Closed Thread
Page 2 of 3 First 123 Last
  1. #26
    Forum Member
    ActionGoose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    New York (RIGHT COAST)
    Posts
    185

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by westofd1 View Post
    lets keep our money here in america! lets not give it away to none americans or to countries not part of the united states of america.
    You're kidding right? Protectionism in 2009 would be like digging a big hole, filling it with our GDP, and setting it on fire.

  2. #27
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    West Oneonta,NY 13861
    Posts
    137

    Default

    absolutely not! im sick of having to work til june just to pay taxes so people not u.s. citizens get the free ride on our programs.

  3. #28
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    West Oneonta,NY 13861
    Posts
    137

    Default

    absolutely not! im sick of having to work til june just to pay taxes so people not u.s. citizens get the free ride on our programs.

  4. #29
    Banned

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by westofd1 View Post
    absolutely not! im sick of having to work til june just to pay taxes so people not u.s. citizens get the free ride on our programs.
    I would also like to include the lazy on welfare in that list.

    I have no problem paying for needed services, but social programs are uneeded.

  5. #30
    Forum Member
    ActionGoose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    New York (RIGHT COAST)
    Posts
    185

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
    I would also like to include the lazy on welfare in that list.

    I have no problem paying for needed services, but social programs are uneeded.
    New for 2010: A La Carte taxation! Don't like a budgeted item, don't pay for it!

  6. #31
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,330

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by westofd1 View Post
    absolutely not! im sick of having to work til june just to pay taxes so people not u.s. citizens get the free ride on our programs.
    What about the people who are US citizens that get a free ride. Like bankers and auto execs?
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  7. #32
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    West Oneonta,NY 13861
    Posts
    137

    Default

    id take alot away there too. the way i see it with the government bailout. the upper officials want us the paying people to go to the bank and borrow money that really is ours, to refinance, or purchase new homes, cars, p'ups, and whatever else. then turn around and pay our money with interest back to the banks. paying to use our money..

  8. #33
    Banned

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    What about the people who are US citizens that get a free ride. Like bankers and auto execs?
    Maybe you missed it. The only ones happy with these bailouts are
    1. The execs who received the bailouts
    2. The Idiots in the administrations who pushed for them
    3. The Idiots running the house and senate.

  9. #34
    Banned

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ActionGoose View Post
    New for 2010: A La Carte taxation! Don't like a budgeted item, don't pay for it!
    Sign me UP!!!!

    Given the option to take stimulus funds or pay no taxes I would have taken no taxes. It's great the way the Federal government will tax the states, skim off the top and give back 70 cents on the dollar.

  10. #35
    Protective Economist
    Jonathan Bastian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    966

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ActionGoose View Post
    You're kidding right? Protectionism in 2009 would be like digging a big hole, filling it with our GDP, and setting it on fire.
    Protectionism is different than stopping overseas grants. Protectionism is establishing tariffs and other impediments to imports in order to allegedly bolster domestic producers. This, as you imply, is disasterous.

    Sending $2.5 million to China to teach prostitutes not to get drunk, however, is probably not the most effective use of our limited tax dollars (this is apparently a REAL grant issued by the NIH).

    Well, at least our tax dollars USED to be limited...we are now spending like drunken sailors on shore-leave for the first time in 4 months. Only our hangover will last MUCH longer...
    Last edited by firemanjb; 05-13-2009 at 11:31 AM.
    My comments are sometimes educated, sometimes informed and sometimes just blowing smoke...but they are always mine and mine alone and do not reflect upon anyone else (especially my employer).

  11. #36
    Protective Economist
    Jonathan Bastian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    966

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    What about the people who are US citizens that get a free ride. Like bankers and auto execs?
    Free ride? The head of GM lost his job because the President didn't like his plan.

    One of these big, bad execs probably pays 25-30% of his (or her) salary as income taxes. He then pays excise taxes on his expensive cars, on top of all his normal sales and property taxes. He probably pays property tax on more than one property, grandly supporting schools that he probably does not send his kids to, because he opts for a more competent and successful private system that costs extra. If he (or she) is a religious person, he probably donates another 10% or more to churches and charities.

