Jump to content

Git Sum Presidentin' (Republican primaries)

GreenBat
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 624
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Side Show Joe
Side Show Joe

Perry has been a good governor for a very long time. He is the best option of all the GOP candidates. He has my vote. Obama is the worst President I've seen in my lifetime, and I can remember Cart

Side Show Joe
Side Show Joe

I am in education. I am a public school teacher. The problems with education in Texas are not monetary. Children in third world countries are more literate. There are many problems like, government ma

KRAM1
KRAM1

If you do stay home it is as good as a vote for Obama...the Obama campaign is counting on people who will stay home that would have otherwise voted against him. Think VERY VERY seriously about this b

FirefightnRick Proficient

FirefightnRick

Posted
Posted

From Politico:

Poll: Most say Obama tanking on gas

Almost two-thirds of Americans, 65 percent, said they disapprove of the way President Barack Obama is dealing with rising prices at the pump, a new Washington Post/ABC News poll finds.

Only 26 percent – the president’s lowest rating in the poll — said they approve of his handling of gas prices, while a majority, 52 percent, said they “strongly” disapprove.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73875.html#ixzz1p0IabZ6I

Rick

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
yyz28 Enthusiast

yyz28

Posted
Posted

---Everyone...NO .... but I do think those making millions each each year on capital gains should not just pay 15% while I and probably you, are paying 25% (or more) on any additional income that I am getting. Don't have a chart in front on me now but if you are making $68,000 or more after the usual deductions.... you are paying 25% on that part of your income.... maybe as much 35%...ie. much higher rate than those making millions.

I have no problem with paying 15% on a reasonable amount ($100,000 ?) but above that amount should taxes at a reasonable rate... it was just 20% on capital gains when Clinton left office and the debt was not growing over 2%. I WANT US TO QUIT GOING INTO MORE DEBT and firing teachers, and a lot of other needed personnel is not the answer.

No one likes paying taxes... and I don't even like paying my electric bill... but I have to maintain a decent standard of living.... also taxes to have a safe country with highways, police, hospitals, an educated public, etc.... We are not soaking the rich..... wake up... they are paying a smaller rate than YOU.... You are buying a false idea...

Still on this, huh? Really? Despite the FACTS? Despite that historically, it's proven that revenue to the fed has increased when Capital gains tax rates are dropped and decreases when they are raised? It's been a perfect science historically. You state "I WANT US TO QUIT GOING INTO MORE DEBT" yet you blindly support a policy that has been PROVEN, more than once, to drop the amount of revenue coming into the fed? It's illogical. The only possible explanation I can find is that you're so hung up on your idealogical slant, you can't look at the facts. Numbers don't lie. History is what it is. If the numbers didn't back up my argument, I couldn't make it.

I'll again, ask you the question which after countless threads and now 30+ pages in this thread - If the Rich aren't paying enough (reminding you here that the top 1% of the income earners in this country earn 16.77% of all income, yet pays 34.72% of all taxes) then how much SHOULD They be paying? How much is their fair share? The top 1% contributes twice as much to the tax pot than the percentage of the income they earn. In addition, this number is up 2% since 2000, further debunking the idea that the Bush tax cuts have created a situation where the Rich are paying less as a result of the often maligned "tax cuts for the Rich". ..all this data can be found on the IRS website.

...so, should the 1% be kicking in 40%? 45%? What's the number?

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
meangreenacct Community Regular

meangreenacct

Posted
Posted

Still on this, huh? Really? Despite the FACTS? Despite that historically, it's proven that revenue to the fed has increased when Capital gains tax rates are dropped and decreases when they are raised? It's been a perfect science historically. You state "I WANT US TO QUIT GOING INTO MORE DEBT" yet you blindly support a policy that has been PROVEN, more than once, to drop the amount of revenue coming into the fed? It's illogical. The only possible explanation I can find is that you're so hung up on your idealogical slant, you can't look at the facts. Numbers don't lie. History is what it is. If the numbers didn't back up my argument, I couldn't make it.

I'll again, ask you the question which after countless threads and now 30+ pages in this thread - If the Rich aren't paying enough (reminding you here that the top 1% of the income earners in this country earn 16.77% of all income, yet pays 34.72% of all taxes) then how much SHOULD They be paying? How much is their fair share? The top 1% contributes twice as much to the tax pot than the percentage of the income they earn. In addition, this number is up 2% since 2000, further debunking the idea that the Bush tax cuts have created a situation where the Rich are paying less as a result of the often maligned "tax cuts for the Rich". ..all this data can be found on the IRS website.

...so, should the 1% be kicking in 40%? 45%? What's the number?

110%? I always heard people weren't really trying hard unless they were giving 110%...

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
KRAM1 Rookie

KRAM1

Posted
Posted

OK, here's an idea....since the libs and dems want to tax the top 1% more and they think that is so fair...and since the Occupy Wall Street folks in NYC have just reported that they are fast running out of money (even after the large infusion of cash from the Unions)...just have the Occupy Wall Street folks determine who the richest 1% of their quickly fading population nationwide is and TAX THEM to keep the thing going! WOW...novel concept here...they want to tax the top 1% in greater amounts (even though they already pay more in one year than probably any Occupy guru ever has over their lifetime...so use that concept and tax yourselves...the Top 1% that is.....Fair deal, right?

OK, not original by me...I believe this was Rush's (yes, THAT Rush) line this morning as I was listening to 820 on the radio this morning during my early morning drive in to work. Not a big Rush fan AT ALL, but loved this little snippet from him this morning.....bring on those taxes Occupiers!

  • Downvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
FirefightnRick Proficient

FirefightnRick

Posted
Posted (edited)

CBO: Obamacare to cost $1.76 Trillion over 10 years.

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/cbo-obamacare-cost-176-trillion-over-10-yrs/425831

..."Democrats employed many accounting tricks when they were pushing through the national health care legislation, the most egregious of which was to delay full implementation of the law until 2014, so it would appear cheaper under the CBO's standard ten-year budget window and, at least on paper, meet Obama's pledge that the legislation would cost "around $900 billion over 10 years." When the final CBO score came out before passage, critics noted that the true 10 year cost would be far higher than advertised once projections accounted for full implementation...."

BRICK WALLS!!!!!!!

Rick

Edited by FirefightnRick
  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
yyz28 Enthusiast

yyz28

Posted
Posted

CBO: Obamacare to cost $1.76 Trillion over 10 years.

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/cbo-obamacare-cost-176-trillion-over-10-yrs/425831

..."Democrats employed many accounting tricks when they were pushing through the national health care legislation, the most egregious of which was to delay full implementation of the law until 2014, so it would appear cheaper under the CBO's standard ten-year budget window and, at least on paper, meet Obama's pledge that the legislation would cost "around $900 billion over 10 years." When the final CBO score came out before passage, critics noted that the true 10 year cost would be far higher than advertised once projections accounted for full implementation...."

BRICK WALLS!!!!!!!

Rick

We don't have the coin to keep this crap up. At current spending, at current tax rates, our kid's and grandkid's lifetime tax payments have already been spent to get through the current debt. How do we assume we've got MORE to spend, much less 2 TRILLION more over a period of just 10 years?

Obamacare, just as predicted by those of us who opposed it, is going to cost far more than originally estimated (AND far more than even THESE CBO estimates) and has all sorts of hair on it (such as this contraception mandate, rationing, and many of the other limitations we all said were in here and are now being borne out as true) is pushing up insurance premiums (despite promises that our costs would go down) and will force us all off of our current plans and into a single payer system, which is what it was designed to do in the first place.

...and Obama knows it, which is why he ensured it wouldn't take effect until he was out of office or in his second term.

Bad deal. If we don't get the individual mandate that basically is required for this law to have any teeth struck down by the supreme court, we're all headed for a total lack of control over our healthcare which will cost more, not less and be less effective not more effective moving forward. ...and the GOVERNMENT will have absolute control over your issues of life and death. ...but don't worry, your liberty won't be eroded at all.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
yyz28 Enthusiast

yyz28

Posted
Posted

Obama up by 8 in Virginia Poll

If Romney can't win Virginia, it doesn't even matter what happens in Florida or Ohio.

Not too worried about polls at this point. ...and this particular poll is laughable, when you look at the break down. First it's a registered voter, not a likely voter poll. Might as well throw it out right there. Independents when you look at the breakdown break statically even between the two candidates and then break for Romney on the issue questions further down. Gut tells me party alignment breakdown which isn't shown (and usually isn't when its lopsided) has a lot to do with this. In addition, VA hasn't had its primary yet and is most likely not paying much attention except for the political junkies.

If this were a week before the election and there were 5 polls all trending one way within a week, I'd worry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SCREAMING EAGLE-66 Rookie

SCREAMING EAGLE-66

Posted
Posted (edited)

--- You missed to point of the first veto on the pipeline. .... it was not that he opposed the pipeline but opposed the route and the fact that so much of the plans then were incomplete [Midland paper, Texas oil-fields ]. Plus there was a lot of opposition to the route by landowners and others (some oil companies).... plus it was not even straight and odd route had been influenced by some politicians who wanted it close to their district to provide jobs there. The odd route would have even been more expensive. Be honest or informed about what really happened.

--Quote something other than Fox and it might be accepted as the truth.

..

Edited by SCREAMING EAGLE-66
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
FirefightnRick Proficient

FirefightnRick

Posted
Posted (edited)

--- You missed to point of the first veto on the pipeline. .... it was not that he opposed the pipeline but opposed the route and the fact that so much of the plans then were incomplete [Midland paper, Texas oil-fields ]. Plus there was a lot of opposition to the route by landowners and others (some oil companies).... plus it was not even straight and odd route had been influenced by some politicians who wanted it close to their district to provide jobs there. The odd route would have even been more expensive. Be honest or informed about what really happened.

--Quote something other than Fox and it might be accepted as the truth.

..

Oh, I thought it was all the anti oil Rhetoric he's been spewing since he took office and his a his administration denying the amount of jobs it would creat, plus his pandering to the enviro statists, compounded with his energy Czar recently getting caught saying they hope the prices go up, and all that? Now, so it seems to me, he's pandering in favor of it in response to the latest poll showing 78 percent of Americans want it built?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/72199.html

Rick

Edited by FirefightnRick
Link to comment
Share on other sites
FirefightnRick Proficient

FirefightnRick

Posted
Posted (edited)

It's called nuance Rick, and I'm not surprised you don't understand. Hard to cheer for the Mean Green when you see everything in black n white, eh?

No, I think it's called pandering to the right because your opinion concerning the Keystone pipeline is unpopular.

Rick

Edited by FirefightnRick
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing


WE BELIEVE IN THE MEAN GREEN!

News

Recruiting

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Please review our full Privacy Policy before using our site.