Discussion:
(Tax Foundation) Explain the concept of fair to me, again...
(too old to reply)
TMS
2009-08-01 03:39:39 UTC
Permalink
The top 1% of income earners pay more of the overall federal income
tax (40.4%) than the bottom 95% (36.9%).
That's 141,000 paying more of the collected federal income tax than
135 million.

h/T Tax Foundation

- TMS
Syvyn11
2009-08-01 04:05:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by TMS
The top 1% of income earners pay more of the overall federal income
tax (40.4%) than the bottom 95% (36.9%).
That's 141,000 paying more of the collected federal income tax than
135 million.
h/T Tax Foundation
- TMS
To the libs, that's fair.

ONLY TO LIBS!
Lord Gow333, Joey Styles' newest fan!
2009-08-01 05:01:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by TMS
The top 1% of income earners pay more of the overall federal income
tax (40.4%) than the bottom 95% (36.9%).
That's 141,000 paying more of the collected federal income tax than
135 million.
But... but they're rich! EVIL RICH!!!

Look at them, sittin' over there, being all evil & stuff...

LG
--
Visit www.fairtax.org , sign the petition, and make America what it could
be.
Stu Frink
2009-08-01 05:41:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by TMS
The top 1% of income earners pay more of the overall federal income
tax (40.4%) than the bottom 95% (36.9%).
That's 141,000 paying more of the collected federal income tax than
135 million.
h/T Tax Foundation
- TMS
It's called an income tax, genius. Warren Buffett makes $5B a year. How
many burger flippers do you think it takes to add up to $5B? Or hobos, or
how about regular people just trying to make ends meet.

And since we're speaking of Warren Buffett, you do know that he doesn't pay
his fair share and he admits to it, and basically says it's fucked up,
right?

I swear, the political posters here are retarded. Like in your case, how
you get mindfucked into doing the dirty work of the filthy rich, who at the
same time, are skullfucking you, when you've probably never made six figures
in your life. Hell, some of your cohorts on here probably struggle to make
five figures, except for whatever socialist payments the government hands
out to them.
Lord Gow333, Joey Styles' newest fan!
2009-08-01 06:35:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stu Frink
Post by TMS
The top 1% of income earners pay more of the overall federal income
tax (40.4%) than the bottom 95% (36.9%).
That's 141,000 paying more of the collected federal income tax than
135 million.
h/T Tax Foundation
- TMS
It's called an income tax, genius. Warren Buffett makes $5B a year.
How many burger flippers do you think it takes to add up to $5B? Or
hobos, or how about regular people just trying to make ends meet.
How many govt services does Buffet use compared to hobos or regular people?
Does his car use up two lanes of roadway? If his house catches fire do they
put it more out? (Hell, if anything he probably has better fire protection
and less of a need to call the fire dept.) In the words of Adam Carolla "For
what I pay in property taxes they should knock on my door and ask if I have
any garbage that needs to be taken away."
Post by Stu Frink
And since we're speaking of Warren Buffett, you do know that he doesn't
pay his fair share and he admits to it, and basically says it's fucked up,
right?
So what's your point? That Buffett is a tax cheat? Cheapskate? That the
overcomplicated tax structure is too easy to manipulate? As Bush said anyone
who thinks they aren't paying enough taxes should feel free to cut the IRS
an extra check. You'll note that Warren probably won't.
Post by Stu Frink
I swear, the political posters here are retarded.
No. You're just too much of a dumbass to join the adult conversation.

LG
--
Visit www.fairtax.org , sign the petition, and make America what it could
be.
Stu Frink
2009-08-01 08:16:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lord Gow333, Joey Styles' newest fan!
Post by Stu Frink
Post by TMS
The top 1% of income earners pay more of the overall federal income
tax (40.4%) than the bottom 95% (36.9%).
That's 141,000 paying more of the collected federal income tax than
135 million.
h/T Tax Foundation
- TMS
It's called an income tax, genius. Warren Buffett makes $5B a year.
How many burger flippers do you think it takes to add up to $5B? Or
hobos, or how about regular people just trying to make ends meet.
How many govt services does Buffet use compared to hobos or regular
Post by Stu Frink
people? Does his car use up two lanes of roadway? If his house catches
fire do they put it more out? (Hell, if anything he probably has better
fire protection and less of a need to call the fire dept.) In the words of
Adam Carolla "For what I pay in property taxes they should knock on my
door and ask if I have any garbage that needs to be taken away."
I'll try it again. It's called an INCOME TAX. It is based on INCOME.
I-N-C-O-M-E. Not that you'd know what that word means. Apparently you
don't,
because you're bringing up property tax, that has nothing to do with INCOME.
Property
tax is a tax on the stupid, for either overpaying for their homes, their
crummy local schools,
or permitting their towns to blow ridiculous money.

No shit, the highest earners pay a ridiculous percentage of the INCOME tax.
That's
because they make alot of INCOME. Buffett's $5B (which is net, so after
taxes) is 100,000
times more than someone who makes $50K. And yet you all seem surprised.
Yes, as a %,
in theory, they pay too much, but that's in theory, because Buffett claims
he files by the letter
and pays 17.1%.

Which is more than his cleaning lady. And they haven't locked his ass up
yet and fined him a
bajillion $ (which I'm sure the government could use), so he must be telling
the truth.
Lord Gow333, Joey Styles' newest fan!
2009-08-01 14:43:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stu Frink
Post by Lord Gow333, Joey Styles' newest fan!
Post by Stu Frink
Post by TMS
The top 1% of income earners pay more of the overall federal income
tax (40.4%) than the bottom 95% (36.9%).
That's 141,000 paying more of the collected federal income tax than
135 million.
h/T Tax Foundation
- TMS
It's called an income tax, genius. Warren Buffett makes $5B a year.
How many burger flippers do you think it takes to add up to $5B? Or
hobos, or how about regular people just trying to make ends meet.
How many govt services does Buffet use compared to hobos or regular
Post by Stu Frink
people? Does his car use up two lanes of roadway? If his house catches
fire do they put it more out? (Hell, if anything he probably has better
fire protection and less of a need to call the fire dept.) In the words
of Adam Carolla "For what I pay in property taxes they should knock on my
door and ask if I have any garbage that needs to be taken away."
I'll try it again. It's called an INCOME TAX.
It was his quote. The concept still applies. Grow up.

LG
--
Visit www.fairtax.org , sign the petition, and make America what it could
be.
NapalmHeart
2009-08-03 01:11:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stu Frink
Post by TMS
The top 1% of income earners pay more of the overall federal income
tax (40.4%) than the bottom 95% (36.9%).
That's 141,000 paying more of the collected federal income tax than
135 million.
h/T Tax Foundation
- TMS
It's called an income tax, genius. Warren Buffett makes $5B a year. How many burger flippers
do you think it takes to add up to $5B? Or hobos, or how about regular people just trying to
make ends meet.
How many govt services does Buffet use compared to hobos or regular >people? Does his car use up
two lanes of roadway? If his house catches fire do they put it more out? (Hell, if anything he
probably has better fire protection and less of a need to call the fire dept.) In the words of
Adam Carolla "For what I pay in property taxes they should knock on my door and ask if I have any
garbage that needs to be taken away."
I'll try it again. It's called an INCOME TAX. It is based on INCOME.
I-N-C-O-M-E. Not that you'd know what that word means. Apparently you don't,
because you're bringing up property tax, that has nothing to do with INCOME. Property
tax is a tax on the stupid, for either overpaying for their homes, their crummy local schools,
or permitting their towns to blow ridiculous money.
No shit, the highest earners pay a ridiculous percentage of the INCOME tax. That's
because they make alot of INCOME. Buffett's $5B (which is net, so after taxes) is 100,000
times more than someone who makes $50K. And yet you all seem surprised. Yes, as a %,
in theory, they pay too much, but that's in theory, because Buffett claims he files by the letter
and pays 17.1%.
Which is more than his cleaning lady. And they haven't locked his ass up yet and fined him a
bajillion $ (which I'm sure the government could use), so he must be telling the truth.
Do you understand the concepts of taxable income and a graduated income tax? It appears not.
lein
2009-08-02 01:47:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by TMS
The top 1% of income earners pay more of the overall federal income
tax (40.4%) than the bottom 95% (36.9%).
That's 141,000 paying more of the collected federal income tax than
135 million.
h/T Tax Foundation
- TMS
It's called an income tax, genius.    Warren Buffett makes $5B a year.   How
many burger flippers do you think it takes to add up to $5B?    Or hobos, or
how about regular people just trying to make ends meet.
And since we're speaking of Warren Buffett, you do know that he doesn't pay
his fair share and he admits to it, and basically says it's fucked up,
right?
Warren Buffett is free to pay more taxes if he wishes, does he?
t***@yahoo.com
2009-08-02 02:18:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stu Frink
It's called an income tax, genius. Warren Buffett makes $5B a year. How
many burger flippers do you think it takes to add up to $5B? Or hobos, or
how about regular people just trying to make ends meet.
And this is a rub for many people. Nobody should strive or accept to
be a burger flipper. A chef is different, but a burger flipper? This
is a failure of society on many levels. Not the least of which is the
lack of education of the parents.

