Toooooo much money

I know. . quoting yourself is bad form.



I will say one thing:

Reducing tax rates and not cutting spending is very dishonest.

You can argue which party is better or worse for the country, but in my view no major political party (Democratic, Republican, or Tea) has shown any seriousness regarding cost control.
So is that your justification for taking from dead people:huh: I would rather take away from "dead beats" who play the system and collect welfare! Hell now there giving out cell phones and free day care to welfare recipients:smt013
 
Wow a lot of personal attacks here.

I believe the top 5% earner already pays 85% of this nation's taxes. IRS numbers not mine.

My family lost a famliy farm in the mid-west due to the estate taxes. You see Pack it just isn't the rich. My family is far from rich. Our farm had been in the family for over 100 years. Once grandpa died we were expected to pay an estate tax on the land, buildings, equipment, cattle and ALL contents in the buildings. My grandpa's pickup was old and rusty and we had to pay a tax on it!

We had to sell. We could not afford the taxes. It just wasn't federal taxes. It was state, and county taxes too. So by the time it was all over we OWED taxes!

So Pack how the hell do you justify this!!!! How the f#$k do you justify the raping and stealing from the small farm families? How?

The fam land is now shopping centers and parking lots.


Should the yacht luxury tax be reinstated?
 
Who rules America? Interesting article on how wealth is distributed in the US. Wealthier people do pay more in taxes, but their effective tax rate is lower because a larger portion of their income comes from capital gains which is taxed at a lower rate and is not subject to social security tax.

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
 
You can argue which party is better or worse for the country, but in my view no major political party ...Tea .... ) has shown any seriousness regarding cost control.

Re: Tea Party has shown any seriousness regarding cost control -

isn't that like (from Animal House) saying "...the germans bombed pearl harbor..." ?
 
Wow a lot of personal attacks here.

I believe the top 5% earner already pays 85% of this nation's taxes. IRS numbers not mine.

My family lost a famliy farm in the mid-west due to the estate taxes. You see Pack it just isn't the rich. My family is far from rich. Our farm had been in the family for over 100 years. Once grandpa died we were expected to pay an estate tax on the land, buildings, equipment, cattle and ALL contents in the buildings. My grandpa's pickup was old and rusty and we had to pay a tax on it!

We had to sell. We could not afford the taxes. It just wasn't federal taxes. It was state, and county taxes too. So by the time it was all over we OWED taxes!

So Pack how the hell do you justify this!!!! How the f#$k do you justify the raping and stealing from the small farm families? How?

The fam land is now shopping centers and parking lots.


Should the yacht luxury tax be reinstated?
Where you intending to operate the farm? Was it the estate tax you couldn't afford or the other taxes brought with future ownership? Are you saying your county had an estate tax too? Just trying to understand, not picking.
 
So is that your justification for taking from dead people:huh:

Did I say that? No I did not.

I did not post a justification. . I didn't even say I was in favor of estate taxes. I only stated that NOBODY is serious about controlling spending.

That is very different.

Re: Tea Party has shown any seriousness regarding cost control -

isn't that like (from Animal House) saying "...the germans bombed pearl harbor..." ?

Not at all.

I am just saying that if you have problems paying for cable tv despite having two jobs; the Republican / Tea party approach is to quit one of the jobs.

"Bring spending to 2008 levels" is as bold as anyone has gone. "Eliminate earmarks and waste" is the more typical line. Now; I hate to break it to you; but even with the Republican passed tax rates for 2011, the budgets were not balanced in 2008 and the deficit was projected to widen. Wanna get serious? Bring spending (and revenue) to 2000 levels. The budget was balanced back then.

Since the elections, a number of Republican senators have come out against earmark reform. The Republican leadership has recently agreed to a HUGE economic stimulus package with NO prospect of reduced government spending.

I am not saying the Democrats are better. I am just saying the NOBODY is serious about cost control.
 
Last edited:
I am just saying that if you have problems paying for cable tv despite having two jobs; the Republican / Tea party approach is to quit one of the jobs.
[/I]

Really? Because I see the Tea Party as saying get rid of Cable TV.

What I was getting at was, the Tea Party elected officials havn't even been put into office yet, yet you're already saying they haven't done anything yet to alleviate the issue. You gave Obama Hussein 2 yrs before you started giving him grief for not doing anything for the country, I think you should give them similar timeframes.
 
Did I say that? No I did not.

I did not post a justification. . I didn't even say I was in favor of estate taxes. I only stated that NOBODY is serious about controlling spending.

That is very different.



Not at all.

I am just saying that if you have problems paying for cable tv despite having two jobs; the Republican / Tea party approach is to quit one of the jobs.

"Bring spending to 2008 levels" is as bold as anyone has gone. "Eliminate earmarks and waste" is the more typical line. Now; I hate to break it to you; but even with the Republican passed tax rates for 2011, the budgets were not balanced in 2008 and the deficit was projected to widen. Wanna get serious? Bring spending (and revenue) to 2000 levels. The budget was balanced back then.

