Originally Posted by Relentless (Post 18440174)

It seems we are finally all in agreement. :thumbsup

Originally Posted by 12clicks (Post 18440153)

yeah, just like under Bush. :1orglaugh

Originally Posted by Minte (Post 18440064)

Galvanize is precisely the word I had in mind. Look at what happened last November. People are tired of this economy and the democrats lost the house. If there would've been more senate seats up last term,they would've more than likely lost that too.

What Obama hasn't done is keep his eye on what's important to the majority. The economy. I saw yesterday that his approval ratings have dropped to 43%. That was on NBC nightly news with Brian Williams.

There are still thousands of troops in Iraq and there will be for decades. What does surprise me is the lack of anger and demonstrations with this generation. I served during Vietnam and the campuses were filled with rage against Nixon for escalating Vietnam. We have been in Afghanistan longer now and not even a whimper on campus.

I will give him credit for Bin Laden. He had the balls to say GO. And that was a good thing.

Originally Posted by mynameisjim (Post 18439960)

People are missing the larger point. When Obama and others ask that the wealthy "pay their fair share" it's not just about a simple numbers calculation.

Over the past decade, the average American has seen their standard of living stagnate or decrease while the wealthy have seen their lifestyles increase at an accelerated rate. The wealthy have made those gains AT THE EXPENSE of the average American. By outsourcing jobs in order to lower costs, investing in emerging markets instead of investing in America, and gambling on risky financial products which caused a collapse in both the housing and stock markets which wiped out the Average American's 401k plan and any equity they had in their homes.

So this isn't about simple math and graphs. It's about the wealthy making money at the expense of the average American.

Originally Posted by mynameisjim (Post 18440094)

I do agree that Obama clearly doesn't have all the answers and he's definitely making mistakes.

We have to realize that there are short term issues and long term issues, and we have to address them separately. Any ideas to create jobs short term get attacked because they don't fix the long term problem, and any idea to fix things long term are attacked because they don't create jobs right now.

One of the short term fixes is raising taxes on the rich. They have enjoyed historically low taxes for over a decade, even during the longest two wars in American history which is TOTALLY unprecedented for a country to lower taxes several times during war. So asking for an extra 1% or 2% is not all that much. Take that money and use it for infrastructure projects.

Taxes are raised and lowered based on needs all the time, so this is not that crazy of an idea. When we had a budget surplus, we lowered taxes, so taxes will come down when the country gets back on it's feet.

But that's the problem, when people bring up the tax debate, it opens up all this debate about food stamps and currency rigging and all sorts of things. We have to take it one thing at a time. Some short term, and some long term.

So my short term solution would be to raise taxes 2% on those making over 1$ million dollars and use that money for immediate infrastructure projects to get people back to work. Construction projects are great because they employ such a wide range of people, from unskilled laborers all the way up to engineers and scientists.

Originally Posted by mynameisjim (Post 18440144)

I won't say how much money I have made in my lifetime. But I would gladly pay an extra 2% this year if it was going towards infrastructure projects.

I've been a businessman for nearly two decades. I'm smart enough to know that when the average American's lifestyle goes up 1%, my lifestyle goes up 5% because I'm a little higher up on the food chain. So anything that will get Americans back to work, I'm all for it.

If I sacrifice 2% extra in taxes and it gets unemployment to start going down, I'll make that money back several times over as Americans have more spending money to buy the products I sell.

That's why the super wealthy don't want to raise taxes because they don't make money like I do or anyone on this board does. They make money by investing in emerging markets or investing in crazy derivative schemes so they could care less about unemployment.

Originally Posted by crockett (Post 18440240)

People were pissed off with GB & Republicans so it all went to Democrats now they are pissed at Obama so it's swinging Republican. They will then be pissed at Republicans and it will go back Democratic.

That to me is just a sign that people are mad at the govt as a whole and they are just blaming whom ever happens to be in power at the time. .