Furthen, when we have a teen pregnancy problem and the "solution" is
education and condoms. We have a drug problem and the "solution" is
education and drug police. We have other problems and the "solution"
is more education, etc. But when we have an obesity problem or a
tobacco problem, we apparently cannot educate or tax those products
out of the worst offenders, instead we want to keep the tax just at
the right level ... enough to get the most revenue but not solve the
problem.
John Rogers
2009-08-02 19:52:30 UTC
Permalink
Hey, "***@yahoo.com" <***@yahoo.com>... keep the
change, you filthy animal.
Post by t***@yahoo.com
Furthen, when we have a teen pregnancy problem and the "solution" is
education and condoms. We have a drug problem and the "solution" is
education and drug police. We have other problems and the "solution"
is more education, etc. But when we have an obesity problem or a
tobacco problem, we apparently cannot educate or tax those products
out of the worst offenders, instead we want to keep the tax just at
the right level ... enough to get the most revenue but not solve the
problem.
So let me see if I understand you... you are saying we should tax the
hell out of teen pregnancy and illegal drug use?

John M. Rogers
AU Class of 1985
The Al Del Greco of Atlanta

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really
know about what they imagine they can design."

(Friedrich Hayek)
t***@yahoo.com
2009-08-02 20:28:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Rogers
So let me see if I understand you... you are saying we should tax the
hell out of teen pregnancy and illegal drug use?
LOL. That was pretty funny.
NapalmHeart
2009-08-03 01:08:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by TMS
The top 1% of income earners pay more of the overall federal income
tax (40.4%) than the bottom 95% (36.9%).
That's 141,000 paying more of the collected federal income tax than
135 million.
h/T Tax Foundation
- TMS
It's called an income tax, genius. Warren Buffett makes $5B a year. How many burger flippers
do you think it takes to add up to $5B? Or hobos, or how about regular people just trying to
make ends meet.
And since we're speaking of Warren Buffett, you do know that he doesn't pay his fair share and he
admits to it, and basically says it's fucked up, right?
I swear, the political posters here are retarded. Like in your case, how you get mindfucked
into doing the dirty work of the filthy rich, who at the same time, are skullfucking you, when
you've probably never made six figures in your life. Hell, some of your cohorts on here probably
struggle to make five figures, except for whatever socialist payments the government hands out to
them.
It's amazing how many of the facts you missed in your fucked up statement.

Ken
r***@yahoo.com
2009-08-01 06:26:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by TMS
The top 1% of income earners pay more of the overall federal income
tax (40.4%) than the bottom 95% (36.9%).
That's 141,000 paying more of the collected federal income tax than
135 million.
The top 1% is 1.4 million. Your 141,000 is the top 0.1% that the Tax
Foundation website also discusses.

Anyway, you're right that the top 1% (1.4 million) pays 40.4% of the
taxes. They also take home 22.8% of the pay.

This means that the average member of this group makes $1,423,580
(AGI) per year, and pays $349,645.

The bottom 95% makes on average $41,068, and pays $3,277. That leaves
the top 1% with $1.07 million per year to spend, and the bottom 95%
with about $38,000 to spend.

Alternatively, you can look at the top 50% -- they make 88% of the
wages and pay 97% of the taxes. The bottom 50% makes 12% of the wages
and pays 3% of the tax.

I don't know -- this seems reasonable given the marginal bracket-based
system we have. If you disagree with the concept of marginal tax
brackets and favor a flat tax, that's fine. But I don't see anything
worthy of outrage when the incomes are also presented (you left them
out so you only saw half of the picture).
Lord Gow333, Joey Styles' newest fan!
2009-08-01 07:15:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by TMS
The top 1% of income earners pay more of the overall federal income
tax (40.4%) than the bottom 95% (36.9%).
That's 141,000 paying more of the collected federal income tax than
135 million.
The top 1% is 1.4 million. Your 141,000 is the top 0.1% that the Tax
Foundation website also discusses.

Anyway, you're right that the top 1% (1.4 million) pays 40.4% of the
taxes. They also take home 22.8% of the pay.

This means that the average member of this group makes $1,423,580
(AGI) per year, and pays $349,645.

The bottom 95% makes on average $41,068, and pays $3,277. That leaves
the top 1% with $1.07 million per year to spend, and the bottom 95%
with about $38,000 to spend.

Alternatively, you can look at the top 50% -- they make 88% of the
wages and pay 97% of the taxes. The bottom 50% makes 12% of the wages
and pays 3% of the tax.

I don't know -- this seems reasonable given the marginal bracket-based
system we have. If you disagree with the concept of marginal tax
brackets and favor a flat tax, that's fine. But I don't see anything
worthy of outrage when the incomes are also presented (you left them
out so you only saw half of the picture).

~~~~
On the flip side do you see any justification for the class baiting "moral
outrage" of shyster politicians crying about Joe Sixpack getting screwed
over by the "evil rich"?

LG
--
Visit www.fairtax.org , sign the petition, and make America what it could
be.
James Gibson
2009-08-01 13:26:48 UTC
Permalink
On Aug 1, 3:15 am, "Lord Gow333, Joey Styles' newest fan!"
Post by TMS
The top 1% of income earners pay more of the overall federal income
tax (40.4%) than the bottom 95% (36.9%).
That's 141,000 paying more of the collected federal income tax than
135 million.
The top 1% is 1.4 million.  Your 141,000 is the top 0.1% that the Tax
Foundation website also discusses.
Anyway, you're right that the top 1% (1.4 million) pays 40.4% of the
taxes.  They also take home 22.8% of the pay.
This means that the average member of this group makes $1,423,580
(AGI) per year, and pays $349,645.
The bottom 95% makes on average $41,068, and pays $3,277.  That leaves
the top 1% with $1.07 million per year to spend, and the bottom 95%
with about $38,000 to spend.
Alternatively, you can look at the top 50% -- they make 88% of the
wages and pay 97% of the taxes.  The bottom 50% makes 12% of the wages
and pays 3% of the tax.
I don't know -- this seems reasonable given the marginal bracket-based
system we have.  If you disagree with the concept of marginal tax
brackets and favor a flat tax, that's fine.  But I don't see anything
worthy of outrage when the incomes are also presented (you left them
out so you only saw half of the picture).
~~~~
On the flip side do you see any justification for the class baiting "moral
outrage" of shyster politicians crying about Joe Sixpack getting screwed
over by the "evil rich"?
Sure, because that only includes income tax, which is where the
marginal rates come in. In payroll taxes, the bottom pays a higher
%age of their income due to the cutoff. And capital gains taxes are
at 15%, which means that a large portion of money (not counted as
income) is actually taxed at a lower rate. On top of that, many
people in the bottom won't be able to take advantage of mortgage
deductions or charitable deductions, which won't reduce their tax/
straight up gross income ratio, as it would for people higher up the
ladder.
Lord Gow333, Joey Styles' newest fan!
2009-08-01 14:54:18 UTC
Permalink
"James Gibson" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message news:f708cdd5-5415-4a67-bd2c-***@r24g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 1, 3:15 am, "Lord Gow333, Joey Styles' newest fan!"
Post by TMS
The top 1% of income earners pay more of the overall federal income
tax (40.4%) than the bottom 95% (36.9%).
That's 141,000 paying more of the collected federal income tax than
135 million.
The top 1% is 1.4 million. Your 141,000 is the top 0.1% that the Tax
Foundation website also discusses.
Anyway, you're right that the top 1% (1.4 million) pays 40.4% of the
taxes. They also take home 22.8% of the pay.
This means that the average member of this group makes $1,423,580
(AGI) per year, and pays $349,645.
The bottom 95% makes on average $41,068, and pays $3,277. That leaves
the top 1% with $1.07 million per year to spend, and the bottom 95%
with about $38,000 to spend.
Alternatively, you can look at the top 50% -- they make 88% of the
wages and pay 97% of the taxes. The bottom 50% makes 12% of the wages
and pays 3% of the tax.
I don't know -- this seems reasonable given the marginal bracket-based
system we have. If you disagree with the concept of marginal tax
brackets and favor a flat tax, that's fine. But I don't see anything
worthy of outrage when the incomes are also presented (you left them
out so you only saw half of the picture).
~~~~
On the flip side do you see any justification for the class baiting "moral
outrage" of shyster politicians crying about Joe Sixpack getting screwed
over by the "evil rich"?
Sure, because that only includes income tax, which is where the
marginal rates come in. In payroll taxes, the bottom pays a higher
%age of their income due to the cutoff.

