 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Dodge / Dodge Trucks / December 2006Election Results
Wow!! It would seem that a pretty strong message was sent nationally. Here in MA we have a D for gov. first time in 16 years. Also a black man who did some impressive thing's during the campaign. He is a strong advocate of stem cell research. So that bodes well. Hopefully this country get's turned around. R Roy elucidated: > Wow!! > > It would seem that a pretty strong message was sent nationally. [small snip] > R I understand that, coincidentally, the crime rate in DC dropped considerably! ;^) Bryan >Wow!! > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >R i agree with you as far as a strong message being sent. i am surprised at the volume! lets hope the politicos listen. >>Wow!! >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > i agree with you as far as a strong message being sent. i am > surprised at the volume! In this area it was about equal to a presidential election. >lets hope the politicos listen. Ya, there is a lot of arrogance in DC. > In this area it was about equal to a presidential election. Nothing has really changed here in Texas. It never does. > Ya, there is a lot of arrogance in DC. Quite a bit in Utah, as well. :-> Craig C. ever heard of Bush-wacker listening to anybody.? >> In this area it was about equal to a presidential election. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Craig C. > ever heard of Bush-wacker listening to anybody.? Umm ... no? Not really sure what you're asking here. I did find it interesting that rather than the usual 2 bad choices that Texans had to choose from for governor, there were 4 bad choices. Perry (Republican) was re-elected with 39% of the vote. I wonder if it has crossed his mind yet that 61% of the state, doesn't want him in office? Two reasons: 1) More toll roads. (I already pay road tax ... what is that used for?) 2) Trans-Texas Corridor. (Environmental nightmare ... and being constructed by a mexican owned company. Hear that giant sucking sound? It's our jobs.) Craig C. > Wow!! > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > R Turned from what to what? >> Wow!! >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Turned from what to what? I guess that you must feel that everything is running along just fine. If so I'm happy for you. >>> Wow!! >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I guess that you must feel that everything is running along just fine. If > so I'm happy for you. Just asking for a little detail. >>>> Wow!! >>>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> >Just asking for a little detail. what's a detail? >>>>> Wow!! >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > what's a detail? Something that seems to evade those on the left. > >>>>> Wow!! > >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Something that seems to evade those on the left. And yet, the left won anyway.  SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > > Hopefully this country get's turned around. > > > > R > > Turned from what to what? Hopefully: 1) FROM fiscal irresponsibility TO fiscal responsibility. 2) FROM sending our jobs overseas TO keeping them here. 3) FROM no environmental policy TO reasonable environmental restrictions. 4) FROM oil TO alternative energy. 5) FROM religous based decisions (stem cells) TO separation of church and state. 6) FROM war TO peace. 7) FROM status quo TO a world leader in technology and forward thinking. 8) FROM being disrespected TO being respected (in the world scene). Again ... hopefully. Oh, and now that the Dems are in ... where's my free pony? :-) Craig C. >> > Hopefully this country get's turned around. >> > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > thinking. > 8) FROM being disrespected TO being respected (in the world scene). That just about sums it up imo as well. One major thing is the S Court. As well as federal judge appointments. Roy Suddenly, without warning, Craig C. exclaimed (10-Nov-06 1:24 AM): >>> Hopefully this country get's turned around. >>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > :-) > Craig C. Well, we can hope, but even with the best leadership I doubt #6 will happen. Too many people out there that hate us now (really need #8). Even in friendly countries (in which I've been living) the general opinion of America as a country has dropped considerably (our current government's fault + how the media reports it, IMHO). Which makes living in even friendly foreign countries that much more... interesting. My main hopes are #3 and #4. Get #4, we're a long way toward #3 and #6 at a minimum. However, I doubt things will change for the better just 'cause the Dems have a majority in Congress just now. And I'm not sure a Democrat president would be the answer either. Both parties are pretty hopeless in my opinion, I'd like to see a strong Independent win. We're supposed to be a multi-party nation, not a two-party nation... jmc > My main hopes are #3 and #4. Get #4, we're a long way toward #3 and #6 > at a minimum. I totally agree. And I'd be *happy* if we got that much within the next decade. > However, I doubt things will change for the better just 'cause the Dems > have a majority in Congress just now. And I'm not sure a Democrat > president would be the answer either. Both parties are pretty hopeless > in my opinion, I'd like to see a strong Independent win. We're supposed > to be a multi-party nation, not a two-party nation... Again, totally agree. I wish our choices in elected officials were better. I *never* feel good when I leave the voting booth. Probably because instead of voting *for* a candidate, I always seem to be voting *against* the worse of two evils. Craig C. The real power is in the primaries. By the time I vote, it's either Tweedle Dumb, or Tweedle Dumber. SignatureChristopher A. Young You can't shout down a troll. You have to starve them. . Again, totally agree. I wish our choices in elected officials were better. I *never* feel good when I leave the voting booth. Probably because instead of voting *for* a candidate, I always seem to be voting *against* the worse of two evils. Craig C. > > > Hopefully this country get's turned around. > > > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > :-) > Craig C. What would be nice are term limits. But that won't ever happen. Not many jobs out there where you can give yourself a raise. No, Roy, it wasn't the Dems that voted in the liberal minority ( Fox Poll: USA: 80% Conservative, 20% Liberal) it was the Conservatives that were (complacent, too busy, "my-vote-doesn't-count", uninterested, unregistered, or too darn lazy [pick any and all you want]) A vote cast counts for whom it was cast, a vote not cast votes for the opposition. SignatureBudd Cochran John 3:16-17, Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 3:23, 6:23 "I'd rather live assuming there is a God, only to die and find out there isn't, then to live my whole life assuming there isn't a God, only to find out there is." (Peter Barry) "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other." (John Adams) " You've made a few enemies? Good! It means you stood up for something." (Winston Churchill) > Wow!! > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > R SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > No, Roy, it wasn't the Dems that voted in the liberal minority ( Fox Poll: > USA: 80% Conservative, 20% Liberal) it was the Conservatives that were > (complacent, too busy, "my-vote-doesn't-count", uninterested, > unregistered, or too darn lazy [pick any and all you want]) Fox news is a very suspect source. In PA, it was a choice between a Republican idiot and a Democratic conservative. Our winners were Casey, who is Catholic, and ran on a conservative values platform boosted by the voting record of Santorum, which was 98% with Bush. Carney beat Don Sherwood, who had no values. Carney is also Catholic, and has a strong family values platform. Voter turnout was normal for a Presidentail election, and the district is split 60/40 in favor of the Republicans. IOW, the "Conservatives" were out in droves, despite the "wisdom" of Fox News. SignatureMax Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) > No, Roy, it wasn't the Dems that voted in the liberal minority ( Fox Poll: > USA: 80% Conservative, 20% Liberal) it was the Conservatives that were [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >> >> R >> No, Roy, it wasn't the Dems that voted in the liberal minority ( Fox >> Poll: USA: 80% Conservative, 20% Liberal) it was the Conservatives that >> were (complacent, too busy, "my-vote-doesn't-count", uninterested, >> unregistered, or too darn lazy [pick any and all you want]) > > Fox news is a very suspect source. Only to Liberals who avoid anything not resembling their normal media pablum > In PA, it was a choice between a Republican idiot and a Democratic > conservative. In YOUR opinion . . . . > Our winners were Casey, who is Catholic, and ran on a conservative values > platform boosted by the voting record of Santorum, which was 98% with [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > split 60/40 in favor of the Republicans. IOW, the "Conservatives" were out > in droves, despite the "wisdom" of Fox News. And your point is? No matter the ratio there, the lack of conservative voters nation wide that caused the results. Btw, did you ever notice I wasn't condemning VOLUNTARY ADULT stem cell research? Or does that matter any more? Budd SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > >> No, Roy, it wasn't the Dems that voted in the liberal minority ( Fox > >> Poll: USA: 80% Conservative, 20% Liberal) it was the Conservatives that [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Only to Liberals who avoid anything not resembling their normal media pablum Which appears to be about 80% of the country but then agaon, with your bias, I can see why you would believe this. > > In PA, it was a choice between a Republican idiot and a Democratic > > conservative. > > In YOUR opinion . . . . And you know different how????? > > Our winners were Casey, who is Catholic, and ran on a conservative values > > platform boosted by the voting record of Santorum, which was 98% with [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > And your point is? No matter the ratio there, the lack of conservative > voters nation wide that caused the results. No, it was the wisdom of the public and the fact that the republican party has long lost their way. > Btw, did you ever notice I wasn't condemning VOLUNTARY ADULT stem cell > research? Or does that matter any more? The problem here is that NONE of the methods that Max mentioned cost any HUMAN lives and the point he was trying to make was that too many (like yourself) automatically associate stem cell with abortions and this argument by you more than proves his point. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > No, Roy, it wasn't the Dems that voted in the liberal minority ( Fox Poll: > USA: 80% Conservative, 20% Liberal) it was the Conservatives that were [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > A vote cast counts for whom it was cast, a vote not cast votes for the > opposition. WTF are you talking about??????????? >> Wow!! >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> >> R >> No, Roy, it wasn't the Dems that voted in the liberal minority ( Fox Poll: >> USA: 80% Conservative, 20% Liberal) it was the Conservatives that were [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >WTF are you talking about??????????? ?? >>> Wow!! >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >>> >>> R Man, I see some things never change :-) SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > > > No, Roy, it wasn't the Dems that voted in the liberal minority ( Fox Poll: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >> > >> R Ah yes, I forget . . .truth goes right over the heads of Liberals. Sorry. SignatureBudd Cochran John 3:16-17, Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 3:23, 6:23 "I'd rather live assuming there is a God, only to die and find out there isn't, then to live my whole life assuming there isn't a God, only to find out there is." (Peter Barry) "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other." (John Adams) >> No, Roy, it wasn't the Dems that voted in the liberal minority ( Fox >> Poll: USA: 80% Conservative, 20% Liberal) it was the Conservatives that [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >>> >>> R SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > Ah yes, I forget . . .truth goes right over the heads of Liberals. If it wasn't for us liberals as you call it, you'd starve. > Sorry. No the word is pathetic. Now do me a favor and put me back in your kf. ROTFLMBO!!!! It was you Liberals that stole the Social Security and now, those Liberals that don't have other income will be in the same boat as I am. Bet you're real proud of that. SignatureBudd Cochran John 3:16-17, Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 3:23, 6:23 "I'd rather live assuming there is a God, only to die and find out there isn't, then to live my whole life assuming there isn't a God, only to find out there is." (Peter Barry) "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other." (John Adams) >> Ah yes, I forget . . .truth goes right over the heads of Liberals. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > No the word is pathetic. Now do me a favor and put me back in your kf. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > ROTFLMBO!!!! > > It was you Liberals that stole the Social Security and now, those Liberals > that don't have other income will be in the same boat as I am. Budd, told you before I don't pay into nor will I collect SS. But it is obvious that if your beloved conservatives had won and maintained control they would gutted every senior benifit they could get their hands on > Bet you're real proud of that. Budd you made you choice's, stop crying and playing the victim. Now, I'll tell you up front, just like every other time you start with me, that if you continue you will get your feelings hurt. As I told you before, I do not give a f.ck about you, your situation, religion or anything else having to do with you. >> ROTFLMBO!!!! >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > obvious that if your beloved conservatives had won and maintained control > they would gutted every senior benifit they could get their hands on ROTFLMBO!!! Now your confusing conservatives with spendocrats. >> Bet you're real proud of that. > > Budd you made you choice's, stop crying and playing the victim. Telling you what your heroes did to the country, Roy. > Now, I'll tell you up front, just like every other time you start with me, > that if you continue you will get your feelings hurt. As I told you > before, I do not give a f.ck about you, your situation, religion or > anything else having to do with you. That's the difference between us, Roy, I do care about you and your eternal soul...and it's why I'm a conservative, I care about others. As for any fighting, go ahead and start without me. The only winner will be the one of us that is right in the end. SignatureBudd Cochran John 3:16-17, Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 3:23, 6:23 "I'd rather live assuming there is a God, only to die and find out there isn't, then to live my whole life assuming there isn't a God, only to find out there is." (Peter Barry) "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other." (John Adams) -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >>> ROTFLMBO!!!! >>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Telling you what your heroes did to the country, Roy. Budd you chose where to work, you chose what to do with your money, save, invest , spend or drink it. Stop complaining and accept the choice's that YOU made and the result that came from those choice's. Most of us screw up at one time or another and suck it up and move on. YOU oth continue to desire play the victim. >> Now, I'll tell you up front, just like every other time you start with >> me, that if you continue you will get your feelings hurt. As I told you [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > That's the difference between us, Roy, I do care about you and your > eternal soul...and it's why I'm a conservative, I care about others. Budd trust me I nor my eternal soul need or require your concern. Perhaps you'd be better served if you spent your time being concerned about yourself and get some friggin' help. >ROTFLMBO!!!! > >It was you Liberals that stole the Social Security and now, those Liberals >that don't have other income will be in the same boat as I am. > >Bet you're real proud of that. That's