    Compare this to the single parent of two, working for $9. He (or she) qualifies for free/reduced pricing on medical care, dental care and school lunch. He may get food stamps, free daycare and may get free education benefits as well as be in a special category that allows him (or her) to apply for special programs open only to people with specific genetic qualities. He probably doesn't pay ANY federal income tax and may not pay any state income tax. He may even get a tax refund for money he never paid. He probably pays a paltry share of the actual cost of educating his two kids.

    Yeah, I see how those big, bad execs are getting such a free ride. Be careful what you wish for...if you overly tax the successful, you will merely drive them to be less successful or to be successful elsewhere. Then, who will pay the taxes?
    My comments are sometimes educated, sometimes informed and sometimes just blowing smoke...but they are always mine and mine alone and do not reflect upon anyone else (especially my employer).

  12. #37
    Protective Economist
    Jonathan Bastian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    966

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LDMEDIC View Post
    Just caught a blurb on FOX news siteing that Obama is also cutting the Fed Death benifit in half. Funny how they only mentioned that it affects police.

    the funding was at 110 mil now down to 60 mil ish. Don't know if that means that those who die in the line of duty only get half of what the payout use to be or what.
    So, roughly 140 cops and 110 firefighters die per year. That's 250 deaths with a benefit near $315,000. That's $78.75 million in benefits. $32 million went to administrative costs?!?
    My comments are sometimes educated, sometimes informed and sometimes just blowing smoke...but they are always mine and mine alone and do not reflect upon anyone else (especially my employer).

  13. #38
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,439

    Default

    The only question I have is this:

    Why should I have to pay anything because a Firefighter somewhere dies?

    Are we paying the family of a teacher who dies? Are we paying anything to the family of a construction worker who dies? Why should anyone pay taxes to pay one of our families for our death?

    If we are that concerned about the family of a brother being able to go on with their lives and help them with expenses after the death of a loved one, then we should establish a charity and donate the money to support one another. I would have no problem with that at all, and I would give plenty to such a good cause.

    But why does the single mom of 3 kids have to pay taxes to support my wife if I die?
    "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin

  14. #39
    Banned

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    75% of what taxpayer money goes for satisfies some special interests. If we all got that 75% we could support our own special interest. Those special interest that don't get enough money are more than likely not worth the cost.

    We the people need to decide how our money is spent, not some government dingbat.

  15. #40
    Protective Economist
    Jonathan Bastian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    966

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MarcusKspn View Post
    The only question I have is this:

    Why should I have to pay anything because a Firefighter somewhere dies?

    Are we paying the family of a teacher who dies? Are we paying anything to the family of a construction worker who dies? Why should anyone pay taxes to pay one of our families for our death?
    The same reason you pay taxes used to pay farmers NOT to grow stuff; to pay cities to pave the roads that they should have been paving with their own money; to pay states to enforce their own traffic laws; to help local FDs buy air packs because local taxpayers are too cheap; and the list goes on and on! The federal government spends OUR money on a huge amount of projects, many of which probably shouldn't be a federal issue. That employees lots of federal government employees, which is good for DC, bad for the taxpayers.

    But why does the single mom of 3 kids have to pay taxes to support my wife if I die?
    I assure you, unless the single mom (or dad) is an A-list Hollywood star (or one of those big, bad executives scfire hates), she probably isn't paying one CENT in federal income taxes. In fact, with the "Earned Income Tax Credit," if she makes less than $15 or $20 an hour, she probably gets a tax rebate above and beyond anything that may have been witheld over the course of a tax year.
    My comments are sometimes educated, sometimes informed and sometimes just blowing smoke...but they are always mine and mine alone and do not reflect upon anyone else (especially my employer).

  16. #41
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,330

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by firemanjb View Post
    Free ride? The head of GM lost his job because the President didn't like his plan.
    Because he came looking to the taxpayer for a bailout after driving (no pun intended) his company into the ground.