~~~~
Okay.
~~~~

And capital gains taxes are
at 15%, which means that a large portion of money (not counted as
income) is actually taxed at a lower rate.

~~~~
This is also why many executives started getting stock options in leiu of
salary. Another case of well intentioned govt policy gone haywire and not
solving anything. One could also argue that there should be no capital gains
tax as encouraged (re)investment would immensely boost the economy. The govt
would then make its money back with the increase in income tax with more
poeple working and being paid better.
~~~~

On top of that, many
people in the bottom won't be able to take advantage of mortgage
deductions

~~~~
Why not? If anything poor people would be more likely to be holding a
mortgage.
~~~~

or charitable deductions, which won't reduce their tax/
straight up gross income ratio, as it would for people higher up the
ladder.

~~~~
Again, why not? And as far as charity goes, you have to donate $10 to save
three or four in taxes. Not exactly a money making venture.

Of course we could solve all this by passing the FairTax.

LG
--
Visit www.fairtax.org , sign the petition, and make America what it could
be.
James Gibson
2009-08-02 02:33:52 UTC
Permalink
On Aug 1, 10:54 am, "Lord Gow333, Joey Styles' newest fan!"
Post by James Gibson
On top of that, many
people in the bottom won't be able to take advantage of mortgage
deductions
~~~~
Why not? If anything poor people would be more likely to be holding a
mortgage.
Not a mortgage that's worth enough to put you beyond the standard
deduction. Same response to charity deduction.
t***@yahoo.com
2009-08-01 11:54:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by TMS
The top 1% of income earners pay more of the overall federal income
tax (40.4%) than the bottom 95% (36.9%).
That's 141,000 paying more of the collected federal income tax than
135 million.
This could be different ... if the top 1% of income earners paid their
employees a little better for providing that income, or didn't ship
the jobs overseas to reduce the local economy. Then, the top 1% would
pay less income tax and the lower 99% would pay more.
Lord Gow333, Joey Styles' newest fan!
2009-08-01 14:59:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@yahoo.com
Post by TMS
The top 1% of income earners pay more of the overall federal income
tax (40.4%) than the bottom 95% (36.9%).
That's 141,000 paying more of the collected federal income tax than
135 million.
This could be different ... if the top 1% of income earners paid their
employees a little better for providing that income, or didn't ship
the jobs overseas to reduce the local economy. Then, the top 1% would
pay less income tax and the lower 99% would pay more.
If the govt didn't provide incentives (taxes, regulations) to ship those
jobs overseas it would be much simpler to keep them here. As it is when
those jobs do go overseas there are still jobs created here for
longshoremen, engineers, truckers, warehouse workers, etc.
As far as employee pay, if the top 1% didn't do what was necessary for the
health of their companies they wouldn't be the top 1% anymore.

LG
--
Visit www.fairtax.org , sign the petition, and make America what it could
be.
t***@yahoo.com
2009-08-01 15:48:05 UTC
Permalink
On Aug 1, 10:59 am, "Lord Gow333, Joey Styles' newest fan!"
Post by Lord Gow333, Joey Styles' newest fan!
If the govt didn't provide incentives (taxes, regulations) to ship those
jobs overseas it would be much simpler to keep them here.
You forgot an outrageous minimum wage. Why pay $7+ and hour when you
can get someone to do it for $.20 and hour, not pay benefits, don't
have to worry about maintaining or even caring about their environment
and you have a billion to choose from?
Post by Lord Gow333, Joey Styles' newest fan!
As it is when
those jobs do go overseas there are still jobs created here for
longshoremen, engineers, truckers, warehouse workers, etc.
As far as employee pay, if the top 1% didn't do what was necessary for the
health of their companies they wouldn't be the top 1% anymore.
Well they can't have it both ways in the long run. They can't keep
sucking out of the economy and putting money and investments overseas
while needing to pay bills here and then complain that those who don't
have the jobs that were outsourced have little financial capability to
pay for basic needs.
Lord Gow333, Joey Styles' newest fan!
2009-08-01 16:18:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@yahoo.com
On Aug 1, 10:59 am, "Lord Gow333, Joey Styles' newest fan!"
Post by Lord Gow333, Joey Styles' newest fan!
If the govt didn't provide incentives (taxes, regulations) to ship those
jobs overseas it would be much simpler to keep them here.
You forgot an outrageous minimum wage. Why pay $7+ and hour when you
can get someone to do it for $.20 and hour, not pay benefits, don't
have to worry about maintaining or even caring about their environment
and you have a billion to choose from?
True. To a certain extent tho this is offset by transportation costs (libs
never ever remember them), so the trick is finding the balance. And don't
forget, every time the minimum wage is bumped up it just ripples up thru the
entire wage spectrum, raises prices, and we are back at square one.
Post by t***@yahoo.com
Post by Lord Gow333, Joey Styles' newest fan!
As it is when
those jobs do go overseas there are still jobs created here for
longshoremen, engineers, truckers, warehouse workers, etc.
As far as employee pay, if the top 1% didn't do what was necessary for the
health of their companies they wouldn't be the top 1% anymore.
Well they can't have it both ways in the long run. They can't keep
sucking out of the economy and putting money and investments overseas
while needing to pay bills here and then complain that those who don't
have the jobs that were outsourced have little financial capability to
pay for basic needs.
I don't see near as much complaining from them as I do demonizing of them by
Dem politicians/activists. If anything I hear rich people complaining about
taxes being too high in general, or for corporations, and about overly
restrictive regulations. This to me, along with anecdotal evidence, shows
that they would just as soon keep their business here.

What do you want tho? A successful company doing half its business overseas,
or a boarded up building entirely in America?

LG
--
Visit www.fairtax.org , sign the petition, and make America what it could
be.
Dennis J
2009-08-02 22:54:08 UTC
Permalink
hey, "Lord Gow333, Joey Styles' newest fan!" <***@yahoo.com>'s
been through solid matter, for crying out loud. Who knows what's
happened to his brain? Maybe it's scrambled his molecules...
Post by Lord Gow333, Joey Styles' newest fan!
Post by t***@yahoo.com
On Aug 1, 10:59 am, "Lord Gow333, Joey Styles' newest fan!"
Post by Lord Gow333, Joey Styles' newest fan!
If the govt didn't provide incentives (taxes, regulations) to ship those
jobs overseas it would be much simpler to keep them here.
You forgot an outrageous minimum wage. Why pay $7+ and hour when you
can get someone to do it for $.20 and hour, not pay benefits, don't
have to worry about maintaining or even caring about their environment
and you have a billion to choose from?
True. To a certain extent tho this is offset by transportation costs (libs
never ever remember them), so the trick is finding the balance. And don't
forget, every time the minimum wage is bumped up it just ripples up thru the
entire wage spectrum, raises prices, and we are back at square one.
Post by t***@yahoo.com
Post by Lord Gow333, Joey Styles' newest fan!
As it is when
those jobs do go overseas there are still jobs created here for
longshoremen, engineers, truckers, warehouse workers, etc.
As far as employee pay, if the top 1% didn't do what was necessary for the
health of their companies they wouldn't be the top 1% anymore.
Well they can't have it both ways in the long run. They can't keep
sucking out of the economy and putting money and investments overseas
while needing to pay bills here and then complain that those who don't
have the jobs that were outsourced have little financial capability to
pay for basic needs.
I don't see near as much complaining from them as I do demonizing of them by
Dem politicians/activists. If anything I hear rich people complaining about
taxes being too high in general, or for corporations, and about overly
restrictive regulations. This to me, along with anecdotal evidence, shows
that they would just as soon keep their business here.
What do you want tho? A successful company doing half its business overseas,
or a boarded up building entirely in America?
LG
dude neither is a good option... or are you to stupid to think that
Americans CAN compete on the World stage and win if we just roll up
our sleeves and make everything work?

I mean look at what the world economy has brought us, we now borrow
money from the Chinese to buy their shit to sell here. remember the
Chinese? you know when Mao ran the country and they considered a poor
third world country? my, how the time have changed.
--

"the Democrat and Republican parties are destroying our country right now,
They're destroying our political process." -- Jesse Ventura

"Education is the progressive discovery of our own Ignorance" Will Durant

"One can't have a sense of perspective without a sense of Humor" -- Wayne Thiboux

"the Glass is not only half full, it has been delicious so far!!" -- ME

To reply, SCRAPE off the end bits.
Lord Gow333, Joey Styles' newest fan!