Since the elections, a number of Republican senators have come out against earmark reform. The Republican leadership has recently agreed to a HUGE economic stimulus package with NO prospect of reduced government spending.

I am not saying the Democrats are better. I am just saying the NOBODY is serious about cost control.
Ok, let me "rephrase" that...
So is that......justification for taking from dead people:huh:
 
Where you intending to operate the farm? Was it the estate tax you couldn't afford or the other taxes brought with future ownership? Are you saying your county had an estate tax too? Just trying to understand, not picking.

Yes the family was. We could not afford to opperate the farm after the feds appraised everything without selling. State and county wanted their cut too. We ended up owing $4500 in taxes after it was all done.

A 100 years of blood and sweat gone just because of taxes.

Is that fair? Pack was that fair? There should be NO estate taxes what so ever.

I saw today the Dems want a 45% tax on all estates over 3.5 mil. Their goal is 55% on all!
 
Really? Because I see the Tea Party as saying get rid of Cable TV.

What I was getting at was, the Tea Party elected officials havn't even been put into office yet, yet you're already saying they haven't done anything yet to alleviate the issue. You gave Obama Hussein 2 yrs before you started giving him grief for not doing anything for the country, I think you should give them similar timeframes.

Fair point.

However, the Democrats in 2008 did campaign on 1) War in Afganistan, not Iraq. 2) Health care reform, and 3) Big stimulus bills.

So. . when I saw them doing those three things, it was not time to throw the hypocrisy flag.

However, the Tea Party / Republican leadership (are they not the same thing?) just signed up for a HUGE stimulus bill just to get two carrots -> without any thought of spending cuts. That is what I am throwing the hypocrisy flag down for.


Ditto!

Although. . I seem to recall you declaring Obama a failure within hours of the election, did you not? :grin: (just messing with you on this one)

Ok, let me "rephrase" that...
So is that......justification for taking from dead people:huh:

No.

However, changing "inequities" in the tax code should not be an excuse for not having offsetting spending reductions.
 
Actually, I think I was calling him a failure when I first learned that he wanted to run for office. :lol:

Ditto on that one for me too! I felt the same way. I didn't wait 2 yrs after he was in office.
 
Yes the family was. We could not afford to opperate the farm after the feds appraised everything without selling. State and county wanted their cut too. We ended up owing $4500 in taxes after it was all done.

A 100 years of blood and sweat gone just because of taxes.

Is that fair? Pack was that fair? There should be NO estate taxes what so ever.

I saw today the Dems want a 45% tax on all estates over 3.5 mil. Their goal is 55% on all!

I think they would have had to kill me to take it.
 
I heard about that.

I have no doubt which way the Supreme court will rule, given the nature of the court.

At the danger of blowing this thread to another 30 pages; with suitable namecalling between certain individuals: I have two thoughts on this ruling and healthcare in general that I would like to share;

1) Is it equally unconstitutional to mandate the purchase of auto insurance?

1) (related) If the state mandates auto insurance as a condition for driving; then is it proper to require health insurance as a condition for receiving hospital care which receives public funding?

2) Does anyone see an issue regarding "pre-existing conditions". For example, if someone came to me with bad hips, I would never insure his hips. If I already insured someone who develops bad hips, I would not renew his insurance. It may not happen to you today -> but it does happen to plenty of others. Especially if they change jobs. And remember. . not everyone has a choice regarding changing jobs.

I hope everyone recognizes why these two thoughts are linked.
 
Last edited:
Ack! 42 page PDF! Sorry. . my whisky intake precludes reading that right now. . although I am dying of curiosity.

Regarding car insurance: Issued by the state? How very "single payer government option" of them. For you guys, that makes the analogy far closer.
 
Last edited:
Did I say that? No I did not.

I did not post a justification. . I didn't even say I was in favor of estate taxes. I only stated that NOBODY is serious about controlling spending.

That is very different.



Not at all.

I am just saying that if you have problems paying for cable tv despite having two jobs; the Republican / Tea party approach is to quit one of the jobs.

"Bring spending to 2008 levels" is as bold as anyone has gone. "Eliminate earmarks and waste" is the more typical line. Now; I hate to break it to you; but even with the Republican passed tax rates for 2011, the budgets were not balanced in 2008 and the deficit was projected to widen. Wanna get serious? Bring spending (and revenue) to 2000 levels. The budget was balanced back then.

Since the elections, a number of Republican senators have come out against earmark reform. The Republican leadership has recently agreed to a HUGE economic stimulus package with NO prospect of reduced government spending.

I am not saying the Democrats are better. I am just saying the NOBODY is serious about cost control.
You guys are trying to identify which party is the least bad. Waste of time. The problem is in the culture of Capitol Hill. Something else Obama was going to change if I remember correctly. For decades that I can remember the finger pointing/bickering about who spends has went on. Hell they all spend. With few exceptions our national debt has increased every year…that one number should tell you all you need to know.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
112,950
Messages
1,422,862
Members
60,932
Latest member
juliediane
Back
Top