plainoldme
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2011 08:45 pm
@okie,
Quote:
I have no clue.


Several of us have been saying that for years.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 May, 2011 04:36 am
@plainoldme,
Projection
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 May, 2011 05:00 am
@plainoldme,
plainoldme wrote:

The woman can barely speak her native language


Maxine Waters (D) Slip of the Tongue
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 May, 2011 10:01 am
@H2O MAN,
I don't think it is a slip of the tongue, H2OMAN. I think Maxine Waters merely is honest and says what many in the Democratic Party think and believe, and want, including Barrack Obama. In terms of honesty, I would rank her higher than the president and many other Democrats.

Liberals not only want full government control of the health care industry, they would like the same in the energy industry, the auto industry, plus all other industries of any importance.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 May, 2011 10:26 am
The Flat Tax is a much simpler, much less costly, and much more efficient means than the Fair Tax to collect federal taxes. Furthermore, I believe the Flat Tax is a much fairer tax than is the Fair Tax, because it taxes all dollars of income equally. The Fair Tax does not tax all expenditures equally, thereby making it an unfair tax.

FAIR TAX:
1. Federal sales tax on the sale of all new products and services except education;
2. Sale of used products are not taxed;
3. The Fair Tax’s sales tax is collected by businesses that then pay the accumulated tax to state tax authorities;
4. State tax authorities monthly or semi monthly pay the accumulated fair tax to the federal tax authority;
5. All heads of households receive a prebate, based on dependents, from the federal tax authority that cover all taxes on necessities;
6. The fair tax rate—23%—and items taxed are specified by Congress in the adoption of the original Fair Tax Bill, and can be changed only by a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress;
7. The Fair Tax requires a Constitutional Amendment that requires that there will be no other federal tax.
8. The Fair Tax eliminates all paperwork for keeping track of incomes, investments, et cetera;
9. The Fair Tax increases all state and federal paperwork for keeping track of all expenditures and the tax on expenditures;
10. The Fair Tax picks up more taxpayers, drug dealers, prostitutes, illegals, and tourists—a larger than current base of payees who will all pay taxes;
11. The Fair Tax makes American products cheaper overseas as their prices will not include taxes in them when sold overseas, but products coming in from overseas will be taxed at 23 percent.

FLAT TAX:
1. All gross annual individual income is taxed at the same rate per dollar regardless of the magnitude of the individual’s gross annual income—for example, a 6% tax rate on a $10 thousand gross income is taxed $6 hundred, on a $1 million gross income is taxed $60 thousand, on $1 billion gross income is taxed $60 million, on $1 trillion gross income is taxed $60 billion;
2. All gross annual individual income taxes are paid directly to the federal tax authority;
3. The flat tax rate—10%—on all gross annual incomes is specified by Congress in the adoption of the original Flat Tax Bill, and can be changed only by a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress;
4. When the total of gross annual individual incomes is $10 trillion, the total taxes collected by the federal tax authority would be 10% of $10 trillion = $1 trillion;
5. The Flat Tax picks up more taxpayers who will pay taxes that have not previously been required to pay income taxes—about 45% of income earners— making a larger base of payees who will pay taxes;
6. There are zero deductions, exemptions, prebates, refunds, or other exceptions;
7. The Flat Tax requires a Constitutional Amendment that requires that there will be no other federal tax.

Quote:

http://bber.unm.edu/econ/us-tpi.htm
Total Personal Income ($000s), U. S. and States: 1990 to 2010

Area 2010p 2009r 2008r 2007r 2006 2005 2004
U.S. $12,530,101,184 $12,168,161,000 $12,380,225,000 $11,900,562,000 $11,256,516,000 $10,476,669,000 $9,928,790,000

Area 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997
U.S. $9,369,072,000 $9,054,702,000 $8,878,830,000 $8,554,866,000 $7,906,131,000 $7,519,327,000 $6,994,388,000

Area 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990
U.S. $6,584,404,000 $6,194,245,000 $5,866,796,000 $5,558,374,000 $5,335,268,000 $5,013,484,000 $4,831,282,000

Annual analysis for 2010.
1.0 trillion/12.530 trillion = .07981 or 7.981% = 8.0%
$12,530,101,184,000 = $12.530 trillion
.08 * $12.530 trillion = $1.0024 trillion