Originally Posted by gleem (Post 18440261)

No that's a sign of the problems with our 2 party system.. need 3 or more electable parties with power sharing deals like other modern democracies.

Originally Posted by Relentless (Post 18440332)

If you have 2 or 5 or 10 parties, you'd still have the exact same 'people' putting money in their pockets.

Originally Posted by crockett (Post 18440015)

Are you sure you chose the right word there?

gal·va·nizeVerb/ˈgalvəˌnīz/
1. Shock or excite (someone), typically into taking action: "his voice galvanized them into action".

I will admit I'm not 100% happy with Obama's presidency but to think the Republican party wouldn't have put him under siege regardless of what how he preformed is kind of funny. However to say he shocked or excited people into action is a good thing I'd assume..unless you mean the whole tea party thing but over all I see them much the same as the Religious Right morons as I pretty much think they are interchangeable with one another just banded under a new name but the same hate.

It's all the Republican party does, when they are not in power. They don't attempt to work with the other party they instead constantly attack and never offer up any solutions. Their solution is "vote for us" then what do they do?

Look at Bill Clinton, regardless of if you like him or not you can not argue that that man did not get stuff done. What did the Republicans do the entire time he was in office? They tried to get him and hounded him with every thing under the sun and spent countless tax dollars on a sex scandal. Not to mention did everything possible to fight anything he tried to do.

How exactly did that help the country?

Now I voted for Obama, not because I expected "change" or for him to fix the economy because I'm smart enough to know that no one is going to fix the mess in Washington with out the country as a whole being galvanized. At this point that hasn't happened so Washington will do what it does, regardless of who is in power.

The reason I voted for Obama is because I was tired of Bush's so called war on terror and IMO Obama has done what he said he would in that regard so I'm pretty happy with him there.

He said he would pull troops out of Iraq.. He did

He said he would focus the war on terror to Afgan where it should have always been. He did.

He said he would get Bin Ladden. Although, I really didn't expect this but he did it.

We are at war even though many choose to forget it and as such I voted for a president whom I thought would put us back on track in that war. So far Obama has done more than I expected in that regard.

As for economy & healthcare I really didn't expect much out of him for that because that takes congress, the senate, big business & the tax payers to work together and I know that will never happen.

Originally Posted by Relentless (Post 18440332)

Actually that would fix nothing in its present format. If you have 2 or 5 or 10 parties, you'd still have the exact same 'people' putting money in their pockets. Keep in mind, thanks to the Citizens United verdict 'people' for the purpose of donating money to political campaigns now includes Corporations. If you had 6 people running for President, do you really think GE or Exxon would have a hard time coming up with enough bribe, errr Political Action Committee money for all of them?

The start of fixing the system is real rational limits on campaign financing, including a reversal of the Citizens United ruling by a legislative act of Congress. The next step would be a complete overhaul of the FCC so it does what it was originally intended to do (protect the public airways) from media consolidation and blatant misrepresentation of factual events by pseudo-news. A real, vigorous, impartial media and serious campaign finance reform would give us a much more productive political system.

It would make both existing parties behave better, make the creation of new political parties possible, and make blatantly lying to the citizenry much less frequent. Unfortunately, that would require the people already being bribed to vote themselves out of office.... which won't happen. :2 cents:

Originally Posted by crockett (Post 18439758)

They pay a higher tax rate as a group but they get more deductions bringing that tax rate down lower than what the average middle class person pays. Oh and they make it sound odd that someone whom makes a million dollars a year pays a larger share than someone making 50k year.

Originally Posted by 12clicks (Post 18440575)

The facts are just the opposite. The more you make, the less deductions you are allowed to take.

It's the masses of unsuccessful unintelligent who clamor for fairness. What they fail to understand is that they pay NOTHING compared to their successful neighbors.
Having ZERO experience on the subject, they rely on lies they've been told to gain their vote.