    Quote Originally Posted by firemanjb View Post
    One of these big, bad execs probably pays 25-30% of his (or her) salary as income taxes. He then pays excise taxes on his expensive cars, on top of all his normal sales and property taxes. He probably pays property tax on more than one property, grandly supporting schools that he probably does not send his kids to, because he opts for a more competent and successful private system that costs extra. If he (or she) is a religious person, he probably donates another 10% or more to churches and charities.
    Why does it matter considering he drove a publicly held company into the ground adversely affecting hundreds if not millions of middle income households?

    Quote Originally Posted by firemanjb View Post
    Yeah, I see how those big, bad execs are getting such a free ride. Be careful what you wish for...if you overly tax the successful, you will merely drive them to be less successful or to be successful elsewhere. Then, who will pay the taxes?
    Where would they go? Given their recent actions, the sooner they leave the better.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  17. #42
    Banned

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Because he came looking to the taxpayer for a bailout after driving (no pun intended) his company into the ground.
    He didn't go to the taxpayer, he went to the government. And the government was stupid enough to keep offering these bribes up.

    Why does it matter considering he drove a publicly held company into the ground adversely affecting hundreds if not millions of middle income households?
    It's called capitalism and competition. Not all companies are equal, only the best survive. If you are referring to stocks, they are gamble, not a guarantee.

  18. #43
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,330

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by idiotboy
    He didn't go to the taxpayer, he went to the government. And the government was stupid enough to keep offering these bribes up.
    idiotboy proves his stupidity knows no bounds.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  19. #44
    Protective Economist
    Jonathan Bastian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    966

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Because he came looking to the taxpayer for a bailout after driving (no pun intended) his company into the ground.
    The government (Dems and Repubs alike) threw good money after bad. They gave a man 5 months to turn around a multi-billion dollar, multi-national company that had spent decades digging its grave with its union's assistance. That doesn't sound reasonable to me. That's like firing the captain of an aircraft carrier because he couldn't bring his ship from flank speed to full stop in 500 yards.

    Airlines go into bankruptcy for a year or two to turn around, and GM was supposed to do it in less than a year? Please.

    Should we be firing the head of the UAW since he is going to force so many out of jobs and, eventually, force the government to bail out his healthcare system?

    Why does it matter considering he drove a publicly held company into the ground adversely affecting hundreds if not millions of middle income households?
    It matter because you said "bankers and auto execs." It wasn't just the head of GM that upset you...it's anyone making a lot of money in those industries. Did you think the government should have fired the CEOs of the airlines that got bailouts after Sept. 11th and their companies went bankrupt, costing many their jobs? Should the government punish the CEO of Circuit City since it went out of business, laying of thousands? Where do we stop?

    You share so many people's disdain for white collar workers making big dollars. Do you have the same outrage for people acting, singing or playing games making even bigger paychecks?


    Where would they go? Given their recent actions, the sooner they leave the better.
    They can go anywhere with lower taxes. Or stop working as hard. Yes, some of them may have committed criminal acts or negligent acts. However, lumping all bankers and auto execs into one pot is foolish. The reality still stands that these wealthy people, the ones you disdain so heartily, are the ones who keep our governments afloat with taxes. They allow the near majority to enjoy NO or minimal tax rates. Someone has to pay that bill...and if the rich stop doing it, guess who has to.
    My comments are sometimes educated, sometimes informed and sometimes just blowing smoke...but they are always mine and mine alone and do not reflect upon anyone else (especially my employer).

  20. #45
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,330

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by firemanjb View Post
    The government (Dems and Repubs alike) threw good money after bad. They gave a man 5 months to turn around a multi-billion dollar, multi-national company that had spent decades digging its grave with its union's assistance. That doesn't sound reasonable to me. That's like firing the captain of an aircraft carrier because he couldn't bring his ship from flank speed to full stop in 500 yards.
    If he didn't want govt. involvement he shouldn't have asked for taxpayer monies.

    Quote Originally Posted by firemanjb View Post
    Airlines go into bankruptcy for a year or two to turn around, and GM was supposed to do it in less than a year? Please.
    Are they asking for taxpayer bailouts?