A trillion dollars in annual federal revenue is more than enough to finance the lawful functions of the US federal government.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 May, 2011 10:42 am
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:
The Flat Tax is a much simpler, much less costly, and much more efficient means than the Fair Tax to collect federal taxes. Furthermore, I believe the Flat Tax is a much fairer tax than is the Fair Tax, because it taxes all dollars of income equally. The Fair Tax does not tax all expenditures equally, thereby making it an unfair tax.
ican, I respect your opinions, so in an effort to sway your opinion more favorably toward the "Fair Tax," I would argue that the "Fair Tax" or national retail sales tax would be easier to collect than an income tax. My reasoning is that we already have the infrastructure in place in most states and local authorities, to do it. And the mechanism is easy to do with the modern technology of bar coding of merchandise. Consider also that instead of monitoring hundreds of millions of citizens, we monitor a far lower number of retailers, of which a dozen or two probably constitute the vast majority of all goods sold in this country.
Also, your assertion that the Fair Tax would not tax all expenditures equally, it could tax expenditures equally, just as your Flat Tax does, but we would have to argue over making the tax "progressive," just as the Flat Tax now has the problem of convincing people not to do. As much as we may both think progressivity is not a good thing, I don't think any tax is going to escape that condition, and personally I have no objection to excluding the basic necessities of survival, such as food and medical care. I have also mentioned placing a threshold upon shelter, so I would have no objection to that as well.

I doubt that the Fair Tax will gain enough traction very soon, but I would give a Flat income Tax even less of a chance, probably near zero.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 May, 2011 10:43 am
@ican711nm,
Quote:
A trillion dollars in annual federal revenue is more than enough to finance the lawful functions of the US federal government.


This is idiotic. The bill for our military alone next year comes in at around 700 billion dollars.

Your 'flat tax' plan is nothing more than a gigantic giveaway for the rich, and is not something that is workable in real life - or even desirable.

Cycloptichorn
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 May, 2011 10:58 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Your 'flat tax' plan is nothing more than a gigantic giveaway for the rich, and is not something that is workable in real life - or even desirable.

Cycloptichorn
I am not an advocate of the Flat Tax, but seriously cyclops, your post amply illustrates your ignorance and slanted view of reality. You somehow assume that wealth is not earned, that perhaps there is some big pile of money out there that is available to he first people racing to it, that the government owns or that other people own, that is to be divided up by everybody or by the government, without regard to how it got there or who earned it. What the people earn does not belong to the government, nor does it belong to other people. Therefore, if the people earning it are allowed to keep it, it is not a gift to them, or a "giveaway to the rich." Such is frankly an insult to every working man that earns anything. You should be ashamed of your insults.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 May, 2011 11:02 am
@okie,
okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Your 'flat tax' plan is nothing more than a gigantic giveaway for the rich, and is not something that is workable in real life - or even desirable.

Cycloptichorn
I am not an advocate of the Flat Tax, but seriously cyclops, your post amply illustrates your ignorance and slanted view of reality. You somehow assume that wealth is not earned


No, it doesn't.

Quote:
that perhaps there is some big pile of money out there that is available tot he first people racing to it, that the government owns or that other people own, that is to be divided up by everyoby or the government, without regard to how it got there or who earned it.


Nobody said anything about that at all. This is nothing but a giant straw-man you are creating.

Quote:
What the people earn does not belong to the government, nor does it belong to other people.


SOME of it does. It's called Taxes. We pay them because we all receive a benefit from our nation's continued existence, and the various services provided by our State and Federal government.

It's part of the social contract - nobody debates this other than you.

Quote:
Therefore, if the people earning it are allowed to keep it, it is not a gift to them, or a "giveaway to the rich." Such is frankly an insult to every working man that earns anything. You should be ashamed of your insults.


It IS a giveaway, because you are changing the current tax structure to one in which they will pay TREMENDOUSLY less money than they currently do. Given that we all agree that taxes HAVE to be paid to keep the country running, making decisions that benefit the rich - who do not need this benefit at all - cannot be described as anything other than a giveaway, and the Flat Tax plan does so at the expense of the poor.

I'm not interested in your opinion of my 'insults.' You've made it perfectly clear that you aren't a student of reality and don't give a **** about facts; why should I care what you have to say about anything at all?