2009-08-03 03:07:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dennis J
been through solid matter, for crying out loud. Who knows what's
happened to his brain? Maybe it's scrambled his molecules...
Post by Lord Gow333, Joey Styles' newest fan!
Post by t***@yahoo.com
On Aug 1, 10:59 am, "Lord Gow333, Joey Styles' newest fan!"
Post by Lord Gow333, Joey Styles' newest fan!
If the govt didn't provide incentives (taxes, regulations) to ship those
jobs overseas it would be much simpler to keep them here.
You forgot an outrageous minimum wage. Why pay $7+ and hour when you
can get someone to do it for $.20 and hour, not pay benefits, don't
have to worry about maintaining or even caring about their environment
and you have a billion to choose from?
True. To a certain extent tho this is offset by transportation costs (libs
never ever remember them), so the trick is finding the balance. And don't
forget, every time the minimum wage is bumped up it just ripples up thru the
entire wage spectrum, raises prices, and we are back at square one.
Post by t***@yahoo.com
Post by Lord Gow333, Joey Styles' newest fan!
As it is when
those jobs do go overseas there are still jobs created here for
longshoremen, engineers, truckers, warehouse workers, etc.
As far as employee pay, if the top 1% didn't do what was necessary for the
health of their companies they wouldn't be the top 1% anymore.
Well they can't have it both ways in the long run. They can't keep
sucking out of the economy and putting money and investments overseas
while needing to pay bills here and then complain that those who don't
have the jobs that were outsourced have little financial capability to
pay for basic needs.
I don't see near as much complaining from them as I do demonizing of them by
Dem politicians/activists. If anything I hear rich people complaining about
taxes being too high in general, or for corporations, and about overly
restrictive regulations. This to me, along with anecdotal evidence, shows
that they would just as soon keep their business here.
What do you want tho? A successful company doing half its business overseas,
or a boarded up building entirely in America?
LG
dude neither is a good option... or are you to stupid to think that
Americans CAN compete on the World stage and win if we just roll up
our sleeves and make everything work?
Okay, this should be good. How?
Post by Dennis J
I mean look at what the world economy has brought us, we now borrow
money from the Chinese to buy their shit to sell here.
No, we the govt borrows money from the Chinese to bail out banks and auto
companies that should have gone bankrupt, and to float loans to people who
can't afford houses. We the citizens spend money we earn on Chinese goods
because inflated American wages and money spent complying with overbearing
regulations have actually made it cheaper to haul all of our crap halfway
around the planet.
Post by Dennis J
remember the
Chinese? you know when Mao ran the country and they considered a poor
third world country? my, how the time have changed.
And unless America allows its industry the freedom to compete it's only
going to get worse. God help us if they pass that Cap & Trade bullshit.

LG
--
Visit www.fairtax.org The FairTax - Designed by economists, not
politicians and lobbyists.
t***@yahoo.com
2009-08-03 04:15:21 UTC
Permalink
On Aug 2, 11:07 pm, "Lord Gow333, Joey Styles' newest fan!"
Post by Lord Gow333, Joey Styles' newest fan!
No, we the govt borrows money from the Chinese to bail out banks and auto
companies that should have gone bankrupt, and to float loans to people who
can't afford houses.
Actually, we're borrowing from the Chinese to bail out banks, auto
companies and other entities who not only allowed their own executives
and sales people to make bad decisions for the long-term viability of
the company, made bad loans and mismanaged the corporations, but they
also paid those people a substantial amount for doing so.

Those people said, "heck sell the mortgage to someone who cannot
afford it, I'll get my bonus and be gone by the time the company is
about belly-up." Or, "sure, sell that car to someone who can't afford
it, I want my bonus and everyone else can deal with the aftermath."
Post by Lord Gow333, Joey Styles' newest fan!
We the citizens spend money we earn on Chinese goods
because inflated American wages and money spent complying with overbearing
regulations have actually made it cheaper to haul all of our crap halfway
around the planet.
Nope, it's a cat and mouse game. The government ... general nature
and there is a conflict of interest when successful business people
become politicians ... tries to keep the money in house, but there is
a constant struggle between making the law and then chasing those who
pursue loopholes.
Post by Lord Gow333, Joey Styles' newest fan!
Post by Lord Gow333, Joey Styles' newest fan!
remember the
Chinese? you know when Mao ran the country and they considered a poor
third world country? my, how the time have changed.
You mean by selling their labor ridiculously cheap and destroying
their environment?
Post by Lord Gow333, Joey Styles' newest fan!
And unless America allows its industry the freedom to compete it's only
going to get worse. God help us if they pass that Cap & Trade bullshit.
How should America allow its industry the freedom to compete? Lower
minimum wage to $400 a month? Allow companies to trash the
environment? Or should we hold people accountable for their actions
on both the lower income side and the executive side. It's an easy
argument for some to say, "well, they're on welfare and not even
trying," but what is completely ignored by some is the argument that
"well, they trashed the corporation but it's ok if they walk away with
a $10 mil+ bonus because they tried hard and it could have been
worse."
Lord Gow333, Joey Styles' newest fan!
2009-08-03 18:20:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@yahoo.com
On Aug 2, 11:07 pm, "Lord Gow333, Joey Styles' newest fan!"
Post by Lord Gow333, Joey Styles' newest fan!
No, we the govt borrows money from the Chinese to bail out banks and auto
companies that should have gone bankrupt, and to float loans to people who
can't afford houses.
Actually, we're borrowing from the Chinese to bail out banks, auto
companies and other entities who not only allowed their own executives
and sales people to make bad decisions for the long-term viability of
the company, made bad loans and mismanaged the corporations, but they
also paid those people a substantial amount for doing so.
IOW, they should have been left to go bankrupt WHICH IS WHAT I SAID!
Post by t***@yahoo.com
Those people said, "heck sell the mortgage to someone who cannot
afford it, I'll get my bonus and be gone by the time the company is
about belly-up." Or, "sure, sell that car to someone who can't afford
it, I want my bonus and everyone else can deal with the aftermath."
No, those people were forced by the govt (Carter, Clinton) to give loans to
unqualified borrowers in the interest of "fairness", and then were able to
sell these bad loans to Fannie/Freddy while the same govt (Raines, Todd,
Gorelick, Fwanks) insisted "Oh no, everything's just dandy!". Where is your
outrage for Raines making off with his millions while cooking the books to
make FM/FM the house of cards it became?
Post by t***@yahoo.com
Post by Lord Gow333, Joey Styles' newest fan!
We the citizens spend money we earn on Chinese goods
because inflated American wages and money spent complying with overbearing
regulations have actually made it cheaper to haul all of our crap halfway
around the planet.
Nope, it's a cat and mouse game. The government ... general nature
and there is a conflict of interest when successful business people
become politicians ...
Umm... what?
Post by t***@yahoo.com
tries to keep the money in house, but there is
a constant struggle between making the law and then chasing those who
pursue loopholes.
Here's a thought... MAKE BETTER LAW! Or better yet, don't make stupid laws
in the first place.
Post by t***@yahoo.com
Post by Lord Gow333, Joey Styles' newest fan!
Post by Lord Gow333, Joey Styles' newest fan!
remember the
Chinese? you know when Mao ran the country and they considered a poor
third world country? my, how the time have changed.
You mean by selling their labor ridiculously cheap
Our "ridiculously cheap" is their 'pretty good living'. Don't worry, they'll
catch up soon enough, we'll be back to buying TVs that cost three times as
much, and they'll be back to 25% unemployment. If you really want to stick
it to them send the union organizers over there.
Post by t***@yahoo.com
and destroying their environment?
Emerging industry almost always does. The have the benefit of learning from
our lead tho, and the best thing we can do for the environment is to help
them grow faster. Wealthy countries can afford environmental improvements.
Poor countries can't.
Post by t***@yahoo.com
Post by Lord Gow333, Joey Styles' newest fan!
And unless America allows its industry the freedom to compete it's only
going to get worse. God help us if they pass that Cap & Trade bullshit.
How should America allow its industry the freedom to compete?
The FairTax would be a hell of a good start. Lower corporate taxes in
general (2nd highest in the world), and quit with the bullshit regulations
in the interest of "fairness" and preventing every single mishap that could
possibly happen ever. To recommend not applying manure to produce fields
that are near harvest makes sense. To ban spreading any manure at all on a