    Quote Originally Posted by firemanjb View Post
    Should we be firing the head of the UAW since he is going to force so many out of jobs and, eventually, force the government to bail out his healthcare system?
    Did the President of the UAW negotiate the contract with GM or the Feds?

    Quote Originally Posted by firemanjb View Post
    It matter because you said "bankers and auto execs." It wasn't just the head of GM that upset you...it's anyone making a lot of money in those industries. Did you think the government should have fired the CEOs of the airlines that got bailouts after Sept. 11th and their companies went bankrupt, costing many their jobs? Should the government punish the CEO of Circuit City since it went out of business, laying of thousands? Where do we stop?
    Banking and auto execs are asking/demanding taxpayer bailouts. The CEO of Circuit City didn't do that. You're comparing apples to road signs.

    Quote Originally Posted by firemanjb View Post
    You share so many people's disdain for white collar workers making big dollars. Do you have the same outrage for people acting, singing or playing games making even bigger paychecks?
    Are any of them asking for taxpayer subsidies? I have no problem with execs making billions of dollars. I do have a problem with execs getting paid 100's of millions for running companies into the ground and then demanding taxpayer funds to cover up their poor decision making.

    Quote Originally Posted by firemanjb View Post
    They can go anywhere with lower taxes. Or stop working as hard. Yes, some of them may have committed criminal acts or negligent acts. However, lumping all bankers and auto execs into one pot is foolish. The reality still stands that these wealthy people, the ones you disdain so heartily, are the ones who keep our governments afloat with taxes. They allow the near majority to enjoy NO or minimal tax rates. Someone has to pay that bill...and if the rich stop doing it, guess who has to.
    Uh yeah? They can go anywhere with lower taxes? Like where exactly? Be more specific. If you believe the wealthy aren't sheltered in exemptions that ensure they aren't paying anywhere near the same share as you or I, you are living in a dream world. Plain and simple.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  21. #46
    Banned

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    If he didn't want govt. involvement he shouldn't have asked for taxpayer monies.


    Are they asking for taxpayer bailouts?


    Did the President of the UAW negotiate the contract with GM or the Feds?


    Banking and auto execs are asking/demanding taxpayer bailouts. The CEO of Circuit City didn't do that. You're comparing apples to road signs.


    Are any of them asking for taxpayer subsidies? I have no problem with execs making billions of dollars. I do have a problem with execs getting paid 100's of millions for running companies into the ground and then demanding taxpayer funds to cover up their poor decision making.
    I have a problem with this as well. Those knuckleheads should never have given one cent for any bailout.

    Uh yeah? They can go anywhere with lower taxes? Like where exactly? Be more specific. If you believe the wealthy aren't sheltered in exemptions that ensure they aren't paying anywhere near the same share as you or I, you are living in a dream world. Plain and simple.
    Everyone should pay the same percentage, eliminate all of the BS tax breaks. Problem solved.

  22. #47
    Protective Economist
    Jonathan Bastian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    966

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    If he didn't want govt. involvement he shouldn't have asked for taxpayer monies.
    That doesn't address the unreasonableness of the timeframe.

    Are they asking for taxpayer bailouts?
    Yes, the airlines did. Look at the news from 2001...concentrate on articles after September 11th.


    Did the President of the UAW negotiate the contract with GM or the Feds?
    That's not the issue. The issue is that the UAW forced the Big 3 into contracts that were financially unsustainable. They have culpability in the failure, yet there are few clammoring for Gettelfinger's head.


    Banking and auto execs are asking/demanding taxpayer bailouts. The CEO of Circuit City didn't do that. You're comparing apples to road signs.
    Why isn't your outrage over the fact the government is bailing out companies, rather than who is running them? Circuit City didn't even try to do Chapter 11...they went straight to Chapter 7. Thousands are unemployed. Silence, however...because most people in a capitalist economy understand sometimes companies go bankrupt.


    Are any of them asking for taxpayer subsidies? I have no problem with execs making billions of dollars. I do have a problem with execs getting paid 100's of millions for running companies into the ground and then demanding taxpayer funds to cover up their poor decision making.
    Hmmm...the current CEO of GM has a salary of $2.3 million. Wagoner, the prior CEO, had a salary of $2.2 million in 2008. Even in 2005, his bonuses and other compensation totaled about $8.5 million. Where are the 100s of millions?

