home, I'll pay tax on that. One owns a boat, one pays tax on the boat. I don't have a boat, I won't pay tax for a boat. It seems fair to me.

mnottertail -> RE: Financial Reality (7/25/2011 11:31:26 AM)
Murdoch's News Corp "generat[ed] $10.4 billion in profits over the past 4 years, and which would have been expected to pay the IRS $3.6 billion at the statutory corporate tax rate, instead received $4.6 billion back from Uncle Sam. Bottom line: Murdoch's corporation had a cash paid tax rate of -46% between 2007 and 2010." We could quit doing this for a whole host of companies.... drop in the bucket, I know, but a billion here and a billion there, and pretty soon we are talking about some real money. Sen. Everette Dirksen

Musicmystery -> RE: Financial Reality (7/25/2011 11:42:58 AM)
quote: s I understand it, those who consume more would pay more for a nat'l sales tax. With a value added tax, items are taxed at every step of production. An example I saw of VAT (many, many years ago) had tax being the bulk of the cost of an item. And thus, those who consume more are also paying more for the VAT.

Marini -> RE: Financial Reality (7/25/2011 11:55:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: s I understand it, those who consume more would pay more for a nat'l sales tax. With a value added tax, items are taxed at every step of production. An example I saw of VAT (many, many years ago) had tax being the bulk of the cost of an item. And thus, those who consume more are also paying more for the VAT. What is wrong with THAT MM, aren't you one of the main ones around here stating we all must sacrifice and dig deeper? Surely, you have no problem with a VAT tax.

hlen5 -> RE: Financial Reality (7/25/2011 11:58:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Murdoch's News Corp "generat[ed] $10.4 billion in profits over the past 4 years, and which would have been expected to pay the IRS $3.6 billion at the statutory corporate tax rate, instead received $4.6 billion back from Uncle Sam. Bottom line: Murdoch's corporation had a cash paid tax rate of -46% between 2007 and 2010." We could quit doing this for a whole host of companies.... drop in the bucket, I know, but a billion here and a billion there, and pretty soon we are talking about some real money. Sen. Everette Dirksen Exactly!!

hlen5 -> RE: Financial Reality (7/25/2011 12:00:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: s I understand it, those who consume more would pay more for a nat'l sales tax. With a value added tax, items are taxed at every step of production. An example I saw of VAT (many, many years ago) had tax being the bulk of the cost of an item. And thus, those who consume more are also paying more for the VAT. But with the VAT, the government gets the biggest chunk of money. I don't agree with that.

Musicmystery -> RE: Financial Reality (7/25/2011 12:01:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marini quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: s I understand it, those who consume more would pay more for a nat'l sales tax. With a value added tax, items are taxed at every step of production. An example I saw of VAT (many, many years ago) had tax being the bulk of the cost of an item. And thus, those who consume more are also paying more for the VAT. What is wrong with THAT MM, aren't you one of the main ones around here stating we all must sacrifice and dig deeper? Surely, you have no problem with a VAT tax. Don't be so quick with the knee jerk defensiveness. 1) There's nothing wrong with that. 2) I've long advocated a VAT, including on these boards 3) If you READ the thread posts instead of just reacting, you'd see she and I were clarifying the difference between a sales tax and a VAT.

Musicmystery -> RE: Financial Reality (7/25/2011 12:02:46 PM)
quote: But with the VAT, the government gets the biggest chunk of money. I don't agree with that. ???? With all taxes, the government gets the money. That's the point. How much depends on the tax rate, regardless of the type of tax.

hlen5 -> RE: Financial Reality (7/25/2011 12:12:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: But with the VAT, the government gets the biggest chunk of money. I don't agree with that. ???? With all taxes, the government gets the money. That's the point. How much depends on the tax rate, regardless of the type of tax. On my way out the door, I'll explain what I meant later.

Marini -> RE: Financial Reality (7/25/2011 12:13:51 PM)
thankies for the clarification!

defiantbadgirl -> RE: Financial Reality (7/25/2011 2:09:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: Instead I got a "fuck you" and was accused of saying he didn't care because I asked his opinion. You got a "fuck you" for laying into a rant about me barbarically abandoning people and turning the U.S. into Libya. That's far different than "asking for my opinion," and you know it, you little shit. There are a few people on these boards I might describe as barbaric, but you're not one of them. I think you're looking at the debt problem from a numbers perspective and that's very important. Looking at possible things to cut and the consequences of those cuts is equally important. I realize that any cut is going to have negative consequences, but I also strongly believe that death and homelessness on a massive scale caused by government cuts to the big three is more likely to cause riots and chaos than other less serious suffering. I never meant to imply that you want these things to happen and I apologize if I came across that way. I'm just pointing out the equal importance of looking at both numbers and consequences.

hlen5 -> RE: Financial Reality (7/25/2011 2:30:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: But with the VAT, the government gets the biggest chunk of money. I don't agree with that. ???? With all taxes, the government gets the money. That's the point. How much depends on the tax rate, regardless of the type of tax. Of course, all tax goes to the gov't. Farmer Brown sells a cow for meat, tax. The processing plant sells the hide, tax. The tannery buys/sells the hide/leather, tax. The shoe factory makes/sells the shoes, tax. The retail store sells the shoes, tax. Is this not how "value added" works? This is an interesting branch of the thread. I agree that we as a nation can't get to where we need to be with EITHER entitlement cuts OR tax increases, it's got to be both actions to get us out of this mess.

Page: << < prev 9 10 [11] 12 13 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875