Originally Posted by gleem (Post 18440021)

The other side of your argument is that there was no incentive to keep jobs here in the US, as doing business overseas is cheaper both because they don't have to deal with unions and pensions, and mountains of red tape. The average american wouldn't accept a lower wage and would rather be on the dole, so they took the job to those that are willing to do it.

What are the incentives to keep jobs here? All I'm hearing is tax the snot out of the companies and rich people who run companies and then give more money to those with no jobs.

This is the other side of the philosophy that is at the crux of the problem.

How about 25% import taxes on raw materials that are easily available in this country, giving companies a zero tax on money they bring in from offshore accounts if they use the money to directly pay someone's salary. How about the US govt' matching $ for $ aany American company making anything here in the US by Americans for another "Buy American" media campaign. Us gov't has no money to spend on this? Redirect money from the bullshit wars we are in, or simply fix the fraud in all the entitlement programs to pay for it.

These are things to help americans. The real problem is there's no true patriotism anymore, even the saying of a pledge of allegiance to the US is being banned in schools.

Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 18440593)

I agree...it's hard to understand why I have to hand over big checks to the govt. that I could definitely use. And meanwhile, people who pay nothing at all scream about "fairness"

Life isn't fair.
I've had times in my life where I didn't have a damn dime to my name and had to struggle to make it. I've had other times where I had so much money I couldn't spend it fast enough.

But the one constant thing was: I MADE those decisions that put me in the position I was in.

When I was dumb enough to fuck around and be poor...it didn't have much to do with "fairness". I didn't expect or WANT any help from anybody, I just wanted enough to get by and have a good time.

And when I made great money...it was because I decided I had had enough of just partying and not WANTING anything. I decided I wanted to have a nice house and a bunch of nice cars, etc.

So without any help from the govt., and not caring one little bit about "fairness", I got in the porn business in the mid 1990's in my mid 30's and proceeded to make more money than all the guys I went to school had in all their lives.

Was that "fair"? No. I was smarter than they were. I made better grades than they did in school, and I was able to do what I wanted all my life. And when what I wanted was to have money...that's what I did.

It's NOT fair that the majority of people can't do that.

And it's not fair that a lion eats an antelope either.

Life ain't fair. And I'll never be happy about having to take care of and pay for people who are not in my family. I don't want to work for other people.

That's why communism always fails. You take away a person's incentive to get rich...and they become unproductive.

What's the point of busting your ass if the govt. is just going to take it from you and distribute it among people who don't have your abilites?

Originally Posted by tony286 (Post 18440613)

Actually they dont tax the snot out of companies, google paid like 4% in taxes with all the loopholes . You make great points but its not unions and pensions. Its the chinese willing to work for 30 cents an hour and the chinese government manipulation of the currency so its even cheaper to manufacture in china. Also in 1980 the avg CEO was paid 42 times the avg worker,now it's 531 times the avg worker. That money has to come from somewhere.
You would have to make it too expensive to build things out of the country. You would have to do monster tariffs and that's not going to happen. Rich people dont create jobs demand creates jobs, middle class spending is a big part of the economy. I dont think its coming back, 9 percent unemployment is going to be the new normal .This was a long time coming.
One more thing to think about they said all the same exact talking pointd when Clinton raised the rate 3 percent. Job killer,etc ,etc and there was great prosperity. The 50's things boomed and the highest tax bracket was 90 percent.

Originally Posted by TheDoc (Post 18440598)

What a load of bullshit... Investments are deductions

Originally Posted by TheDoc (Post 18440618)

Don't get me wrong me I don't think we should be taxed to death, at all... but pretending that the truly rich can't do more, is a load of shit. I lived in Canada, more taxes DO NOT kill you, they make you smarter!

Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 18440713)

But WHY should they be forced to "do more"?

Originally Posted by TheDoc (Post 18440618)

In the same situation, in a 3rd world country, all the drive in the world, and 99.999999999% chance you (all of us) wouldn't have been any different than the next starving person.