just Darwinism working. beekeep I have to admit you do lend credence to the theory Neanderthals were of a lower mental capacity. But we know it's really just damage due to the bee stings to your butt . . .er brain. SignatureBudd Cochran John 3:16-17, Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 3:23, 6:23 "I'd rather live assuming there is a God, only to die and find out there isn't, then to live my whole life assuming there isn't a God, only to find out there is." (Peter Barry) "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other." (John Adams) > On Thu, 9 Nov 2006 13:42:42 -0700, "Budd Cochran" <mr-d150@preciscom > SPAM.net> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > beekeep SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >ROTFLMBO!!!! > >It was you Liberals that stole the Social Security and now, those Liberals >that don't have other income will be in the same boat as I am. > >Bet you're real proud of that. holy jumpin up and down martha. someone closer to budd than me.......someone who knows where he lives, might think about callin 911 and having mental health sent out to do a welfare check on him. this is really gettin strange. budd is startin to remind me of a grateful dead song. >"I'd rather live assuming there is a God, only to die >and find out there isn't, then to live my whole life assuming [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> >> No the word is pathetic. Now do me a favor and put me back in your kf. >>ROTFLMBO!!!! >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >this is really gettin strange. budd is startin to remind me of a >grateful dead song. It's sad but dementia only gets worse with time. OTOH maybe stem cell research will find a cure! beekeep > ROTFLMBO!!!! > > It was you Liberals that stole the Social Security and now, those Liberals > that don't have other income will be in the same boat as I am. Then I guess that makes you a liberal too then, huh, Budd. According the the conservative mind set, everything that happens to someone is completely the responsibility of that person and since you claim to be a conservative, suck it up and take responsibility for you situation. > Bet you're real proud of that. If all of the problems are due to the liberals, what happened during the 12 years that the conservatives have been in charge??? SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > Ah yes, I forget . . .truth goes right over the heads of Liberals. > > Sorry. It must be the other way around, Budd. Do you seriously think that 80% of the country is conservative? First off, what is conservative; and what is liberal is opinion. Some people might consider abortion, a conservative ideal; some a liberal ideal. The real difference between the parties is supply side economics vs. fairness in wealth distribution and consumption. It also seems that now a days that there is a difference in how much religion should rule our Government. I see what the Taliban did in Afganistan, and I don't want this. Until Nov. 7 we were slowly headed in that direction. Thank God, for that evangelical minister in Colorado, that helped everyone see the light. Thank God, for Foley, who helped everyone see the light. Thank God, for Limbaugh, and his drug abusing ways. >>> No, Roy, it wasn't the Dems that voted in the liberal minority ( Fox >>> Poll: USA: 80% Conservative, 20% Liberal) it was the Conservatives that [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >>>> >>>> R > The real difference between the parties is > supply side economics vs. fairness in wealth distribution Taxing anyone who has more than you is not always 'fairness'. Redistribution of wealth is not the direction this country needs. Next thing liberals will want is salaries regulated by Government. Then they will want salary based on need rather than abilities. Punishing people for striving to achieve by taxing the crap out of them is counter productive. I've yet to hear a liberal or democrat state exactly what the limit should be to tax anyone. All they can say is if we need more money then tax the rich some more. No 'fair' limit'. >> The real difference between the parties is supply side economics vs. >> fairness in wealth distribution [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > limit should be to tax anyone. All they can say is if we need more money > then tax the rich some more. No 'fair' limit'. Miles, how about we do a percentage of net under 100K and over do gross? Roy > Miles, how about we do a percentage of net under 100K and over do gross? Not sure what you mean. Taxes are based on a % of (income - deductions). If you are referring to corporate taxes then its % of (income - expenses - deductions). We already have a graduated tax rate system. The more you earn the higher the % in taxes. Raising rates too high on a graduated basis reduces the incentive to grow. Thats not good in the long run. > > The real difference between the parties is > > supply side economics vs. fairness in wealth distribution > > Taxing anyone who has more than you is not always 'fairness'. Neither is taking the most money possible from others but that doesn't seem to bother you. Why is that Miles? > Redistribution of wealth is not the direction this country needs. That may not have been the case a few years ago but with the ever increasing greed of people like yourself.....redistribution needs to happen to keep the country intact and functional. > Next thing liberals will want is salaries regulated by Government. And with the extreme level of greed in this country of some select few, I can see why. > Then they will want salary based on need rather than abilities. What does this even mean????? > Punishing people for striving to achieve by taxing the crap out of > them is counter productive. What a complete load of sh.t. When exactly does it change from striving to achieve to just being greedy? The war on the middle class has gone on long enough and this shift in power proves it. > I've yet to hear a liberal or democrat > state exactly what the limit should be to tax anyone. If you want to set limits on one, then you should be willing to set limits on the other and you don't. BTW, I have yet to see a republican or conservative set a fair limit on the amount an upper officer in a company makes in relation to the lower paid employees, you know, the ones that do the actual work. > All they can say is if we need more money then tax the rich some more. No 'fair' limit'. When you define a "fair limit" on compensation, then we can define a fair limit on taxation but as long as the endless greed exists, something needs to exist to help balance the power. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > Neither is taking the most money possible from others but that doesn't seem > to bother you. Why is that Miles? Who is taking the most possible? Just because someone makes a great product that people want to buy does not mean they are taking too much from someone. Raise their taxes sky high and they stop growing which means fewer jobs. If you're just going to tax the crap out of them for expanding then why would they? > That may not have been the case a few years ago but with the ever increasing > greed of people like yourself.....redistribution needs to happen to keep the > country intact and functional. Redistribution will cause slower growth. Too high will stop it all together. Without incentive to grow a company won't! >> Next thing liberals will want is salaries regulated by Government. > > And with the extreme level of greed in this country of some select few, I > can see why. Making a great product and being successful is what you define as greed. >> Then they will want salary based on need rather than abilities. > > What does this even mean????? Good gried!! You don't know? Look up communism. You know, the result of what grows out of socialism. > What a complete load of sh.t. When exactly does it change from striving to > achieve to just being greedy? The war on the middle class has gone on long > enough and this shift in power proves it. Taxing the crap out of anyone who is successful removes the incentive for doing so. It halts the very reason for growth. Nobody is going to increase investments in growth if they will be forced to give up returns on that investment in the form of high taxes. > If you want to set limits on one, then you should be willing to set