Why are you voting for whoever for President?

[FyredUp]

Give the victimization schtick a rest. It doesn't suit you.

Sorry SC, no victimization schtick at all just VERY wesary of your playground bully tactics. You haven't carried on a civil discussion on this topic since the begining or the last topic we went round and round in.

No matter what is said you resort to snotty comments or personal attacks. None of the three of us, LA, myself, or spencer have done that here, so why are you?

I actually pity you and your demand to be the center of attention, no matter what it takes.

[Spencer534]

The UN recognizes approximately 200 nations. Can you point to one that has totally embraced Hayek's ideals and tell us whether or not the citizens of that country are better or worse off than we are in the US? The only nation that comes to mind with a government that is totally untaxed is Somalia. And last I heard no one was willing to invest in timeshares along their coastline. Which I'm told by a former neighbor who was there during the Blackhawk Down episode is one of the most beautiful beaches he's ever seen.

I never said anything about not taxing and neither does Hayak. We were talking about stimulus. On another note, the book "Blackhawk Down" describes great surfing off those same beaches.

They're both wrong.

You were right, I was wrong. Instead of 170%, it should have been 169.2%. Under Bush, there was no deficit over $596 billion except in 2008-2009 which I stated. The lowest the deficit has been under Obama is $1.08 trillion. 1.08 trillion is 169.2% of 596 billion. When will you blast Obama for his deficits as you do Bush?

Because research has shown the US was a much healthier economy when the top marginal tax rate was hovering around 50%.

Healthier in what way? We did not have a tax rate that high in our largest period of economic growth.

I can make the case that he didn't oppose collective bargaining for public employees based upon his writings and the website you linked.

The website, based on his writings and sayings, clearly states that he opposed federal employee unions collectively bargaining. There is no way to dispute this fact.

You claimed he opposed union organization for public employees. I'll admit I was wrong when you do the same.

I was wrong and you were right and I admitted that you were right in post #261. It seems an odd principle of only admitting you are wrong when someone else does. Ok, your turn.

Given the rhetoric from conservatives towards organized labor I can easily state they are also engaging in class warfare. The target being the working class. In fact, given that conservative economic policies have seen aggregate wealth shift upward over the last three decades I can make the case that in the battle of class warfare, the upper 1% is clearly winning. Can you point to one conservative fiscal policy in the last 30 years that benefited the middle class MORE than the upper 1% and corporate interests? I'll help you. There are none.

Why does a policy have to help just one class. The Reagan and Bush Tax cuts helped all taxpayers.

[Spencer534]

What's even funnier is the tax cuts you so righteously embrace are one of the very big reasons the US is now a debtor nation.

Please elaborate? How were those tax cuts a reason the US is now a debtor nation? You are so wrong on so many levels. We have been a debtor nation since at least 1835.

[Spencer534]

Only if one believes the government plays no role in helping that individual acquire wealth.

Even if the government plays a role in helping the individual acquire wealth, why should they pay a higher percentage?

[LaFireEducator]

Even if the government plays a role in helping the individual acquire wealth, why should they pay a higher percentage?

Funy thiung is that the goverment also helps low-income taxpayers get more back in refunds than they paid in taxes through child credits.

So I guess the government helps them also accquire a certain level of wealth as well.

[LaFireEducator]

Really? Where in their is the requirement the taxpayer should pay for a phony baloney Pub Ed job?

Funny that you believe government shouldn't be providing cradle to grave programs. Yet conservatives had no problem supporting a candidate just a few months ago who did just that in his home state.

You think those you disparage have it so well. Quit your job and join them. Then get back to us how great you have it. I promise to act jealous.

Just because he was our candidate that doesn't mean I agree with everything. There were also some other things that I did not agree with, but he was in the better qualified for the job and IMO, had not his advisors mishandled his campaign, he would be President as we speak.

While he was too liberal for my tastes in terms of social welfare, he certainly is no where near as liberal as our current president.

As far as your reoccuring attacks on my job, just keep on keeping on. It just makes you look smaller and less willing to discuss the facts.

[scfire86]

Just because he was our candidate that doesn't mean I agree with everything. There were also some other things that I did not agree with, but he was in the better qualified for the job and IMO, had not his advisors mishandled his campaign, he would be President as we speak.

Losers always say that. Rommey was only supported by conservatives when they had no choice.

While he was too liberal for my tastes in terms of social welfare, he certainly is no where near as liberal as our current president.

Funny. Obama has yet to propose or do anything that hasn't been supported or done by conservatives in the past.

As far as your reoccuring attacks on my job, just keep on keeping on. It just makes you look smaller and less willing to discuss the facts.