Originally Posted by 12clicks (Post 18440707)

and people wonder why you're at the bottom of the food chain.
Mr. Mom, I could have laughed at the whole post but then the specific lack of intelligence in each word gets lost.:1orglaugh

Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 18440739)

Here is something to think about:
The federal income tax was first enacted in 1862 to support the Union's Civil War effort. It was eliminated in 1872, revived in 1894, then declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court the following year. In 1913, the 16th Amendment to the Constitution made the income tax a permanent fixture in the U.S. tax system.

So the govt. is so goddamn greedy and power hungry that when they were told that Income Tax was unconstitutional...they simply amended the constitution to MAKE it legal
:mad::mad::mad::mad:

Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 18440739)

Here is something to think about:
The federal income tax was first enacted in 1862 to support the Union's Civil War effort. It was eliminated in 1872, revived in 1894, then declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court the following year. In 1913, the 16th Amendment to the Constitution made the income tax a permanent fixture in the U.S. tax system.

So the govt. is so goddamn greedy and power hungry that when they were told that Income Tax was unconstitutional...they simply amended the constitution to MAKE it legal
:mad::mad::mad::mad:

Originally Posted by Brent 3dSexCash (Post 18440766)

Can't we all just agree that government is in bad shape, and needs to be "revised" ?

Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 18440713)

But WHY should they be forced to "do more"?

They already pay the lions share of everything. And no...most "normal" people I know get tax refunds.

I'm just saying...what's the point of making this money, if I'm broke at the end of the month because I'm having to put together my quarterly taxes. With the economic collapse plus the way the porn biz is getting slaughtered (my affiliate work that is) my income is 1/2 of what it once was. But my bills are the same. And the tax rate? Still the same! I still make "too much" money according to the govt.

And to make matters worse...like many business owners in all industries...I cut back on all kinds of expenses: anything I didn't 100% need I cut it out, including employees, monthly services, etc, etc
So now I have LESS deductions...lol

It's a lose/lose already for a lot of people.

When Obama was babbling about raising taxes on people making more than $250,000 a year I about shit my pants. I'm doing better than most I suppose...but I can't afford ANY more taxes.

Originally Posted by tony286 (Post 18440763)

Without those income taxes,there would be no road system,most of the major medical advances happened after medicare. There would be no internet, gov dollars fueled the development of and huge subsidies for the investment in board band. Most people didn't go to college,fuck most didn't finish high school but the first gi bill caused a growth in college education. Then student loans and pell grants. These things just didnt fall from the sky. The middle class was created after FDR before that it was rich and poor.

Originally Posted by TheDoc (Post 18440785)

Why are poor people forced to do less? It's equal in this case... for example: When they cut taxes, if you're poor, you make no extra money, you don't get a tax break on a refund... Those benefits are for us higher income people.

Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 18440827)

My argument is...because they didn't PAY any taxes to begin with!

And yet, a few years ago they all received checks from the govt. as a big national "tax refund"!
Remember that?

Everyone I know who actually pays taxes was furious over that! How the fuck can you get a "refund" if you never paid? :1orglaugh

Originally Posted by TheDoc (Post 18440757)

Great post.... you really proved me wrong this reply. :1orglaugh what an idiot.

I love your post though, yeah 401k's aren't a dedication and dividends are taxed at twice the rate, not half...

Originally Posted by 12clicks (Post 18441295)

Hahahaha, just shows how far down the food chain you are mr. Mom, thinking that 401ks are "rich people deductions"
:1orglaugh

Originally Posted by Minte (Post 18440687)

Demand doesn't invest in factories or tooling or machinery. People with wealth do that.
Demand doesn't cover payroll or pay into 401k's, cover the majority of an employees health,dental and life insurance. Wealthy people do that too.

Demand doesn't cover the costs of research and it doesn't develop new technologies. Once again people with wealth do that.

Demand is a concept,it takes people with real money and vision to supply that demand.