limits > on the other and you don't. BTW, I have yet to see a republican or > conservative set a fair limit on the amount an upper officer in a company > makes in relation to the lower paid employees, you know, the ones that do > the actual work. You seem to think it is wrong for someone to earn a return on an investment into their own company. However, you see nothing wrong with someone investing in another company in the form of stocks and getting a decent return for retirement. Your absurd logic says investing in your own company is greed. Investing in another company is sound investing. You logic that you have stated here many times makes no sense at all. A persons own company IS their retirement investment or at least a substantial part of it. > When you define a "fair limit" on compensation, Why should be put a cap on a persons salary? Once again you'll put a stop to the very reasons for growth...returns on investments. > > Neither is taking the most money possible from others but that doesn't seem > > to bother you. Why is that Miles? > > Who is taking the most possible? Just about every upper exec in these large companies. > Just because someone makes a great > product that people want to buy does not mean they are taking too much > from someone. Yea, and in your fantasy world that might be true but in most cases it is not a great product, it is a required product and the ones raising the cost are not usually the ones who actually make or provide it, it is the rich execs running these companies and their HUGE salaries than need to be paid driving up the cost, sometimes to the point where many of the people that actually need it can't afford it. > Raise their taxes sky high and they stop growing which > means fewer jobs. If you're just going to tax the crap out of them for > expanding then why would they? More complete crap and if the jobs being created don't pay a living wage because all of the profits are going to the top few, who cares if these companies grow or not. > > That may not have been the case a few years ago but with the ever increasing > > greed of people like yourself.....redistribution needs to happen to keep the > > country intact and functional. > > Redistribution will cause slower growth. Too high will stop it all > together. Without incentive to grow a company won't! This is exactly what I mean about you and your GREED. The only incentive that you see to do anything is $$$$$$. Maybe what we need is a limit on how big a company can grow so that competition survives. In todays world, a company grows to the point that they kill all new competition (MS) so that the execs can stay fat and rich and this actually costs jobs and creativity. > >> Next thing liberals will want is salaries regulated by Government. > > > > And with the extreme level of greed in this country of some select few, I > > can see why. > > Making a great product and being successful is what you define as greed. No, business owners and corporate execs that pay themselves outrageous salaries while paying their workers next to nothing for the work that they do is what I define as greed. You OTOH, attempt to redefine this greed as success. > >> Then they will want salary based on need rather than abilities. > > > > What does this even mean????? > > Good gried!! You don't know? Look up communism. You know, the result > of what grows out of socialism. > > What a complete load of sh.t. When exactly does it change from striving to > > achieve to just being greedy? The war on the middle class has gone on long > > enough and this shift in power proves it. > > Taxing the crap out of anyone who is successful removes the incentive > for doing so. Well, since you seemed to rename greed with success, that would be a good thing. > It halts the very reason for growth. No, it only halts one reason for growth. To bad its the only one that means anything to you. > Nobody is going to > increase investments in growth if they will be forced to give up returns > on that investment in the form of high taxes. Good, that will prevent companies from growing to point of becoming monopolies that kills competition and results in job losses, higher prices, and losses in innovation and unless the tax rate reaches or exceeds 100%, they will still get a return on their investment. Maybe it will even pull the compensation reigns in on these extremely overpaid CEO's and corporate execs. > > If you want to set limits on one, then you should be willing to set limits > > on the other and you don't. BTW, I have yet to see a republican or [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > You seem to think it is wrong for someone to earn a return on an > investment into their own company. No, I think that is it is wrong for employers to screw their employees and customers to bring in an exaggerated return or for execs in large PUBLIC companies to pay themselves huge salaries with no investment at all for no other reason other than they can and again, screw the employees and customers to pay for it. BTW, how is any of this an investment???? > However, you see nothing wrong with > someone investing in another company in the form of stocks and getting a > decent return for retirement. If you cannot see the difference then I doubt that you are who you claim to be and how does your and those like you taking every dime you possibly can equate to investing in anything other than your own greed. > Your absurd logic says investing in your > own company is greed. Investing in another company is sound investing. I don't have a problem with someone "investing" in their company but ripping off the employees and customers is hardly investing in anything and anyone who puts all of their eggs in one basket is an idiot and deserves to get burned. Investing in another company costs it or its customers nothing which is very different from your warped definition. > You logic that you have stated here many times makes no sense at all. Sure it does. It is just your complete bias toward greed that prevents you from understanding it. > A persons own company IS their retirement investment or at least a > substantial part of it. Anyone who does that is a friggen idiot and deserves to wind up on the street if their singular investment craps out. The second problem with your misdirection based argument is that we are not talking about just small companies like you keep bringing up, we are talking about large corporations where many of the upper execs pay themselves huge dollars and have no ownership in it at all. In fact, many of them have golden parachutes so even if they screw up, they still get the huge $$$$$. Is this your redefinition of investment now??? > > When you define a "fair limit" on compensation, > > Why should be put a cap on a persons salary? Once again you'll put a > stop to the very reasons for growth...returns on investments. Then why should we put a cap on the level of taxation? If everyone was paid a fair amount, there would be no need to slam high taxes on those with more money as everyone would be able to pay their fair share as well as be able to afford to buy more which increases growth. But as long as the select few insist on taking a vastly disproportionate share of the money, they should pay the lions share of what is needed to keep the society functional. The funny thing is that their greed is what winds up driving up the costs of everything else which requires a higher payout from the government which results in higher taxes. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > Just about every upper exec in these large companies. Very small number of people. So hang them and then what? No more jobs. Good job. > Yea, and in your fantasy world that might be true but in most cases it is > not a great product, it is a required product Sounds like you prefer the communist method of a controlled market. You won't admit that but it's actually where you are leaning towards. More control of the market, how much profit one makes, industry regulation etc. > More complete crap and if the jobs being created don't pay a living wage > because all of the profits are going to the top few, who cares if these > companies grow or not. Or they move overseas. Your desire to crush them isn't a good thing. It won't get you what you want. > This is exactly what I mean about you and your GREED. The only incentive > that you see to do anything is $$$$$$. Sorry TBone, thats the way it works. People create business to make money. Not to just be nice to you. In your fantasy world people would work for very little, give everything they have away and pay everyone above market wages so everyone is all happy. It's a fantasy TBone. Whether it is greed or not it is what it is. Without incentive there would be zero growth in the economy and job market. You seem quite happy if that is the case. Everyone poor as long as there are no rich. > Good, that will prevent companies from growing to point of becoming It will kill all growth. Nobody is going to invest in a company that can't grow. > > Just about every upper exec in these large companies. > > Very small number of people. So hang them and then what? No more jobs. > Good job. Oh please Miles, enough with the BS right wing fear tactics. Those companies would still exist even without those over paid a.sholes and so would the jobs and probably at a higher pay with the massive savings in their salaries. > > Yea, and in your fantasy world that might be true but in most cases it is > > not a great product, it is a required product > > Sounds like you prefer the communist method of a controlled market. You > won't admit that but it's actually where you are leaning towards. More > control of the market, how much profit one makes, industry regulation etc. Yes, I do believe that there needs to be some regulation in industry and the market as people like you will destroy it otherwise. > > More complete crap and if the jobs being created don't pay a living wage > > because all of the profits are going to the top few, who cares if these > > companies grow or not. > > Or they move overseas. Your desire to crush them isn't a good thing. > It won't get you what you want. And if they do that the gubberment will have no choice but to clobber them with HUGE import taxes and tariffs making it completely unprofitable for them to continue and push their prices so high, the market will be ripe for some new entrepreneurs to open new business to fill in the hole creating new and better paying jobs. It will not happen over night and there will be some pain involved but in the end, we will all be much better off so in the end, I do get what most of us want. > > This is exactly what I mean about you and your GREED. The only incentive > > that you see to do anything is $$$$$$. > > Sorry TBone, thats the way it works. It is becoming that way and that needs to be changed before our economy collapses and / or we wind up in a full blown revolution. > People create business to make money. Not to just be nice to you. I never said otherwise but there has to be a limit on how much and how many they are willing to screw over to make it. At one time those limits were set by social values and respect for others but those qualities are all but gone in todays corporate leaders. > In your fantasy world people would work for very little, That is already the case for many workers. > give everything they have away and pay everyone > above market wages so everyone is all happy. Are you now referring to business owners and coroprate execs, LOL!!! Yea, they make so little and give so much away. Now please tell us who set and controls these bullshit "market wages" that you keep hiding behind. How about those very corporate execs who also set their salaries to the sky is the limit. > It's a fantasy TBone. Whether it is greed or not it is what it is. Yep, and something needs to change that. > Without incentive there would be zero growth in the economy > and job market. You seem quite happy if that is the case. If growth in the economy and the job market don't help the majority of the people in the country and only the few rich, you are correct. > Everyone poor as long as there are no rich. But that is the funny thing, the reason so many are poor is because a few are so rich. > > Good, that will prevent companies from growing to point of becoming > > It will kill all growth. Nobody is going to invest in a company that > can't grow. That's right which means that they will invest in small companies giving far more people the opportunity to make it which is the way it should be. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > Oh please Miles, enough with the BS right wing fear tactics. Those > companies would still exist even without those over paid a.sholes and so > would the jobs and probably at a higher pay with the massive savings in > their salaries. Please TBone, stop with the liberal absurd logic devoid of any logic based reality. Companies grow because people invest with the expectation of large returns. Erase those returns for those at the top and the investments cease to exist or they take them elsewhere. Profits are the very reason people invest in the growth of a company. I know you don't like that, call it greed or whatever but take it away and it stops. > Yes, I do believe that there needs to be some regulation in industry and the > market as people like you will destroy it otherwise. Thats the communist model. Liberals just take it a step at a time to keep us pointed in that direction. More socialism, more regulation, more control. No thanks. > And if they do that the gubberment will have no choice but to clobber them > with HUGE import taxes and tariffs making it completely unprofitable for > them to continue and push their prices so high, the market will be ripe for > some new entrepreneurs to open new business to fill in the hole creating new > and better paying jobs. Now there ya go TBone with your absurd lack of knowledge on economics. You seem to think that companies move overseas for the sole purpose of then importing back to the USA. Thats not true at all. They move and sell where the market is more profitable. > It is becoming that way and that needs to be changed before our economy > collapses and / or we wind up in a full blown revolution. Taxing the hell out of companies is not the solution. Shutting them down and taking away the very reason for their growth will not get you any gains except your own personal "take that bastards" pleasures. > I never said otherwise but there has to be a limit on how much and how many > they are willing to screw over to make it. At one time those limits were > set by social values and respect for others but those qualities are all but > gone in todays corporate leaders. No it wasn't. People have always invested into a company with the expectation of high returns. Crush those returns and you crush the company and any chance of growth. Basically you want to set a limit on returns for someones investment. > Are you now referring to business owners and coroprate execs, LOL!!! Yea, > they make so little and give so much away. Now please tell us who set and > controls these bullshit "market wages" that you keep hiding behind. Market wages are set by market supply and demand. I have asked you several times what would happen if we suddenly increased he minimum wage to $25/hr. Would we no longer have poverty? Would everyone currently making minimum wage suddenly have more buying power? If its wide scale above market value then the market will simply adjust to it and the buying power remains unchanged. > If growth in the economy and the job market don't help the majority of the > people in the country and only the few rich, you are correct. Shutting down the companies you despise won't get you anything other than personal satisfaction for sticking it to them. > But that is the funny thing, the reason so many are poor is because a few > are so rich. No, thats not the reason at all. What skilled jobs are you referring to that these poor people are working? What are they earning and how much should they earn? > That's right which means that they will invest in small companies giving far > more people the opportunity to make it which is the way it should be. No, they will invest where the rate of return is maximized. If the invest in small companies those companies will become large and you'll shut them down. Instead investers will take their money and go elsewhere, overseas etc. where the market is much larger for large scale investing without liberals who will shut it down. > > Oh please Miles, enough with the BS right wing fear tactics. Those > > companies would still exist even without those over paid a.sholes and so [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > you don't like that, call it greed or whatever but take it away and it > stops. Hahahahahahaha, you really make me laugh. As long as those people live here, they will be taxed no matter where they invest. Perhaps you need to take a look at the stock market. > > Yes, I do believe that there needs to be some regulation in industry and the > > market as people like you will destroy it otherwise. > > Thats the communist model. Liberals just take it a step at a time to > keep us pointed in that direction. More socialism, more regulation, > more control. No thanks. And more bullshit on your part. > > And if they do that the gubberment will have no choice but to clobber them > > with HUGE import taxes and tariffs making it completely unprofitable for [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Now there ya go TBone with your absurd lack of knowledge on economics. PKB dude, perhaps you should crack a history book every now and then. > You seem to think that companies move overseas for the sole purpose > of then importing back to the USA. Thats not true at all. They move > and sell where the market is more profitable. More complete crap. Please point out any other country that even comes close to this one in buying power and dose so without the high risk of nationalization. If other companies move overseas and don't import back here due to whatever reason, the worlds largest market (us) will be wide open for anyone with enough brains to want to make a lot of money and if you think that these large companies don't already know this, you really are a moron. For the past 12 years, the US congress was of, by, and for big business and for the past 6 years, so was the white house. Maybe now that the majority of citizens have appeard to have woken up, there will be a change that helps out the majority for a change. > > It is becoming that way and that needs to be changed before our economy > > collapses and / or we wind up in a full blown revolution. > > Taxing the hell out of companies is not the solution. Why do you always resort to spin. Are your arguments really this weak? Who is talking about taxing the hell out of companies? I am talking about eliminating tax cuts for the rich that need it the least. As for companies, if they are making billions in proffits a month, they hardly need any huge tax breaks. > Shutting them > down and taking away the very reason for their growth will not get you > any gains except your own personal "take that bastards" pleasures. Shutting them down, Hahahahahahahahahahaha!!!! Where do you come up with this sh.t. > > I never said otherwise but there has to be a limit on how much and how many > > they are willing to screw over to make it. At one time those limits were [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > No it wasn't. People have always invested into a company with the > expectation of high returns. No, people invested into a company with the hopes of high returns. What has changed is the methods used to generate these returns. At one time, it was mostly hard work, brilliance, and innovation. If a buisness owner or manager had to lay anyone off, most of them took it as a personal failure. In today's environment, anything goes and who gives a sh.t. They call letting people go "the hard decision" but in reality, the only one it is hard on is the employee getting screwed. > Crush those returns and you crush the > company and any chance of growth. Basically you want to set a limit on > returns for someones investment. If the only way for these companies to grow is to screw it's employees and customers, then yes, I want to CRUSH it's growth and the idiots who run it. And if those limitless returns on a fews investment winds up screwing the majority, then you are correct, I want and we need to set limits and people like you more than prove that. BTW, what exactly does this have to do with tax cuts for the rich??? > > Are you now referring to business owners and coroprate execs, LOL!!! Yea, > > they make so little and give so much away. Now please tell us who set and > > controls these bullshit "market wages" that you keep hiding behind. > > Market wages are set by market supply and demand. Exactly, and who controlls that? Why, big companies, imagine that. > I have asked you > several times what would happen if we suddenly increased he minimum wage > to $25/hr. Would we no longer have poverty? Would everyone currently > making minimum wage suddenly have more buying power? If its wide scale > above market value then the market will simply adjust to it and the > buying power remains unchanged. Just my point, the rich will simply increase the cost of everything and their own salaries as well and if they continue to do this, then they need to pay for the results since they are the ones responsible for it to begin with. > > If growth in the economy and the job market don't help the majority of the > > people in the country and only the few rich, you are correct. > > Shutting down the companies you despise won't get you anything other > than personal satisfaction for sticking it to them. Sorry Miles, but it will do far more than that despite your lame right wing fear tactics and again, what exactly does this do with tax cuts for the richest. > > But that is the funny thing, the reason so many are poor is because a few > > are so rich. > > No, thats not the reason at all. Of course it is. They control the salaries and as you know, money is a finite resource, the more one takes the less available for anyone else. > What skilled jobs are you referring to > that these poor people are working? What are they earning and how much > should they earn? Here we go again. Please give me a list of jobs that require no skills at all and then explain clearly to me how exactly anyone actually works hard enough to make over 1 million dollars a year and before you start your investment bullshit, lets keep it to upper executives of public companies. > > That's right which means that they will invest in small companies giving far > > more people the opportunity to make it which is the way it should be. > > No, they will invest where the rate of return is maximized. More complete bullshit. They will invest where they can get the best return for the least risk and foreign investments just about always have a significant increase in risk. And BTW, small growing companies almost always have a significantly higher rate of return. > If the invest in small companies those companies will become large and you'll > shut them down. Instead investers will take their money and go > elsewhere, overseas etc Yes, some will pull there money out of those big companies and reinvest it into smaller growing companies which keeps the economy alive. > where the market is much larger for large > scale investing without liberals who will shut it down. More complete horse sh.t. Large scale investing does nothing for anyone but the few rich SOB's that can afford to do it so who is really getting hurt? The answer is nobody since the rich are already rich and making them richer really serves no purpose at all and cutting back huge investments also helps stabilize the market which reduces the risk to the small investor. If they wish to invest in overseas companies, let them go for it and take the massive risk involved, after all, they can much better afford to take that risk. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > I am talking about > eliminating tax cuts for the rich that need it the least. What tax cuts? You mean the removal of the massive tax hikes Clinton gave us all? >> People have always invested into a company with the >> expectation of high returns. > No, people invested into a company with the hopes of high returns. Hmm..Your answer is the same thing I said..oh, hope instead of expectations. Too funny. > If the only way for these companies to grow is to screw it's employees and > customers, then yes, I want to CRUSH it's growth and the idiots who run it. And the employees as well as they will be the one hardest hit by your absurd logic. > Exactly, and who controlls that? Why, big companies, imagine that. Big companies control consumer demand? More warped liberal logic gone berzerk. > Just my point, the rich will simply increase the cost of everything and > their own salaries as well and if they continue to do this, then they need > to pay for the results since they are the ones responsible for it to begin > with. So you're admitting that market supply and demand is what determines price of goods whether you like it or not. The only way to stop that is to have massive regulations, price controls, wage controls etc. You won't admit it but thats basically what Communism is all about. > Here we go again. Please give me a list of jobs that require no skills at > all How much should a Walmart door greeter be paid? Should it be enough to afford a house, 2 cars, food, kids etc? > More complete bullshit. They will invest where they can get the best return > for the least risk and foreign investments just about always have a > significant increase in risk. And BTW, small growing companies almost > always have a significantly higher rate of return. Small companies almost always have higher risk. > > I am talking about > > eliminating tax cuts for the rich that need it the least. > > What tax cuts? You mean the removal of the massive tax hikes Clinton > gave us all? Call it what you want, we still can't afford them and they have no good for average American. Actually, they have increased the cost of living for those that can afford it the least. > >> People have always invested into a company with the > >> expectation of high returns. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Hmm..Your answer is the same thing I said..oh, hope instead of > expectations. Too funny. There is a big difference between expectations and hope although I can see where you would not understand it. > > If the only way for these companies to grow is to screw it's employees and > > customers, then yes, I want to CRUSH it's growth and the idiots who run it. > > And the employees as well as they will be the one hardest hit by your > absurd logic. More complete crap and right wing fear tactics. > > Exactly, and who controlls that? Why, big companies, imagine that. > > Big companies control consumer demand? More warped liberal logic gone > berzerk. No, they control the market as far as employment goes. Cutting jobs, massive outsourcing, and hiring illegal serves a double purpose. It reduces costs up front and increases the number of people looking for fewer jobs which makes it much easier for them to screw over the employees. Sorry Miles. but your lame spin missed it's mark. > > Just my point, the rich will simply increase the cost of everything and > > their own salaries as well and if they continue to do this, then they need [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > So you're admitting that market supply and demand is what determines > price of goods whether you like it or not. No, it is the lack of competition and monopolies that determines the price of goods. When there is no competition, it is real easy to set the price where they want it, especially when it is a needed good. > The only way to stop that is > to have massive regulations, price controls, wage controls etc. You > won't admit it but thats basically what Communism is all about. More typical right wing load of crap. Sorry Miles, but the world is not black and white like your simple right wing mind seems to comprehend things. Regualtions and limits can be put on some things and have it still a far cry from Communism or anything like it. > > Here we go again. Please give me a list of jobs that require no skills at > > all > > How much should a Walmart door greeter be paid? Should it be enough to > afford a house, 2 cars, food, kids etc? No, but it should be enough for a small apartment, some form of transportation and food provided it is a full time position. > > More complete bullshit. They will invest where they can get the best return > > for the least risk and foreign investments just about always have a > > significant increase in risk. And BTW, small growing companies almost > > always have a significantly higher rate of return. > > Small companies almost always have higher risk. High returns come at a higher risk but the risk is still less than foreign investments where you are dealing with the health of the company, currency shifts, and the possibility of nationalization making your investment disappear. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > Call it what you want, we still can't afford them and they have no good for > average American. That's because you fail to realize that tax revenues skyrocketed after the cuts. Raising tax rates is not the best way to raise revenue and in many cases does not raise revenue at all. A concept that baffles you. > No, it is the lack of competition and monopolies that determines the price > of goods. When there is no competition, it is real easy to set the price > where they want it, especially when it is a needed good. What particular monopoly or monopolies are you referring? Name some. > More typical right wing load of crap. Sorry Miles, but the world is not > black and white like your simple right wing mind seems to comprehend things. > Regualtions and limits can be put on some things and have it still a far cry > from Communism or anything like it. We already do but its not enough for you. You radical liberals continue to want more and more regulations, price controls, wage controls etc. Been that way with liberals for decades. > No, but it should be enough for a small apartment, some form of > transportation and food provided it is a full time position. Bull. Jobs such as a Walmart door greeter are either entry level starter jobs or supplemental jobs for retired folks. Not career level jobs intended to pay a full living wage. > > Call it what you want, we still can't afford them and they have no good for > > average American. > > That's because you fail to realize that tax revenues skyrocketed after > the cuts. Raising tax rates is not the best way to raise revenue and in > many cases does not raise revenue at all. A concept that baffles you. It doesn't baffle me Miles, it is just a load of sh.t. Most of those tax revenue increases came from the tax amnesty that they were also offering and attributing the collections to the current tax years, LOL!. > > No, it is the lack of competition and monopolies that determines the price > > of goods. When there is no competition, it is real easy to set the price > > where they want it, especially when it is a needed good. > > What particular monopoly or monopolies are you referring? Name some. Microsoft for one but you seem to have forgotten the lack of competition and collusion. > > More typical right wing load of crap. Sorry Miles, but the world is not > > black and white like your simple right wing mind seems to comprehend things. > > Regualtions and limits can be put on some things and have it still a far cry > > from Communism or anything like it. > > We already do but its not enough for you. It's not just me Miles but I guess the results from this election just went right over your head or perhaps you are just in a world of denile. > You radical liberals continue > to want more and more regulations, price controls, wage controls etc. Now I'm a radical liberal, LOL! The funny thing is Miles that those regulations, price controls, wage controls , ect are what formed the middle class and made this country as great as it currently is. Funny now that the extreme corrupt conservatives that controlled congress for so long have eliminated many of them the middle class is disappearing and the poor are worse of than ever. > > No, but it should be enough for a small apartment, some form of > > transportation and food provided it is a full time position. > > Bull. Jobs such as a Walmart door greeter are either entry level > starter jobs or supplemental jobs for retired folks. Not career level > jobs intended to pay a full living wage. Ok, what about the sales floor help or cashiers? Do you think that they are getting paid much more than that door greeter and what difference does it make if it is an entry level job? I didn't say that they should get rich on them or buy a big house but if you can't live on what you make, why do it at all? SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > It doesn't baffle me Miles, it is just a load of sh.t. Most of those tax > revenue increases came from the tax amnesty that they were also offering and > attributing the collections to the current tax years, LOL!. Now you're getting silly! The massive increases in revenues are because of higher spending. Tax amnesty? That