225 replies to this topic

[Harte]

ninjadude, on 08 November 2012 - 05:43 AM, said:

Wars don't pay for themselves. In fact, the republicans kept the wars off the books. So yes, we will be paying for them for some time. Bush sold you down the river.

In the mind of the delerious, maybe:

Quote

Bush expressed relief that the measure provided $162 billion to fund military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan without setting troop-withdrawal timelines, which he has opposed.
"This bill shows the American people that even in an election year, Republicans and Democrats can come together to stand behind our troops and their families," he said.
Congress approved the measure after Democrats dropped efforts to impose timelines for troop withdrawals from Iraq in the face of a White House veto threat. They did, however, win concessions on their priorities to modernize the World War II-era GI Bill, which provides educational opportunities for millions of veterans, and to extend unemployment benefits.

Source - L.A. Times

Harte

[Mr. Smith]

Harte, on 10 November 2012 - 02:00 AM, said:

In the mind of the delerious, maybe:


Source - L.A. Times

Harte

That link kind of proves Ninja's argument. 5 years into the war they authorize a bill to pay a tiny fraction of the worthless wars' continued cost. And where did the money come from..??

[ninjadude]

Harte, on 10 November 2012 - 02:00 AM, said:

In the mind of the delerious, maybe:

in 2008 sure. an election year.

[Babe Ruth]

The smartest and most fair tax would be a tax on financial transactions on Wall Street, as some European jurisdictions apparently do.  Just 1% on those many many transactions could generate several billion a year, and maybe cut down on some of the gambling that goes on there.

[ninjadude]

Babe Ruth, on 10 November 2012 - 07:36 PM, said:

The smartest and most fair tax would be a tax on financial transactions on Wall Street, as some European jurisdictions apparently do.  Just 1% on those many many transactions could generate several billion a year, and maybe cut down on some of the gambling that goes on there.

I'd elect you president for that idea!!

[questionmark]

Babe Ruth, on 10 November 2012 - 07:36 PM, said:

The smartest and most fair tax would be a tax on financial transactions on Wall Street, as some European jurisdictions apparently do.  Just 1% on those many many transactions could generate several billion a year, and maybe cut down on some of the gambling that goes on there.

All you really would need to do is tax 1 cent on every high frequency transaction, that would kill a dozen birds with one stone.

[joc]

questionmark, on 10 November 2012 - 07:43 PM, said:

All you really would need to do is tax 1 cent on every high frequency transaction, that would kill a dozen birds with one stone.

Wow...your math really sucks...no seriously...it does...

...According to IRS statistics, roughly 2 percent of U.S. households have an income of $250,000 and above. By the way, $250,000 per year hardly qualifies one as being rich. It's not even yacht and Learjet money. All told, households earning $250,000 and above account for 25 percent, or $1.97 trillion, of the nearly $8 trillion of total household income. If Congress imposed a 100 percent tax, taking all earnings above $250,000 per year, it would yield the princely sum of $1.4 trillion. That would keep the government running for 141 days, but there's a problem because there are 224 more days left in the year.

Link

[questionmark]

joc, on 10 November 2012 - 07:54 PM, said:

Wow...your math really sucks...no seriously...it does...

...According to IRS statistics, roughly 2 percent of U.S. households have an income of $250,000 and above. By the way, $250,000 per year hardly qualifies one as being rich. It's not even yacht and Learjet money. All told, households earning $250,000 and above account for 25 percent, or $1.97 trillion, of the nearly $8 trillion of total household income. If Congress imposed a 100 percent tax, taking all earnings above $250,000 per year, it would yield the princely sum of $1.4 trillion. That would keep the government running for 141 days, but there's a problem because there are 224 more days left in the year.

Link

Nice, and that has to do what with high frequency transactions...?

[joc]

questionmark, on 10 November 2012 - 09:26 PM, said:

Nice, and that has to do what with high frequency transactions...?

No it has to do with Taxing the Rich...
and...huh?
Wow, I totally misread your post...nevermind...wait...
are you talking about what is also known as a Value Added Tax?  I would be in favor of that...but only if...at the same time they eliminated the Income Tax.

[docyabut2]

Taxes for everybody are set to rise Jan. 1 due to the expiration of the Bush tax rates and other measures. That, combined with the triggering of automatic defense and domestic spending cuts, amount to what is known in Washington as the "fiscal cliff" -- an austerity blow so severe that a Congressional Budget Office report warned this week that it would cause a recession and drive unemployment up to 9.1 percent.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.c.../#ixzz2Bs1vFh3g

I guess no body really wants to worked anymore:)

Edited by docyabut2, 11 November 2012 - 12:53 AM.

[Harte]

Mr. Smith, on 10 November 2012 - 04:50 PM, said:

That link kind of proves Ninja's argument. 5 years into the war they authorize a bill to pay a tiny fraction of the worthless wars' continued cost. And where did the money come from..??

Read closely.

"They" are Republicans and Democrats.

Ninja claimed the Republicans "kept the war off the books" when in fact it was mostly a bipartisan decision to do that.

Harte

[DieChecker]

docyabut2, on 11 November 2012 - 12:50 AM, said:

Taxes for everybody are set to rise Jan. 1 due to the expiration of the Bush tax rates and other measures. That, combined with the triggering of automatic defense and domestic spending cuts, amount to what is known in Washington as the "fiscal cliff" -- an austerity blow so severe that a Congressional Budget Office report warned this week that it would cause a recession and drive unemployment up to 9.1 percent.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.c.../#ixzz2Bs1vFh3g

I guess no body really wants to worked anymore:)

I say GOOD!! If Obama and the Boyz need to fix this, then they will be forced to Bipartisanship. Maybe that will bust the idiot dam that has been keeping the overly proud from working on the (50% Republican) nations business. If the taxes and cuts go into effect, it will 100% fall on Obama, as all of those taxes and cuts were signed off on his Watch. Maybe 2008 was Bush's Recession, but 2013 will be Obama's Recession.

[joc]

DieChecker, on 11 November 2012 - 04:40 AM, said:

I say GOOD!! If Obama and the Boyz need to fix this, then they will be forced to Bipartisanship. Maybe that will bust the idiot dam that has been keeping the overly proud from working on the (50% Republican) nations business. If the taxes and cuts go into effect, it will 100% fall on Obama, as all of those taxes and cuts were signed off on his Watch. Maybe 2008 was Bush's Recession, but 2013 will be Obama's Recession.

No it won't be.  You know this guy..it is a never ending blame game...the story line will always be:  Bush destroyed the nation so badly not even Obama could fix it.

[Mr. Smith]

Harte, on 11 November 2012 - 03:09 AM, said:

Read closely.

"They" are Republicans and Democrats.

Ninja claimed the Republicans "kept the war off the books" when in fact it was mostly a bipartisan decision to do that.

Harte

Ah. I stand corrected.

[Rafterman]

Babe Ruth, on 10 November 2012 - 07:36 PM, said:

The smartest and most fair tax would be a tax on financial transactions on Wall Street, as some European jurisdictions apparently do.  Just 1% on those many many transactions could generate several billion a year, and maybe cut down on some of the gambling that goes on there.

That will do so much considering we're $16 trillion in debt.  But sure, let's go ahead and tax one of the few economic drivers in this country that seems to be working.

The thing that I find comical about this discussion is that how the Obama Administration actually consider $250K a year wealthy.  And here's the rub, when these taxes are implemented and they do NOTHING other than feed the Washington spending pig, who will we then go after?  Who will be "wealthy" then?  Eventually we'll be talking about $100K a year being wealthy.  And then pretty soon anyone that has more than you will be considered "wealthy".