    Oh, Wagoner's salary when he got fired? $1 per year.


    Uh yeah? They can go anywhere with lower taxes? Like where exactly? Be more specific. If you believe the wealthy aren't sheltered in exemptions that ensure they aren't paying anywhere near the same share as you or I, you are living in a dream world. Plain and simple.
    Cayman Islands and the Bahamas are two. No income tax.

    I'm in a dream world? You are in denial. FACT: 1% of the people pay 39% of the federal income tax. FACT: 5% of the people pay 60% of the federal income tax. FACT: 40% of the people pay NO federal income tax. FACT: with the exception of the decline after September 11th, federal income tax revenues increased EVERY year of the Bush administration.

    You can extend the issue further...a wealthy person generally owns a more expensive home, so pays more property tax. He/she buys more stuff, and more expensive stuff, so pays more sales tax. The only thing that throws it off is the FICA deductions because people are not taxed on income over $98,000. Reason? They cannot earn benefits on more. You and I, though, as pensioned public safety professionals actually get the short end on any FICA payments. The WEP/GPO ensures we do not get the full benefits from any Social Security credits we may earn in off-duty work.

    Research the facts. The issue is not one of too little tax money. The issue is one of too much spending.
    My comments are sometimes educated, sometimes informed and sometimes just blowing smoke...but they are always mine and mine alone and do not reflect upon anyone else (especially my employer).

  23. #48
    Banned

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by firemanjb View Post
    That doesn't address the unreasonableness of the timeframe.

    Yes, the airlines did. Look at the news from 2001...concentrate on articles after September 11th.


    That's not the issue. The issue is that the UAW forced the Big 3 into contracts that were financially unsustainable. They have culpability in the failure, yet there are few clammoring for Gettelfinger's head.


    Why isn't your outrage over the fact the government is bailing out companies, rather than who is running them? Circuit City didn't even try to do Chapter 11...they went straight to Chapter 7. Thousands are unemployed. Silence, however...because most people in a capitalist economy understand sometimes companies go bankrupt.



    Hmmm...the current CEO of GM has a salary of $2.3 million. Wagoner, the prior CEO, had a salary of $2.2 million in 2008. Even in 2005, his bonuses and other compensation totaled about $8.5 million. Where are the 100s of millions?

    Oh, Wagoner's salary when he got fired? $1 per year.




    Cayman Islands and the Bahamas are two. No income tax.

    I'm in a dream world? You are in denial. FACT: 1% of the people pay 39% of the federal income tax. FACT: 5% of the people pay 60% of the federal income tax. FACT: 40% of the people pay NO federal income tax. FACT: with the exception of the decline after September 11th, federal income tax revenues increased EVERY year of the Bush administration.

    You can extend the issue further...a wealthy person generally owns a more expensive home, so pays more property tax. He/she buys more stuff, and more expensive stuff, so pays more sales tax. The only thing that throws it off is the FICA deductions because people are not taxed on income over $98,000. Reason? They cannot earn benefits on more. You and I, though, as pensioned public safety professionals actually get the short end on any FICA payments. The WEP/GPO ensures we do not get the full benefits from any Social Security credits we may earn in off-duty work.

    Research the facts. The issue is not one of too little tax money. The issue is one of too much spending.
    Now you do know that facts are not part of the Liberal agenda. He will not answer you and if he does it will be a totally irrelevant response. Every time I through out fact and beat him down he comes back with BK. That is his answer to everything.

  24. #49
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,330

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by firemanjb View Post
    That doesn't address the unreasonableness of the timeframe.
    Which could have been avoided had they not requested taxpayer bailout funds.

    Quote Originally Posted by firemanjb View Post
    Yes, the airlines did. Look at the news from 2001...concentrate on articles after September 11th.
    Maybe because the impacts of a terrorist attack that utilized airplanes is a different scenario than a poor business model of the US auto industry.