Originally Posted by TheDoc (Post 18441309)

It's an investment which is a deduction... idiot. Ie: the actual point you tried to argue.

Nobody said it was for rich people.... idiot. However no poor person making $15k a year pays $15k a year into the 401k... idiot.

Man... out of stupid fucks on this board, you take the cake, bar none.

Originally Posted by crockett

They pay a higher tax rate as a group but they get more deductions bringing that tax rate down lower than what the average middle class person pays. Oh and they make it sound odd that someone whom makes a million dollars a year pays a larger share than someone making 50k year.

Originally Posted by 12clicks (Post 18440575)

This is a lie told by losers who've never made more than 30k a year.
The facts are just the opposite. The more you make, the less deductions you are allowed to take.

It's the masses of unsuccessful unintelligent who clamor for fairness. What they fail to understand is that they pay NOTHING compared to their successful neighbors.
Having ZERO experience on the subject, they rely on lies they've been told to gain their vote.

Originally Posted by thedoc

What a load of bullshit... Investments are deductions dip shit, and the higher up the chain you go, the more unique opportunities you get for those investments, as well, the more opportunities you have to move your income to less taxable areas, like dividends.

Originally Posted by tony286 (Post 18441426)

Demand is what spurs all of that, without demand none of that happens.

Originally Posted by Sly (Post 18441462)

I've only been reading half the thread so somebody catch me up.

For fantasy sake, let's say I'm making $500k a year. What deductions are available to me that put me in the $50k bracket?

To my knowledge, the only way I can put that personal money into the stock market and get a deduction would be a 401(k), which is capped $15k yearly and is not even available to those that make $500k a year.

I suppose I could invest that money into a personal business, that would allow for a variety of deductions, although my fantasy Fortune 500 company employer would probably not be too crazy about that.

Charitable donations I suppose. I wouldn't really get much monetary benefit out of that.

I must be leaving something out.

I don't particularly feel sorry for this person, I'm simply trying to figure out where $400k worth of deductions come from.

Originally Posted by 12clicks (Post 18441447)

good morning, mr. mom.

add reading comprehension to the list of reasons you're a failure.






now prattle on son, I take a perverse pleasure in watching nobodies pretend their not out of work mr. moms.

Originally Posted by Sly (Post 18441462)

I've only been reading half the thread so somebody catch me up.

For fantasy sake, let's say I'm making $500k a year. What deductions are available to me that put me in the $50k bracket?

To my knowledge, the only way I can put that personal money into the stock market and get a deduction would be a 401(k), which is capped $15k yearly and is not even available to those that make $500k a year.

I suppose I could invest that money into a personal business, that would allow for a variety of deductions, although my fantasy Fortune 500 company employer would probably not be too crazy about that.

Charitable donations I suppose. I wouldn't really get much monetary benefit out of that.

I must be leaving something out.

I don't particularly feel sorry for this person, I'm simply trying to figure out where $400k worth of deductions come from.

Originally Posted by TheDoc (Post 18441473)

Idiot... I didn't respond to everything you posted, I respond to one part. Damn.....

Btw, is Mr. Mom an insult? What a loser you must be.... even if I 100% took care of my kids, you kinda have to be a complete and total loser to try pretend like that's a bad thing... come on, no wonder you're so fucked up in the head... just wow.

Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 18440731)

I know what you're saying...BUT...I've been to some "poor" South American countries (as I'm sure you have too), and I partied with some RICH people that lived there.

I'm 100% positive that if you and I were born and raised in a poor third world country, and didn't get killed when we were crazy teenagers...
We WOULD rise up to the top there as well and end up being the guys with the most pigs and goats in the village and have the hottest native women in our shacks.

The U.S. is a land of great opportunity. But I really don't feel that the government bureaucracy had very much to do with it. I think it had more to do with people like the Founding Fathers and later on people who led the expansion west and SEIZED opportunity in spite of the govt. (think Kennedy, Vanderbilt, Flagler, Rockafeller, etc.)