field that will be used for produce for one year prior, and on any field for
a one mile radius during, is completely asinine, especially to those of us
who make a yearly application to our garden.
Oh, but five people got that spinach e-coli so we have to screw over an
entire industry to make sure that never, ever happens again!
Post by t***@yahoo.com
Lower minimum wage to $400 a month?
Abolish the minimum wage. It is nothing more than an artifical plateau that
Dem politicians trade for votes.
Post by t***@yahoo.com
Allow companies to trash the environment?
Quit the hysterical bullshit. Environmental laws based on legitimate science
are a necessary evil, and often good business (manure again does far more
good plowed into cropland than flowing down a stream*). Environmental laws
based on the insane rantings of an exVice President attention whore, or the
scare tactics of a slimy pack of trial lawyers, are nothing shy of a fast
track to a devastated economy.

* Story time: Read an article once on how a turkey farmer was talking with a
grain farmer at the local coffee shop. The turkey farmer was lamenting over
the problems that he had getting rid of the manure. The grain farmer
suggested they spread it on his land, and now gives the turkey farmer some
grain in exchange for lowering his (chemical) fertilizer bill. Just one
example of common sense and the FREE MARKET solving an environmental concern
AND boosting business. Notice - no laws, no regulations, NO POLITICIANS,
just a good idea and a handshake.
Post by t***@yahoo.com
Or should we hold people accountable for their actions
on both the lower income side and the executive side. It's an easy
argument for some to say, "well, they're on welfare and not even
trying," but what is completely ignored by some is the argument that
"well, they trashed the corporation but it's ok if they walk away with
a $10 mil+ bonus because they tried hard and it could have been
worse."
You mean like Franklin Raines? Last I knew, Madoff and Rigas were paying for
their crimes, and Ken Lay likely would have if the heart attack didn't get
him first. As for the GM and Chrysler execs? Where the hell were the
stockholders in all this? They get an annual report... how many actually
studied it? If the companies weren't doing well then why did they invest in
them? If the execs made fraudulent claims and misrepresented the company's
finances then fine, prosecute them. But if they honestly did everything they
could to hold the fort as the economy fell out from under them then, yes,
they deserved that money, if only to buy ulcer medication.
Stock prices should have gone down, and GM should have been forced to go
bankrupt on that condition, or reorganize with more favorable labor deals
and better management. The fat would have been trimmed and the incompetants
would have been shown the door. That is how the free market works. Instead
we have a president hell bent on socialism, and a supportive Congress,
organizing a takeover disguised as a "bailout" (that only ended in
bankruptcy anyway) and standing in the way of the free market while
convincing the willing dupes that it was the market that failed.

LG
--
Visit www.fairtax.org The FairTax - Designed by economists, not
politicians and lobbyists.
t***@yahoo.com
2009-08-04 03:56:13 UTC
Permalink
On Aug 3, 2:20 pm, "Lord Gow333, Joey Styles' newest fan!"
Post by Lord Gow333, Joey Styles' newest fan!
IOW, they should have been left to go bankrupt WHICH IS WHAT I SAID!
Bankrupt doesn't affect the people who drove them there. The decision-
makers need to stop being given golden parachutes.
Post by Lord Gow333, Joey Styles' newest fan!
No, those people were forced by the govt (Carter, Clinton) to give loans to
unqualified borrowers in the interest of "fairness", and then were able to
sell these bad loans to Fannie/Freddy while the same govt (Raines, Todd,
Gorelick, Fwanks) insisted "Oh no, everything's just dandy!". Where is your
outrage for Raines making off with his millions while cooking the books to
make FM/FM the house of cards it became?
Politicians are followers of the lobby for the most part. Those
industries got what they wanted.

It's interesting that there is a theme argument that arises sometimes
here where, for example, the blame game happens. Is a bad loan the
fault of the government who "allowed" businesses the freedom to give
out such loans, the companies who willingly gave them and profited
(while subsequently selling the risk) or the homeowner who completely
over-extended themselves, many times believing the "consultancy" of
the bank ... "Congratulations, you can afford a $500k home on your
$13k salary"?

Some point the finger at those who took the loans and say, "if they
were dumb enough to sign it, it's their fault and they should have to
work to pay the price."

Some point the finger at the government and say, "well, they demanded
companies to allow such a thing."

But the middle-guy, the companies themselves, are apparently relieved
of fault because they were "making a profit for their company." But
what gets lost is that the middle guy was in the industry that lobbied
the government to allow such a thing, profited, and then cries when
the economy collapsed.

If the buyer is an idiot for taking on an unaffordable loan, then the
business is an idiot for lobbying for it and then selling it. The
difference? Greed. The company can take the profit, pass it along to
executives and then claim that they were the victim when the endless
increase in business ... ends.
Post by Lord Gow333, Joey Styles' newest fan!
Post by t***@yahoo.com
Post by Lord Gow333, Joey Styles' newest fan!
We the citizens spend money we earn on Chinese goods
because inflated American wages and money spent complying with overbearing
regulations have actually made it cheaper to haul all of our crap halfway
around the planet.
Nope, it's a cat and mouse game. The government ... general nature
and there is a conflict of interest when successful business people
become politicians ...
Umm... what?
Many politicians are businessmen and profit from legislation that is
enacted. It's not a coincidence that oil went through the roof when
Bush was in office, or that Haliburton was awarded ridiculously
overpriced contracts while Cheney was there, or that the makers of
Tamiflu didn't benefit while Rumsfeld was in his position.

And I'm not just pointing fingers at the Reps, the Dems do it too.
Post by Lord Gow333, Joey Styles' newest fan!
Here's a thought... MAKE BETTER LAW! Or better yet, don't make stupid laws
in the first place.
Well, "stupid laws" are no different than "no laws," which is
basically what got us into this mess (along with greed). But if you
want "better law," then you're advocating "more government." It just
works that way. Unfortunately.
Post by Lord Gow333, Joey Styles' newest fan!
Post by t***@yahoo.com
You mean by selling their labor ridiculously cheap
Our "ridiculously cheap" is their 'pretty good living'.
Agreed. But it's the way it is ... a businessman wants his business
to pay employees the lowest rate possible while charging the highest
rate possible for that same person to buy his/her product.
Post by Lord Gow333, Joey Styles' newest fan!
Don't worry, they'll
catch up soon enough, we'll be back to buying TVs that cost three times as
much, and they'll be back to 25% unemployment. If you really want to stick
it to them send the union organizers over there.
Why? Would the union demand that they have some sort of actual
adequate working wage?

Would you buy a tv that costs three times as much if it eliminated the
social welfare in the US that exists today? Especially in high tech,
eventually it will not make sense for the elite to come here to go to
MIT, CMU, CalTech, because it will be less expensive to take the tech
out of the country to the people who engineered the products, built
the products, are trained on the products and can deliver more for
less.
Post by Lord Gow333, Joey Styles' newest fan!
Emerging industry almost always does. The have the benefit of learning from
our lead tho, and the best thing we can do for the environment is to help
them grow faster. Wealthy countries can afford environmental improvements.
Poor countries can't.
So we're going to help them grow faster by becoming poorer ourselves.
Great.
Post by Lord Gow333, Joey Styles' newest fan!
The FairTax would be a hell of a good start. Lower corporate taxes in
general (2nd highest in the world), and quit with the bullshit regulations
in the interest of "fairness" and preventing every single mishap that could
possibly happen ever. To recommend not applying manure to produce fields
that are near harvest makes sense. To ban spreading any manure at all on a
field that will be used for produce for one year prior, and on any field for
a one mile radius during, is completely asinine, especially to those of us
who make a yearly application to our garden.
Oh, but five people got that spinach e-coli so we have to screw over an
entire industry to make sure that never, ever happens again!
I agree that legislation is, at times, out of control. But how does
FairTax address the issues that we face now? On the one hand, you
have people who can afford to find every loophole around the system
that they can, and on the other, you have a group completely
unmotivated to much of anything. And the lower the income, the less
Fairtax seems to affect them.
Post by Lord Gow333, Joey Styles' newest fan!
Abolish the minimum wage. It is nothing more than an artifical plateau that