    Quote Originally Posted by firemanjb View Post
    That's not the issue. The issue is that the UAW forced the Big 3 into contracts that were financially unsustainable. They have culpability in the failure, yet there are few clammoring for Gettelfinger's head.
    Could be the blame lies with the CEO who agreed to a contract with the UAW that was unsustainable.

    Quote Originally Posted by firemanjb View Post
    Why isn't your outrage over the fact the government is bailing out companies, rather than who is running them? Circuit City didn't even try to do Chapter 11...they went straight to Chapter 7. Thousands are unemployed. Silence, however...because most people in a capitalist economy understand sometimes companies go bankrupt.
    I'm not a fan of the bailouts. I'm a lesser fan of watching companies and banks go broke and tank both the US and world economies.

    Quote Originally Posted by firemanjb View Post
    Hmmm...the current CEO of GM has a salary of $2.3 million. Wagoner, the prior CEO, had a salary of $2.2 million in 2008. Even in 2005, his bonuses and other compensation totaled about $8.5 million. Where are the 100s of millions?
    Cumulative salaries for the execs of bailed out companies.

    Quote Originally Posted by firemanjb View Post
    Oh, Wagoner's salary when he got fired? $1 per year.
    Given his poor decision making he was overpaid.

    Quote Originally Posted by firemanjb View Post
    Cayman Islands and the Bahamas are two. No income tax.
    And they don't do that now?

    Quote Originally Posted by firemanjb View Post
    I'm in a dream world? You are in denial. FACT: 1% of the people pay 39% of the federal income tax. FACT: 5% of the people pay 60% of the federal income tax. FACT: 40% of the people pay NO federal income tax. FACT: with the exception of the decline after September 11th, federal income tax revenues increased EVERY year of the Bush administration.
    Born mostly by folks making less than $250K/yr. Republicans always play this game when they start talking about taxes. They start talking about taxes, and then they add the word "income taxes." Payroll taxes are much more regressive. They fall much more aggressively on poor people. So do sales tax. So Republicans always talk about income taxes are so weighted against the rich. That is actually the most progressive part of our taxes.


    Quote Originally Posted by firemanjb View Post
    You can extend the issue further...a wealthy person generally owns a more expensive home, so pays more property tax. He/she buys more stuff, and more expensive stuff, so pays more sales tax. The only thing that throws it off is the FICA deductions because people are not taxed on income over $98,000. Reason? They cannot earn benefits on more. You and I, though, as pensioned public safety professionals actually get the short end on any FICA payments. The WEP/GPO ensures we do not get the full benefits from any Social Security credits we may earn in off-duty work.

    Research the facts. The issue is not one of too little tax money. The issue is one of too much spending.
    See above posts.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  25. #50
    Banned

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Born mostly by folks making less than $250K/yr. Republicans always play this game when they start talking about taxes. They start talking about taxes, and then they add the word "income taxes." Payroll taxes are much more regressive. They fall much more aggressively on poor people. So do sales tax. So Republicans always talk about income taxes are so weighted against the rich. That is actually the most progressive part of our taxes.
    Do you not agree that every dollar taken away from the wealthy is one less dollar they have to invest in businesses? As it is now, the government has taken the money and is investing in the businesses. And the sad part is they aren't applying the same rules to everyone. AIG execs get their bonuses and GM execs get pink slips. WTF!!!! With this kind of inequality on a relatively small scale do you really want these people determining your health needs? I can see it now. For the next four years there will be no authorized abortions and fertility will be funded to its fullest, change of administration. For the next four years, abortions will be fully funded and no Alzheimer’s payments. This country has enough problems without adding politics to the health care system.

Closed Thread
Page 2 of 3 First 123 Last

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Step by Step Rescue Knot?
    By fvfd305 in forum Specialized Rescue
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-11-2007, 03:43 PM
  2. Little direction if you will...
    By parkerx209 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-27-2006, 11:17 AM
  3. i need some direction
    By jamie82 in forum Fire Explorer & Jr. Firefighting
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-10-2005, 11:45 PM
  4. Stabilization: A Step by step procedure
    By rmoore in forum University of Extrication
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-15-1999, 02:37 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Log in

Click here to log in or register