Like which facts? The fact that you rail about taxation while living off the taxpayer? Your cognitive dissonance only makes you appear to be a bigger hypocrite than anyone thought possible.

[scfire86]

Please elaborate? How were those tax cuts a reason the US is now a debtor nation? You are so wrong on so many levels. We have been a debtor nation since at least 1835.

Not to this level thanks to the fiscal policies of conservatives over the last 30 years. Tax cuts have caused revenues to shrink (as a percent of GDP) while those same conservatives embarked on significant spending programs.

Even if the government plays a role in helping the individual acquire wealth, why should they pay a higher percentage?

Because they have more to lose.

[scfire86]

I never said anything about not taxing and neither does Hayak. We were talking about stimulus. On another note, the book "Blackhawk Down" describes great surfing off those same beaches.

I was referring to Hayek's philosophy holistically.

You were right, I was wrong. Instead of 170%, it should have been 169.2%. Under Bush, there was no deficit over $596 billion except in 2008-2009 which I stated. The lowest the deficit has been under Obama is $1.08 trillion. 1.08 trillion is 169.2% of 596 billion. When will you blast Obama for his deficits as you do Bush?

When the damage done to the economy is repaired. One of the major drivers of the current deficit. A deficit that continues to decrease every year from the final year that Bush handed off. You're not using that final year as a starting point in your comparison. Which is typical. Bush was handed a balanced budget by his predecessor. He immediately squandered it and handed off a budget over $1T to his successor. It took eight years for Bush to ruin the economy, yet conservatives demand that Obama hasn't fixed it fast enough. Despite having a GOP majority House and filibustering Senate minority who made it clear their primary focus was to ensure Obama only serve one term. No mention of working together to address the fiscal disaster the president from their party handed off. Yet they claim to be good Americans. Boehner came to power claiming that JOBS would be his priority on Day One. He has yet to put forth any meaningful or proven legislation that promotes jobs growth.

Healthier in what way? We did not have a tax rate that high in our largest period of economic growth.

Define that period.

The website, based on his writings and sayings, clearly states that he opposed federal employee unions collectively bargaining. There is no way to dispute this fact.

Actually the website stated:

No statements as to FDR’s views on collective bargaining for state or municipal workers were found among his papers as Governor of New York or as President.

So it said no such thing.

Why does a policy have to help just one class. The Reagan and Bush Tax cuts helped all taxpayers.

Because when a nation's middle class is eliminated, the nation usually follows it. I can only hope you are not one of those who still believes "trickle down" economics still works. Recent events should have convinced all but the truly idiotic that it is a failure as an economic system.

[LaFireEducator]

Like which facts? The fact that you rail about taxation while living off the taxpayer? Your cognitive dissonance only makes you appear to be a bigger hypocrite than anyone thought possible.



I have no problem with paying taxes.

I have no problem with the current level of taxiation on the middle class.

And if the Bush tax cuts were not renewed for the middle class, I would have had no problems with that.

I do have an issue that 48% of our population pays no taxes and in fact many get more back than they paid in. That needs to change.

And I have a major problem that one group is targeted over and over for tax increases "because they need to pay thier fair share" while they are currently paying the vast majority of the taxes in this country. Sorry, but the rich have the right to keep thier money just like everybody else, and they already are paying FAR MORE THAN thier "fair share".

[scfire86]

I do have an issue that 48% of our population pays no taxes and in fact many get more back than they paid in. That needs to change.

The 48% still pay taxes. Another mythical conservative talking point.

And I have a major problem that one group is targeted over and over for tax increases "because they need to pay thier fair share" while they are currently paying the vast majority of the taxes in this country. Sorry, but the rich have the right to keep thier money just like everybody else, and they already are paying FAR MORE THAN thier "fair share".

I'm sure that group appreciates you carrying their water while they continue to look for ways to screw you. Maybe things are different in Bossier Parish. Everywhere else, public employees are being attacked as being overpaid, underworked, and having gold plated benefits. But do keep supporting the group who is determined to drive your compensation down to the point where you will be competitive in the labor market of a third world country.

Since you are all about "fair share" then I'm sure you would have no problems eliminating the deductions afforded by the 1% that allows them as individuals and corporations to escape paying federal income tax. Many of whom also collect billions in subsidies. You have a problem with the irresponsible on welfare, I have a problem with the corporate entity collecting welfare as well. I'll believe conservatives are serious about cutting spending when the GOP representatives from the midwest actively oppose and propose eliminating ag subsidies. Same with oil company executives. There are many others, yet you only focus on the most vulnerable in our society.

[LaFireEducator]

The 48% still pay taxes. Another mythical conservative talking point.

But they don't pay income taxes. In fact, many of them get more back than they pay because of child related deductions and credits.