Cycloptichorn
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 May, 2011 11:17 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
It IS a giveaway,
Cycloptichorn
No it is not. For example, if somebody takes from you what you earned or you own, and then they give some of it back to you, is that a special gift to you or a special undeserved favor to you, Yes or No? I want to hear a plain yes or no honest answer, not some convoluted explanation of your slanted view.

Another question. I don't know what kind of place it is where you live, but to make things fair, would you take kindly to the government kicking you out of it and giving it to somebody that is currently living under a bridge in Berkeley, and let you live under that bridge instead?
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 May, 2011 11:20 am
@okie,
okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
It IS a giveaway,
Cycloptichorn
No it is not. For example, if somebody takes from you what you earned or you own, and then they give some of it back to you, is that a special gift to you or a special undeserved favor to you, Yes or No? I want to hear a plain yes or no honest answer, not some convoluted explanation of your slanted view.


IF everyone has some taken away from them - which is what taxes are - AND you are giving far more back to one group, while demanding more from me at the same time, that's a giveaway, Okie. Everyone pays taxes. You should acknowledge this basic point.

Quote:
Another question. I don't know what kind of place it is where you live, but to make things fair, would you take kindly to the government kicking you out of it and giving it to somebody that is currently living under a bridge in Berkeley, and let you live under that bridge instead?


This has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Just another terrible metaphor from the king of them.

Cycloptichorn
okie
 
  0  
Reply Fri 20 May, 2011 11:31 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
Another question. I don't know what kind of place it is where you live, but to make things fair, would you take kindly to the government kicking you out of it and giving it to somebody that is currently living under a bridge in Berkeley, and let you live under that bridge instead?


This has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Just another terrible metaphor from the king of them.
Cycloptichorn
I am trying to help you understand some very basic principles through the use of metaphors. You somehow have this mindset that what everybody earns goes into one giant pie that is collectively owned by everyone, to be cut up into slices not according to who made the pie, contributed to the pie, or who owns the house where the pie was made, but by the number of people occupying the kitchen.

The metaphor about your dwelling has a serious lesson to it. I suspect that you feel you have earned it by working and paying for it in some way, whether it be by purchase or rent? To the guy living under the bridge, he may feel that it is somehow unfair for you to live better than he does, so why should it not be taken from you so that you could live more like he does? After all, that would be more fair, would it not?
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Fri 20 May, 2011 11:45 am
@okie,
okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
Another question. I don't know what kind of place it is where you live, but to make things fair, would you take kindly to the government kicking you out of it and giving it to somebody that is currently living under a bridge in Berkeley, and let you live under that bridge instead?


This has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Just another terrible metaphor from the king of them.
Cycloptichorn
I am trying to help you understand some very basic principles through the use of metaphors.


Oh, I know that's what you are trying to do. But you're so bad at it, the effort fails completely. Try putting together a metaphor that more accurately models the situation if you want to get your point across.

Quote:
You somehow have this mindset that what everybody earns goes into one giant pie that is collectively owned by everyone, to be cut up into slices not according to who made the pie, contributed to the pie, or who owns the house where the pie was made, but by the number of people occupying the kitchen.


No, I don't. This is a complete falsehood you are peddling.

Quote:
The metaphor about your dwelling has a serious lesson to it. I suspect that you feel you have earned it by working and paying for it in some way, whether it be by purchase or rent? To the guy living under the bridge, he may feel that it is somehow unfair for you to live better than he does, so why should it not be taken from you so that you could live more like he does? After all, that would be more fair, would it not?


SOME of what I make is taken from me, so that person can live more comfortably. We pay taxes here in CA to support a wide variety of social programs specifically designed to help guys who are living under bridges. I don't have a problem with that at all; and that, not your stupid 'taking house' metaphor, is a better description of the way I support dealing with social problems.

You, on the other hand, feel that the rich are to be exalted, that unlimited greed is the goal that all should aspire to, and that they should be taxed practically nothing at all. Wouldn't you agree? After all, you seem to think that stupid exaggerations of people's beliefs and positions are a substitute for actual conversation.

Cycloptichorn
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 May, 2011 11:53 am
@okie,
Quote:
You somehow have this mindset that what everybody earns goes into one giant pie that is collectively owned by everyone, to be cut up into slices not according to who made the pie, contributed to the pie, or who owns the house where the pie was made, but by the number of people occupying the kitchen.