Dem politicians trade for votes.
So allow greedy businessmen to pay even lower wages and collapse the
structure? If welfare parents or minimum wage earners are half-
hearted or not motivated to work in the first place and collect $x per
month in subsidies, then how is lowering the bar on the lowest earners
going to help the situation? And if they're forced to work, how do we
handle the existing situations where is costs more for a single parent
to go to work (to take care of the kids) than it does now?
Post by Lord Gow333, Joey Styles' newest fan!
Quit the hysterical bullshit.
What hysterical bullshit? Beijing shut down factories, limited
motorists, shut down urban pollution detectors just to be able to have
breathable air for athletes at the Olympics. Was that a myth or
reality?
Post by Lord Gow333, Joey Styles' newest fan!
Environmental laws based on legitimate science
are a necessary evil, and often good business (manure again does far more
good plowed into cropland than flowing down a stream*). Environmental laws
based on the insane rantings of an exVice President attention whore, or the
scare tactics of a slimy pack of trial lawyers, are nothing shy of a fast
track to a devastated economy.
So these undeveloped nations are doing legitimate science to make sure
that their actions are environmentally safe for humans? While I'm
interested in the debate, I don't care about what Gore is selling for
his own profit ... which, again, is part of the problem. But when I
listen to people I know talk about what they see firsthand, it makes
you wonder what they don't see.
Post by Lord Gow333, Joey Styles' newest fan!
* Story time: Read an article once on how a turkey farmer was talking with a
grain farmer at the local coffee shop. The turkey farmer was lamenting over
the problems that he had getting rid of the manure. The grain farmer
suggested they spread it on his land, and now gives the turkey farmer some
grain in exchange for lowering his (chemical) fertilizer bill. Just one
example of common sense and the FREE MARKET solving an environmental concern
AND boosting business. Notice - no laws, no regulations, NO POLITICIANS,
just a good idea and a handshake.
Great in theory, if the natural manure actually was less expensive
than the chemical variety. It's rare to see that happen, even in
produce today.
Post by Lord Gow333, Joey Styles' newest fan!
You mean like Franklin Raines? Last I knew, Madoff and Rigas were paying for
their crimes, and Ken Lay likely would have if the heart attack didn't get
him first. As for the GM and Chrysler execs?
Three, possibly four, guys? Yeah, that probably accounts for all of
the violations. They were just the stooges that were caught (throw
Worldcom Bernie into the mix, and the Tyco guy who spent $6,000 on a
shower curtain into the mix).
Post by Lord Gow333, Joey Styles' newest fan!
Where the hell were the
stockholders in all this? They get an annual report... how many actually
studied it? If the companies weren't doing well then why did they invest in
them?
With all of the examples of the past ... 30 years (airlines, energy,
financials, big pharm, technology, etc.) ... can you point to an
example where a stockholder coup eliminated the executive group of a
company making over $50 million in revenue a year? Or was it more
likely that the numbers and expectations were funny and shareholders
were left holding the bag, hearing lies and exaggerations through the
collapse?
Post by Lord Gow333, Joey Styles' newest fan!
If the execs made fraudulent claims and misrepresented the company's
finances then fine, prosecute them.
It's hard to fight a guy who makes $10m or more in stock options,
bonuses, etc., with employees who more likely make $15-100k.
Post by Lord Gow333, Joey Styles' newest fan!
But if they honestly did everything they
could to hold the fort as the economy fell out from under them then, yes,
they deserved that money, if only to buy ulcer medication.
It happens too often with the same excuses to be "honest" in the
majority of cases. The honesty is that they grabbed what they could
as fast as they could and hid it as fast as they could.
Post by Lord Gow333, Joey Styles' newest fan!
Stock prices should have gone down,
and GM should have been forced to go
bankrupt on that condition, or reorganize with more favorable labor deals
and better management. The fat would have been trimmed and the incompetants
would have been shown the door. That is how the free market works.
Yeah, GM (your example), from about 1962 through 2007, spent a lot of
time between $30 and $60 with a high in the 80's (Jan 2000) and a low
around $15 (1974). In 2007 until now, it fell from about $37 to
$0.52. I'm sure that stockholders would have seen that complete
collapse coming by reading the annual reports and that suing the
current executives would have been beneficial to them. Do you know
what typically happens in such a suit? The stockholders are the last
in line and receive a miniscule fraction, if anything at all and they
don't lose money to their lawyers, in prosecuting their case.

"Being shown the door," is a laughable deterrent ... you sound
ridiculous even suggesting it as a "punishment." They are "shown the
door" with multi-million dollar buyouts that the stockholders have to
pay.
Post by Lord Gow333, Joey Styles' newest fan!
Instead
we have a president hell bent on socialism, and a supportive Congress,
organizing a takeover disguised as a "bailout" (that only ended in
bankruptcy anyway) and standing in the way of the free market while
convincing the willing dupes that it was the market that failed.
The market didn't fail, it was ran by greedy crooks and reacted just
as it should. But since they will not make the crooks pay what is
owed, they have to find another way to pay the bills that persist
regardless of how they were created. The fact of the matter is that
the crooks do not really want anything to change because they don't
want to lose their profit or have the loopholes closed. It's like the
BCS system for a college football champion, those in power have not
interest in crowning a legitimate champion because they do not want to
give what they have up ... and they point fingers and offer illogical
reasons why it cannot be done.
Lord Gow333, Joey Styles' newest fan!
2009-08-05 18:06:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@yahoo.com
On Aug 3, 2:20 pm, "Lord Gow333, Joey Styles' newest fan!"
Post by Lord Gow333, Joey Styles' newest fan!
IOW, they should have been left to go bankrupt WHICH IS WHAT I SAID!
Bankrupt doesn't affect the people who drove them there. The decision-
makers need to stop being given golden parachutes.
Bankruptcy affects the decisionmakers ability to get another job. It also
encourages others to think twice before giving those golden parachutes so
readily.
Post by t***@yahoo.com
Post by Lord Gow333, Joey Styles' newest fan!
No, those people were forced by the govt (Carter, Clinton) to give loans to
unqualified borrowers in the interest of "fairness", and then were able to
sell these bad loans to Fannie/Freddy while the same govt (Raines, Todd,
Gorelick, Fwanks) insisted "Oh no, everything's just dandy!". Where is your
outrage for Raines making off with his millions while cooking the books to
make FM/FM the house of cards it became?
Politicians are followers of the lobby for the most part. Those
industries got what they wanted.
It's interesting that there is a theme argument that arises sometimes
here where, for example, the blame game happens. Is a bad loan the
fault of the government who "allowed" businesses the freedom to give
out such loans, the companies who willingly gave them and profited
(while subsequently selling the risk) or the homeowner who completely
over-extended themselves, many times believing the "consultancy" of
the bank ... "Congratulations, you can afford a $500k home on your
$13k salary"?
Some point the finger at those who took the loans and say, "if they
were dumb enough to sign it, it's their fault and they should have to
work to pay the price."
Some point the finger at the government and say, "well, they demanded
companies to allow such a thing."
But the middle-guy, the companies themselves, are apparently relieved
of fault because they were "making a profit for their company." But
what gets lost is that the middle guy was in the industry that lobbied
the government to allow such a thing, profited, and then cries when
the economy collapsed.
If the buyer is an idiot for taking on an unaffordable loan, then the
business is an idiot for lobbying for it and then selling it. The
difference? Greed. The company can take the profit, pass it along to
executives and then claim that they were the victim when the endless
increase in business ... ends.
So this entire argument hinges on the theory that business would fight for
the ability to engage in poor, questionable deals? Nope. Not buying it.
Post by t***@yahoo.com
Post by Lord Gow333, Joey Styles' newest fan!
Post by t***@yahoo.com
Post by Lord Gow333, Joey Styles' newest fan!
We the citizens spend money we earn on Chinese goods
because inflated American wages and money spent complying with overbearing
regulations have actually made it cheaper to haul all of our crap halfway
around the planet.
Nope, it's a cat and mouse game. The government ... general nature
and there is a conflict of interest when successful business people
become politicians ...
Umm... what?
Many politicians are businessmen and profit from legislation that is
enacted. It's not a coincidence that oil went through the roof when