I'm sure that group appreciates you carrying their water while they continue to look for ways to screw you. Maybe things are different in Bossier Parish. Everywhere else, public employees are being attacked as being overpaid, underworked, and having gold plated benefits. But do keep supporting the group who is determined to drive your compensation down to the point where you will be competitive in the labor market of a third world country.

We have no such issues here ... In fact we have no such issues in this general area. Fire and Police wages are fair and the benefits are good, and the pubklic has no issues as a rule with how we are compensated.

Since you are all about "fair share" then I'm sure you would have no problems eliminating the deductions afforded by the 1% that allows them as individuals and corporations to escape paying federal income tax. Many of whom also collect billions in subsidies. You have a problem with the irresponsible on welfare, I have a problem with the corporate entity collecting welfare as well. I'll believe conservatives are serious about cutting spending when the GOP representatives from the midwest actively oppose and propose eliminating ag subsidies. Same with oil company executives. There are many others, yet you only focus on the most vulnerable in our society.

Gioven that 1% pays 70% of the income taxes and the top 10% pays 90%, I would say that they are very much paying thier fair share, even with deductions and such. Sorry, but I consider a 40% tax rate to be excessive bordering on criminal, especially when coupled with a 13-15% state income tax.

As far as most vunrable, give me a break. Most of them are in the position they are because of choosing to not take school as a job and seriously or dropping out, drugs, booze, criminal activity or any other number of choices that they have made to screw up THEIR lives. Sorry, but that ain't my problem. They made thier bed now they lie in it. Call it cold, but they made choices that ended up bad and that is something they need to deal with, not me, and not my money, or the money of the rich.

Obama offered to eliminate many deductions but the libs wanted a rate increase, so that is what they got. There is no call for now coming after deductions. Again, criminal.

[scfire86]

But they don't pay income taxes. In fact, many of them get more back than they pay because of child related deductions and credits.

Yes. Via the Earned Income Tax Credit. A program signed into law by Ronald Reagan who called it, "“the best antipoverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress.”

Gioven that 1% pays 70% of the income taxes and the top 10% pays 90%, I would say that they are very much paying thier fair share, even with deductions and such. Sorry, but I consider a 40% tax rate to be excessive bordering on criminal, especially when coupled with a 13-15% state income tax.

Show me a country whose tax structure is less and whose citizens live better than they do in America. I have no problem with the 1% paying that level of taxation they also control a commensurate level of the wealth in our country. You prove your parochial thought process by only thinking income is the sole determiner of wealth in our nation. Ownership of assets is at least if not more critical. Towards the end of my career, we were making far more in ownership than I was in salary.

As far as most vunrable, give me a break. Most of them are in the position they are because of choosing to not take school as a job and seriously or dropping out, drugs, booze, criminal activity or any other number of choices that they have made to screw up THEIR lives. Sorry, but that ain't my problem. They made thier bed now they lie in it. Call it cold, but they made choices that ended up bad and that is something they need to deal with, not me, and not my money, or the money of the rich.

If it were only adults I would agree with you. A lot of what I consider the most vulnerable are the children who were unfortunate to be born to these folks. Let's just cast them aside as well.

Obama offered to eliminate many deductions but the libs wanted a rate increase, so that is what they got. There is no call for now coming after deductions. Again, criminal.

Wrong. Reducing loopholes is part of the president's plan. Particularly for corporate entities.

We have no such issues here ... In fact we have no such issues in this general area. Fire and Police wages are fair and the benefits are good, and the pubklic has no issues as a rule with how we are compensated.

Hmmmm.....apparently pension costs are about to be scrutinized.

Pension Costs in Bossier Parish

And another

I'm thinking you're living in a dream world. Not that it is anything new.

[Bones42]

Flat tax rate.....top to bottom, everyone pays the same rate.

[FyredUp]

Flat tax rate.....top to bottom, everyone pays the same rate.

With no deductions, your tax rate is your tax and it is that simple.

[scfire86]

Flat tax rate.....top to bottom, everyone pays the same rate.

Does this include unearned income? When Steve Forbes was pitching that idea in the 90's he excluded unearned income. I'm sure it was just a coincidence the majority of his income was unearned.

[Bones42]

Sure. why not? Same rules for everyone. I know....it's too simple.

[scfire86]

Sure. why not? Same rules for everyone. I know....it's too simple.

Flat tax policies are usually brought with significant exemptions.

[FyredUp]

Flat tax policies are usually brought with significant exemptions.

Hence my response in post 315:

With no deductions, your tax rate is your tax and it is that simple.

What's your answer SC? Or is it just to tell everyone else they are wrong?

[scfire86]

What's your answer SC? Or is it just to tell everyone else they are wrong?

FU, the devil is in the details.