Hell, I'm living here in Vegas. It's a perfect example of the govt. fucking up something.
The mob built this town up and made it great.
Now? The govt. here makes it impossible for a small brick and mortar biz to get started. Only mega-corps can even think about it. And the govt. dips their hand in and regulates everything so harshly that it's definitely not "Sin City" anymore.

It's a town living off the past rep that it once had back in the 1940s through the 1970's. And every day it gets a little bit lamer and lamer (can bureaucrats EVER stop making new laws?) . People can only come here so many times looking for wild fun times...and instead get ass raped at every turn by the big companies running these casinos with their overpriced everything (remember when Vegas was the place you could come to for almost nothing?).

Count me as one of the "crazy" people who believe that "yes" we do need some govt. oversight to make sure that things are "right"....but I think that they have WAAAAAYYYY overreached (like they always do) and are stifling people from getting ahead in life.

As I said...I pity the poor fool who tries to start a small brick and mortar business these days. And then...if a miracle happens and he hits the big time?
Well...they want to tax him MORE for doing a good job. :(

Originally Posted by tony286 (Post 18439229)

you can cut taxes to negative numbers, first its demand that creates jobs not lowering taxes and secondly 30 cents an hour is 30 cents an hour.
I have a pizzeria and I sell 1000 pizza's a week and my staff covers that. Im not adding more people no matter howlow my taxes are lowered. Now it booms to 3000 a pizzas a week. Im hiring more people if they raise my taxers or not if I want to stay in business.

Originally Posted by 12clicks (Post 18441457)

Sly, to get back to your point (after wading thru the usual unintelligent trolls with their "I know all about rich people because I work from my bedroom" logic)
Buffett is a liar.
From today's Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...d0iK_blog.html

When you add up all of the various taxes, and look at the effective tax rates, it is clear the tax system is already pretty progressive. Everyone pays some tax, even those who pay no federal income taxes, and the wealthiest pay a larger percentage share of taxes. Here?s the effective tax rate for all of the groups, according to the CBO:
Lowest quintile (23.4 million taxpayers), zero to $18,900: 4.3 percent
Second lowest quintile (22.4 million), $18,900-$32,100: 10.2 percent
Middle quintile (22.9 million), $32,100-$47,400: 14.2 percent
Fourth quintile (23 million), $47,400-$71,200: 17.6 percent
Highest quintile (23.6 million), above $71,200: 25.8 percent
Top 10 percent (12 million), minimum income of $98,100: 27.5 percent
Top 5 percent (5.9 million), minimum income of $134,400: 29 percent
Top 1 percent (1.1 million), minimum income of $332,300: 31.2 percent
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

now monkeys like theCock and tony404 will ignore these facts and continue to throw shit but those of us with real businesses with real incomes know the truth.

Originally Posted by 12clicks (Post 18441477)

what, mr. mom?
I can't quite here you. you're unemployment apron is muffling your horse shit story.:1orglaugh

Originally Posted by pornguy (Post 18441481)

Yep soooo true..

I was stunned the day I saw some Texas Million air in an interview say that he could not make payroll if he could not get a loan form the bank. WTF...

Thats not being in business, thats being stupid.

Originally Posted by 12clicks (Post 18441457)

Lowest quintile (23.4 million taxpayers), zero to $18,900: 4.3 percent
Second lowest quintile (22.4 million), $18,900-$32,100: 10.2 percent
Middle quintile (22.9 million), $32,100-$47,400: 14.2 percent
Fourth quintile (23 million), $47,400-$71,200: 17.6 percent
Highest quintile (23.6 million), above $71,200: 25.8 percent
Top 10 percent (12 million), minimum income of $98,100: 27.5 percent
Top 5 percent (5.9 million), minimum income of $134,400: 29 percent
Top 1 percent (1.1 million), minimum income of $332,300: 31.2 percent
-------------------------------------------------------------------------