Bush was in office, or that Haliburton was awarded ridiculously
overpriced contracts while Cheney was there, or that the makers of
Tamiflu didn't benefit while Rumsfeld was in his position.
Okay. You're a nut. We're done.

LG
--
Failure is the opportunity to begin again more intelligently. - Henry Ford
t***@yahoo.com
2009-08-06 03:06:51 UTC
Permalink
On Aug 5, 2:06 pm, "Lord Gow333, Joey Styles' newest fan!"
Post by Lord Gow333, Joey Styles' newest fan!
Post by t***@yahoo.com
Bankrupt doesn't affect the people who drove them there. The decision-
makers need to stop being given golden parachutes.
Bankruptcy affects the decisionmakers ability to get another job. It also
encourages others to think twice before giving those golden parachutes so
readily.
Really? ODL. With a $10mil parachute, they don't need to get another
job.

Regardless, there will be someone, somewhere to say, "hey, you were
CEO of xyz company, you have experience ... come work for us."
Post by Lord Gow333, Joey Styles' newest fan!
Post by t***@yahoo.com
If the buyer is an idiot for taking on an unaffordable loan, then the
business is an idiot for lobbying for it and then selling it. The
difference? Greed. The company can take the profit, pass it along to
executives and then claim that they were the victim when the endless
increase in business ... ends.
So this entire argument hinges on the theory that business would fight for
the ability to engage in poor, questionable deals? Nope. Not buying it.
Um ... *you* wrote that the companies were "forced" to give loans to
unqualified people (going back 30 years ... wouldn't those be paid off
by now???). The government, in case you haven't realized, is heavily
influenced by lobbyists who fight for such legislation.
Post by Lord Gow333, Joey Styles' newest fan!
Post by t***@yahoo.com
Many politicians are businessmen and profit from legislation that is
enacted. It's not a coincidence that oil went through the roof when
Bush was in office, or that Haliburton was awarded ridiculously
overpriced contracts while Cheney was there, or that the makers of
Tamiflu didn't benefit while Rumsfeld was in his position.
Okay. You're a nut. We're done.
Are you suggesting that businesses do not influence or do not benefit
from lobbying and I'm a "nut" to suggest and give examples?

Ok. LOL.

GregoryD
2009-08-01 17:41:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by TMS
The top 1% of income earners pay more of the overall federal income
tax (40.4%) than the bottom 95% (36.9%).
That's 141,000 paying more of the collected federal income tax than
135 million.
h/T Tax Foundation
- TMS
Now account the percentage of income that a person making $35K a year
pays in different forms of taxation (corporate taxes, gas taxes, sales
taxes, property taxes... any tax levied against a corporation will be
eaten by the person buying their product) will pay to the government and
compare that to what a rich person will pay as a portion of their income.

That doesn't even mention the fact that the rich enrich themselves by
utilizing public funding, public roads, etc, etc. Their 18 wheelers
which carry items to market chew up roads and bridges like nobody's
business, yet the common man is expected to pay up for them as well.

It mostly evens out in the end.

GregoryD
Lord Gow333, Joey Styles' newest fan!
2009-08-02 00:09:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by TMS
The top 1% of income earners pay more of the overall federal income
tax (40.4%) than the bottom 95% (36.9%).
That's 141,000 paying more of the collected federal income tax than
135 million.
h/T Tax Foundation
- TMS
Now account the percentage of income that a person making $35K a year pays
in different forms of taxation (corporate taxes, gas taxes, sales taxes,
property taxes... any tax levied against a corporation will be eaten by
the person buying their product) will pay to the government and compare
that to what a rich person will pay as a portion of their income.
That doesn't even mention the fact that the rich enrich themselves by
utilizing public funding, public roads, etc, etc. Their 18 wheelers which
carry items to market chew up roads and bridges like nobody's business,
Their 18 wheelers also pay road & fuel tax above and beyond the average
motorist.
yet the common man is expected to pay up for them as well.
It mostly evens out in the end.
So you would agree then that Dems are full of shit when talking about taxing
the "evil rich"?

Taking water out of one end of the pool, dumping it in the other...

LG
--
Visit www.fairtax.org The FairTax - Designed by economists, not
politicians and lobbyists.
GregoryD
2009-08-02 04:13:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lord Gow333, Joey Styles' newest fan!
Post by GregoryD
Post by TMS
The top 1% of income earners pay more of the overall federal income
tax (40.4%) than the bottom 95% (36.9%).
That's 141,000 paying more of the collected federal income tax than
135 million.
h/T Tax Foundation
- TMS
Now account the percentage of income that a person making $35K a year
pays in different forms of taxation (corporate taxes, gas taxes, sales
taxes, property taxes... any tax levied against a corporation will be
eaten by the person buying their product) will pay to the government
and compare that to what a rich person will pay as a portion of their
income.
That doesn't even mention the fact that the rich enrich themselves by
utilizing public funding, public roads, etc, etc. Their 18 wheelers
which carry items to market chew up roads and bridges like nobody's
business,
Their 18 wheelers also pay road & fuel tax above and beyond the average
motorist.
They don't make up for the damage they do, and I bet if there were a
study done, we'd see that they cost the nations billions each year in
extra gas usage because they don't get out of the fucking way quick
enough at intersections.
Post by Lord Gow333, Joey Styles' newest fan!
Post by GregoryD
yet the common man is expected to pay up for them as well.
It mostly evens out in the end.
So you would agree then that Dems are full of shit when talking about
taxing the "evil rich"?
Taking water out of one end of the pool, dumping it in the other...
I don't believe the rich are evil insomuch as they're assholes, the same
as the rest of us, and they have a disproportionate amount of power that
is totally unrelated to whether their ideas regarding governance are
valid. I'm all for removing as much influence from the rich as possible
without doing anything anti-democratic.

Corporations do not deserve representation in Congress nor do they
deserve private audiences with the President, and neither do the rich
simply because they are wealthy, and regardless of how they got the money.

It's simple: the rich look out for themselves. And when they aren't
doing it themselves, they're paying others to look out for them. If
you, in your own financial situation, were truly looking out for
YOURSELF the way that they do, you'd be decidedly more to the left on a
great deal of issues that concern money.

Wealth is no validation of worth. Take the best baseball player on the
planet and stick him somewhere with no money and where there IS no
baseball, how does he support himself? Bill Gates is born in the 1800s
as a black man instead of the 1900s as a white son of a
multi-millionaire with connections out the wazoo, how much influence
does he have on the world? Dubya's last name is Schwenge, and is a son
of an immigrant owner of a convenience store, you think he touches Yale
OR the White House? Hell, Obama is born to a mixed couple in Utah whose
parents are themselves poor Catholics. Does HE get anywhere near Harvard?

Of course not. Of course not. Of course not. Of course not. Of
course not.

The richest person I know is my aunt. Never worked a day in her life.
Worth well over $100M because she married a guy who went on to run
several huge companies. Second richest is an uncle. Got recruited out
of school by a company he never heard of and eventually became a VP.
Worth over $50M. Third richest guy, besides some pro athletes I know
(including a safety who got 17 million in signing bonuses for being
drafted by the Redskins before he ever played a down, while his brother
was playing out of his mind for $300K for the Ravens at the same
position), is a guy whose dad started a company selling foot pedal
valves for sinks in industrial settings.

Does my aunt deserve more influence than you? Does my uncle? Does the
kid who inherited daddy's business?

Democracy works best when people act upon their own best interests and
no one person (who was not elected to their position by the people) has
more influence over government policy than any other. And that doesn't
preclude social programs either. Providing a foundation to catch those
who fall through the cracks ultimately keeps the rest of society safer
and healthier. People who have proper nutrition and proper education
rarely grow up to become thugs. I can point to you high schools in New
Orleans which have graduation rates of about 25%, but I can also point
out a rural high school which is 90% black just 20 miles away which has
a 95% graduation rate. Which one do you think has more middle class
families?


What you SHOULD be fighting for is legislation to limit the ability of
corporations to lobby Congress. What you SHOULD be fighting for is a
framework by which we do not construct a permanent upper class in this
country who can bypass justice because of their family's or company's