amount is peanuts compared to the increases in revenue. You're off on some wild chase with this one TBone. > Microsoft for one but you seem to have forgotten the lack of competition and > collusion. I don't like Microsoft either but they are only one company. Your entire views are based on a very very small number of companies. Besides, Microsoft is losing its monopoly in many sectors such as webservers. > It's not just me Miles but I guess the results from this election just went > right over your head or perhaps you are just in a world of denile. Local or even national economic issues that you're arguing about now are not what voters went to the polls over. Many of the Dems that won were not far radical left like you. They were moderates. Furthermore the swing left is nowheres near what took place in 1994 when people got fed up with the Dems. You have a ways to go. > Now I'm a radical liberal, LOL! Yes you most certainly are. You do not represent the mainstream liberal or Democrat. Your whines and concepts are far more radical in nature. > Ok, what about the cashiers? You aware of how much grocery store cashiers typically earn? You have no clue do you? >Do you think that they are > getting paid much more than that door greeter Yes. The cashiers make far more than a door greeter. Nice try though. and what difference does it > make if it is an entry level job? I didn't say that they should get rich on > them or buy a big house but if you can't live on what you make, why do it at > all? > Taxing anyone who has more than you is not always 'fairness'. Agreed. It just seems fair to some folks that the rich should pay more since they are leaching more from the system in one way or another. I have mixed feelings about this. My 'capitalist' said screams unfairness because I happen to pay a GREAT deal of tax due to my situation. However, the 'compassionate' side tells me that I should pay more than a struggling single mom or dad, or a working student that is learning something that will help the country. > productive. I've yet to hear a liberal or democrat state exactly what > the limit should be to tax anyone. All they can say is if we need more > money then tax the rich some more. No 'fair' limit'. It's a tough situation. Personally, I like the idea of abolishing income tax and going to straight federal sales tax. This has many benefits, including capturing tax dollars from people that have been able to avoid it, like illegal immigrants. It establishes a graduated tax burden (the more you have and thus the more you spend, the more tax you pay) ... and it puts YOU squarely in control of your tax payout. Craig C. >> Taxing anyone who has more than you is not always 'fairness'. > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >Craig C. I agree, but more importantly it makes the government dependant on the economy. I have no problem with a standard military tax. Freedom ain't cheap. I have no quam with a luxury tax on jewelry, yachts, sports cars, and other non necesities. beekeep > I have no quam with a luxury tax on jewelry, yachts, sports cars, and other non > necesities. If we make it extremely difficult to afford luxuries then the incentive to work towards them vanishes. I don't want a society where everyone just has their basic needs met and nothing more. Pretty boring society that will become stagnant with zero growth. Taxes should be based on needed services performed by government. Not as a form of punishment for those that are successful. > I have mixed feelings about this. My 'capitalist' said screams > unfairness because I happen to pay a GREAT deal of tax due to my > situation. However, the 'compassionate' side tells me that I should > pay more than a struggling single mom or dad, or a working student that > is learning something that will help the country. The rich already do pay vastly more than a struggling single mom or dad or working student. The rich pay the majority of all taxes paid. When is enough enough? > It's a tough situation. Personally, I like the idea of abolishing > income tax and going to straight federal sales tax. I like the idea of usage taxes but liberals say it punishes the poor. Perhaps a reverse graduated system of tax refunds based on salary would improve that. > > I have mixed feelings about this. My 'capitalist' said screams > > unfairness because I happen to pay a GREAT deal of tax due to my [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > The rich already do pay vastly more than a struggling single mom or dad > or working student. They do because of the vastly different levels of income. They take the most, therefore they pay the most. > The rich pay the majority of all taxes paid. When is enough enough? When is enough enough when it comes to what they take from society??? > > It's a tough situation. Personally, I like the idea of abolishing > > income tax and going to straight federal sales tax. > > I like the idea of usage taxes but liberals say it punishes the poor. That is because it does. The rich only spend a small amount of the money that they take while the poor spend every dime just to survive which would put the majority of the burden on those who can afford it the least, pretty much like our current tax cuts do. > Perhaps a reverse graduated system of tax refunds based on salary would > improve that. Actually, what would improve that would be a graduated system for this tax itself. Under a certain item value there would be no tax and as the value increases, so does the tax percentage on it. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving >> > I have mixed feelings about this. My 'capitalist' said screams >> > unfairness because I happen to pay a GREAT deal of tax due to my [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > itself. Under a certain item value there would be no tax and as the value > increases, so does the tax percentage on it. You also have to bring back the offshore shelters. Those at 50K and under usually have nothing to write off. I still kinda like my idea of a percentage tax under 50K or whatever figure base it on net over base it on gross before write off's. > When is enough enough when it comes to what they take from society??? According to you its not enough until they are crushed into submission and punished to your liking. > Actually, what would improve that would be a graduated system for this tax > itself. Under a certain item value there would be no tax and as the value > increases, so does the tax percentage on it. We already have various luxury taxes on many items. It doesn't always solve the issue intended. It has to be balanced with the economy the particular items market serves. In otherwords, an items value is relative to other items in the same market. You can't say tax everything higher that costs more than X $'s. It has to be a higher tax on higher priced items in a given market. A $200,000 car should be taxed higher than a $200,000 house. >> When is enough enough when it comes to what they take from society??? > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >on higher priced items in a given market. A $200,000 car should be >taxed higher than a $200,000 house. all i know is that the tax system is totally screwed up. it is about as complex a thing as you can imagine. it has been added to everytime some fatcat needed help from his or her congress person. there is no justice in the tax code and it seems like that is what you two are arguing about. your argument over who it is the most unjust for is a little lame, don't you think? the whole thing needs to be redone, simplified and made more fair. that is what you two should argue for. lets get the pos code written again and done right this time. >>> When is enough enough when it comes to what they take from society??? >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > simplified and made more fair. that is what you two should argue for. > lets get the pos code written again and done right this time. You are correct again!!!!! >the whole thing needs to be redone, > simplified and made more fair. that is what you two should argue for. > lets get the pos code written again and done right this time. I agree. It needs to be fair. However, TBones concept of fair is anything but. His view is to crush and destroy anyone who has more than his perceived level of enough. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message