Interesting metaphor, Okie. Isn't this exactly how the US nation was founded? Wasn't this huge pie just cut up and handed out to folks who had not had any hand in making the pie. Wasn't this huge pie simply stolen rather than shared?

Quote:

Wounded Knee,
A Wound That Won't Heal

Did the Army Attempt To Coverup the Massacre of Prisoners of War?

By Richard W. Hill. Sr.


Accusations of a purported massacre of Korean civilians by American soldiers has resurfaced in 1999 as we are about to commemorate the anniversary of the Korean Conflict. Koreans and some American soldiers claim that at least 300 unarmed men, women and children were slaughtered at a railroad bridge at No Gun Ri during a three-day rampage in July 1950. The Army has continued to deny the accusations and Congress turned down an appeal for compensation for the victims and their families. It now appears that the army was covering up this massacre, as evidence has surfaced showing that the soldiers were ordered to shoot upon the civilians. It is not the first massacre of unarmed civilians committed by the army, nor is it the first coverup.


The massacre of Cheyenne Indians at Sand Creek, Colorado Territory on November 29, 1864 is listed as a battle in the records of the U.S. Army. So too is the massacre at Wounded Knee. Massacre or battle? By whose definitions are such things determined. On one hand, when Indians killed a number of whites it was commonly referred to as a massacre, such as Fetterman Massacre of December 21, 1866. It is interesting to note that Lakota Indians
had named it The Battle of the Hundred Slain, meaning that it was a fierce fight and that the 80 or so soldiers died valiantly. Yet, when Indians were killed in large numbers by the military it was usually considered a great victory and an honored battle.

Perhaps that is the nature of war - to the victor goes the spoils. One of the spoils is defining the history of the event so that the victors look more heroic. However a more disturbing fact has emerged regarding Wounded Knee. It appears that the Indians who were massacred were actually prisoners of war. Ironically, for this massacre Congress awarded the Medal of Honor. Not only that, but more Medals of Honor were awarded for this massacre than were awarded for any other military action in American history. Modern-day Indians have been calling for a reconciliation to this injustice. They say that it is a wound that will not heal, as long as those Medals honor the massacre. It is not to deny any legitimate heroic action, but it is difficult for any rational mind to see the killing of unarmed women and children prisoners as heroic, by any definition.

http://www.dickshovel.com/hill.html

Renaldo Dubois
 
  0  
Reply Fri 20 May, 2011 12:47 pm
Poor Obama, he's having a hard time of it. He told Daffy to get out of Libya, but he's still there. Then Obama told Assad to stop killing his people. He's still killing his people. Then Obama told Netanyahu to go back to the 1967 borders. Netanyahu said "No".

Poor Obama. No one takes him seriously.
JTT
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 20 May, 2011 12:59 pm
@Renaldo Dubois,
You're right, Ren. Nobody understands without having horrific war crimes visited upon them. That's what we need, right?
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 May, 2011 01:55 pm
@Renaldo Dubois,
How many Presidents between 1967-2011 (44 years) have tried to find a solution to the Israel vs Palestine issue? Has any of them succeeded? What are you proposing that would satisfy both sides?
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  2  
Reply Fri 20 May, 2011 04:45 pm
H20 noted today on a new thread that his friend, Stephen Jones, became a Federal District Court Judge in Western Georgia. Jones is a Republican but he was nominated by Obama. The Senate approved him 90-0. His approval was delayed a few months only because the clock ran out on the last Congressional session.
1 in 8 Federal District Court judgeship positions are vacant due to, in my mind, political bickering about the prospective judge's bias.
0 Replies
 
Renaldo Dubois
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 20 May, 2011 07:01 pm
Coming to your state soon.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/20/us-education-tennessee-idUSTRE74J0BM20110520?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews&rpc=22&sp=true
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 May, 2011 12:44 am
@JTT,
Actually, the US initially "belonged" to white men who were property owners. How did they get that property? Kings of old world countries granted the land to them despite the fact that were people disenfranchised people here who already worked the land and laid claim to it.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Demand a plan - Discussion by H2O MAN
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 2047
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.17 seconds on 06/21/2021 at 08:25:54