influence. You SHOULD be realizing that insurance in modern America is
nothing more than gambling, and the risks of putting your money up need
to be strictly curtailed. How'd you like to be a person with a home in
Southern Mississippi whose flood insurance provider wouldn't pay because
they claimed that the reason there was water in the home was that the
roof was torn off, and the home owner's insurance provider wouldn't pay
up because they claimed the house was flooded? You thinks health
insurance is any different?

You hate Ted Kennedy. I know you do. You hate that he walked away from
that crash that killed that girl and then went talk to his lawyers and
sobered up before anyone contacted the authorities. But you are a
willing accomplice to the Ted Kennedy's of this world every time you
swallow the bullshit that guys like Hannity and Limbaugh spew, just as
much as the guys on the left are tools for mentally fellating Olbermann
and Maddow. If Teddy Kennedy weren't a Kennedy, he'd be inmate
#12190583 serving a life sentence somewhere, being a soft, Irish AIDS
ridden sex toy, not a bloated, drunken fuck getting the best government
healthcare money can buy.

If we took 50% of all earnings of the top 20% every year and used them
to improve the schools, and the roads, and made sure kids had safe
places to play, how is that hurting you? It might make the rich a
little less rich, but they'll still be wealthy enough to do whatever
their hearts' desire. If we made it so that 70% of an estate's worth
over $50 million was taxed at 100%, is that going to cripple anyone's
ability to be happy?

Wake up. Support the causes which are best for you. Do what enriches
YOUR life the most. You only have one of them.

GregoryD
Lord Gow333, Joey Styles' newest fan!
2009-08-03 00:49:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lord Gow333, Joey Styles' newest fan!
Post by GregoryD
Post by TMS
The top 1% of income earners pay more of the overall federal income
tax (40.4%) than the bottom 95% (36.9%).
That's 141,000 paying more of the collected federal income tax than
135 million.
h/T Tax Foundation
- TMS
Now account the percentage of income that a person making $35K a year
pays in different forms of taxation (corporate taxes, gas taxes, sales
taxes, property taxes... any tax levied against a corporation will be
eaten by the person buying their product) will pay to the government and
compare that to what a rich person will pay as a portion of their income.
That doesn't even mention the fact that the rich enrich themselves by
utilizing public funding, public roads, etc, etc. Their 18 wheelers
which carry items to market chew up roads and bridges like nobody's
business,
Their 18 wheelers also pay road & fuel tax above and beyond the average
motorist.
They don't make up for the damage they do, and I bet if there were a study
done, we'd see that they cost the nations billions each year in extra gas
usage because they don't get out of the fucking way quick enough at
intersections.
But until that time you're just blowing smoke out of your ass...

(lunatic raving snipped)
Wake up. Support the causes which are best for you. Do what enriches
YOUR life the most. You only have one of them.
Nope, sorry, love my country too much. You go ahead and enjoy your
selfcenteredness tho...

LG
--
"The United States is like a giant boiler. When the fire is finally lighted
under it, there is no limit to the power it can generate." - Winston
Churchill
Stu Frink
2009-08-03 01:50:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lord Gow333, Joey Styles' newest fan!
Post by GregoryD
Post by Lord Gow333, Joey Styles' newest fan!
Post by GregoryD
Post by TMS
The top 1% of income earners pay more of the overall federal income
tax (40.4%) than the bottom 95% (36.9%).
That's 141,000 paying more of the collected federal income tax than
135 million.
h/T Tax Foundation
- TMS
Now account the percentage of income that a person making $35K a year
pays in different forms of taxation (corporate taxes, gas taxes, sales
taxes, property taxes... any tax levied against a corporation will be
eaten by the person buying their product) will pay to the government
and compare that to what a rich person will pay as a portion of their
income.
That doesn't even mention the fact that the rich enrich themselves by
utilizing public funding, public roads, etc, etc. Their 18 wheelers
which carry items to market chew up roads and bridges like nobody's
business,
Their 18 wheelers also pay road & fuel tax above and beyond the average
motorist.
They don't make up for the damage they do, and I bet if there were a
study done, we'd see that they cost the nations billions each year in
extra gas usage because they don't get out of the fucking way quick
enough at intersections.
But until that time you're just blowing smoke out of your ass...
(lunatic raving snipped)
Post by GregoryD
Wake up. Support the causes which are best for you. Do what enriches
YOUR life the most. You only have one of them.
Nope, sorry, love my country too much. You go ahead and enjoy your
selfcenteredness tho...
What a mark. No wonder you are where you are. It couldn't be laid out
any better than that, and you respond with phony retardo-patriotism.
Pledging alligence to your corporate overlords and the people that make it
all possible.
Post by Lord Gow333, Joey Styles' newest fan!
LG
--
"The United States is like a giant boiler. When the fire is finally
lighted under it, there is no limit to the power it can generate." -
Winston Churchill
Lord Gow333, Joey Styles' newest fan!
2009-08-03 03:21:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stu Frink
Post by Lord Gow333, Joey Styles' newest fan!
Post by GregoryD
Post by Lord Gow333, Joey Styles' newest fan!
Post by GregoryD
Post by TMS
The top 1% of income earners pay more of the overall federal income
tax (40.4%) than the bottom 95% (36.9%).
That's 141,000 paying more of the collected federal income tax than
135 million.
h/T Tax Foundation
- TMS
Now account the percentage of income that a person making $35K a year
pays in different forms of taxation (corporate taxes, gas taxes, sales
taxes, property taxes... any tax levied against a corporation will be
eaten by the person buying their product) will pay to the government
and compare that to what a rich person will pay as a portion of their
income.
That doesn't even mention the fact that the rich enrich themselves by
utilizing public funding, public roads, etc, etc. Their 18 wheelers
which carry items to market chew up roads and bridges like nobody's
business,
Their 18 wheelers also pay road & fuel tax above and beyond the average
motorist.
They don't make up for the damage they do, and I bet if there were a
study done, we'd see that they cost the nations billions each year in
extra gas usage because they don't get out of the fucking way quick
enough at intersections.
But until that time you're just blowing smoke out of your ass...
(lunatic raving snipped)
Post by GregoryD
Wake up. Support the causes which are best for you. Do what enriches
YOUR life the most. You only have one of them.
Nope, sorry, love my country too much. You go ahead and enjoy your
selfcenteredness tho...
What a mark. No wonder you are where you are. It couldn't be laid
out any better than that, and you respond with phony retardo-patriotism.
Pledging alligence to your corporate overlords and the people that make it
all possible.
Nope. I double checked. He's spewing the same partisan tripe and class
warfare that we've heard time and time again. My favorite was "Democracy
works best when people act upon their own best interests", and yet when rich
people "act upon their own best interests" it's just horrible. "It isn't
fair!" "They didn't earn it!" Blah, blah, blah... same old horsecrap. Drag
the rich people down to our level, Heaven forbid we do a damn thing to
improve ourselves instead.
I am where I am because I just don't give enough of a shit to try harder
(and with few exceptions the "suffering" that he mentioned are in the same
boat), and how much money Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, or Donald Trump have
doesn't have a fucking thing to do with it. For that reason I don't see any
benefit in harassing them just to make myself feel "more empowered" so take
your socialist crap and shove it.
No, no I take that back. I'm also where I am because fucking liberals keep
screwing over business to help "the less fortunate".

LG
--
Visit www.fairtax.org The FairTax - Designed by economists, not
politicians and lobbyists.
Dennis J
2009-08-02 20:23:24 UTC
Permalink
hey, TMS <***@gmail.com>'s been through solid matter, for
crying out loud. Who knows what's happened to his brain? Maybe it's
scrambled his molecules...
Post by TMS
The top 1% of income earners pay more of the overall federal income
tax (40.4%) than the bottom 95% (36.9%).
That's 141,000 paying more of the collected federal income tax than
135 million.
h/T Tax Foundation
- TMS
Warren buffet said in an annual report that if (IIRC) 39 companies
paid the same taxes as Berkshire Hathaway, there'd be NO income tax...
--

"the Democrat and Republican parties are destroying our country right now,
They're destroying our political process." -- Jesse Ventura

"Education is the progressive discovery of our own Ignorance" Will Durant

"One can't have a sense of perspective without a sense of Humor" -- Wayne Thiboux

"the Glass is not only half full, it has been delicious so far!!" -- ME

To reply, SCRAPE off the end bits.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...