num1mc Posted April 30, 2015 Posted April 30, 2015 Thank you for getting this thread back on track in a adult like fashion. Quote
AlpineK Posted April 30, 2015 Posted April 30, 2015 I'd vote for Bernie https://berniesanders.com/ [img:center]http://www.addictinginfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/bernie-sanders-solar-robin-hood1.jpg[/img] Quote
num1mc Posted April 30, 2015 Posted April 30, 2015 Ah great, an avowed socialist running for president Quote
genepires Posted April 30, 2015 Posted April 30, 2015 because these are so Socialist: fixing infrastructure ending gender pay disrimination trade policy that does not ship jobs oversees dealing with climate change tax reform (corporations keeping funds oversees, tax rate for investments, ect) dealing with monopolies raising the minimum wage The vast majority of americans believe these are good things for the country. So if this is a socialist agenda, then we live in a socialist society. Quote
Fairweather Posted April 30, 2015 Author Posted April 30, 2015 No doubt, the free lunch has appeal among a peculiar block of voters. :[] Quote
Fairweather Posted April 30, 2015 Author Posted April 30, 2015 Gotta give Bernie props for honesty though. Unlike lying Democrats, Bernie presents his true beliefs. A very likeable guy. Quote
Jim Posted April 30, 2015 Posted April 30, 2015 No doubt, the free lunch has appeal among a peculiar block of voters. :[] I look at it a bit differently. Say for infrastructure - there have been numerous studies showing that our poor and ailing infrastructure is costing us in time, money, jobs, and competitiveness in world markets. That we don't allocate funds here but rather say, to a bloating military and intelligence complex, is an active decision. So it's not that folks are looking for a "free lunch" but rather that the lunch be shared a bit. Quote
glassgowkiss Posted April 30, 2015 Posted April 30, 2015 No doubt, the free lunch has appeal among a peculiar block of voters. :[] You are 100% right- They call them corporation CEO's. We have an excellent corporate welfare system. There is no single bigger freeloader in the country then Koch brothers. Quote
Fairweather Posted April 30, 2015 Author Posted April 30, 2015 No doubt, the free lunch has appeal among a peculiar block of voters. :[] I look at it a bit differently. Say for infrastructure - there have been numerous studies showing that our poor and ailing infrastructure is costing us in time, money, jobs, and competitiveness in world markets. That we don't allocate funds here but rather say, to a bloating military and intelligence complex, is an active decision. So it's not that folks are looking for a "free lunch" but rather that the lunch be shared a bit. The bottom 40-something percent pay no effective federal tax. How much more "fair" should it be? Transportation taxes? We should start with bicycles. Quote
Fairweather Posted April 30, 2015 Author Posted April 30, 2015 No doubt, the free lunch has appeal among a peculiar block of voters. :[] You are 100% right- They call them corporation CEO's. We have an excellent corporate welfare system. There is no single bigger freeloader in the country then Koch brothers. Behold the libtard intellect. Mission accomplished, public education! Quote
glassgowkiss Posted April 30, 2015 Posted April 30, 2015 No doubt, the free lunch has appeal among a peculiar block of voters. :[] Yes, SNAP (in 2012) was $86.5 billion Outstanding amount owed to TARP by AIG, GM and Ally Financial (formerly GMAC)= 61 billion. Quote
glassgowkiss Posted April 30, 2015 Posted April 30, 2015 No doubt, the free lunch has appeal among a peculiar block of voters. :[] You are 100% right- They call them corporation CEO's. We have an excellent corporate welfare system. There is no single bigger freeloader in the country then Koch brothers. Behold the libtard intellect. Mission accomplished, public education! TARP bonus payouts for AIG- $218 million. Mission accomplished, capitalism at it's best. Quote
glassgowkiss Posted April 30, 2015 Posted April 30, 2015 No doubt, the free lunch has appeal among a peculiar block of voters. :[] I look at it a bit differently. Say for infrastructure - there have been numerous studies showing that our poor and ailing infrastructure is costing us in time, money, jobs, and competitiveness in world markets. That we don't allocate funds here but rather say, to a bloating military and intelligence complex, is an active decision. So it's not that folks are looking for a "free lunch" but rather that the lunch be shared a bit. The bottom 40-something percent pay no effective federal tax. How much more "fair" should it be? Transportation taxes? We should start with bicycles. Please share the source of your statistical "facts". Quote
billcoe Posted April 30, 2015 Posted April 30, 2015 Outstanding amount owed to TARP by AIG, GM and Ally Financial (formerly GMAC)= 61 billion. Uhhh, where did you get your stats Bob? He's an article from 2012 titled : "AIG Bailout Leads to $17.7 Billion Government Profit After TARP" http://abcnews.go.com/Business/government-makes-177-billion-profit-aig-bailout/story?id=17074275 Memory says that the headline said GM had paid it back. I'm too lazy to look it up cause I don't give a rats ass either. ...and there is that bad memory thing I gots. Carry on. Quote
billcoe Posted April 30, 2015 Posted April 30, 2015 Ok, I looked it up. http://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/financial-stability/reports/Pages/TARP-Tracker.aspx Bottom line today: Percent Recovered: 99.2%. Not that I agreed with it, but there it is. Maybe I'm not as lazy as I think. Quote
glassgowkiss Posted April 30, 2015 Posted April 30, 2015 Here is an independent breakdown. http://projects.propublica.org/bailout/main/summary Now, yes (mostly banks) repaid the loans and Feds made 50-something billion in interest, however GM, Crysler, Ally Finacial and toxic assets purchases are mostly loses. Bottom line, TARP should have never happen in a first place. Quote
Fairweather Posted May 1, 2015 Author Posted May 1, 2015 Please share the source of your statistical "facts". http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125997180 "It turns out that nearly half of all Americans don't have to pay any federal income tax. In 2009, 47 percent of all filers paid nothing. It's a number that's gone up significantly in just a couple of years." "The top fifth starts a little bit above $100,000. That group makes about 56 percent of all income and pay about 70 percent of all taxes. " Again, Jim, I'll ask you just how "fair" it ought to be? Quote
glassgowkiss Posted May 1, 2015 Posted May 1, 2015 It also says:"If you consider both the share paid by the employee and by the employer, which most economists think is borne by the employee, about 75 to 80 percent of us pay more payroll tax than income tax. Only 13 percent don't pay either one of the taxes a far cry from the 47 percent who get out of the income tax." Well, somehow you neglected to mention this. But objectivity was never your strong side. Quote
glassgowkiss Posted May 1, 2015 Posted May 1, 2015 Please share the source of your statistical "facts". http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125997180 "It turns out that nearly half of all Americans don't have to pay any federal income tax. In 2009, 47 percent of all filers paid nothing. It's a number that's gone up significantly in just a couple of years." "The top fifth starts a little bit above $100,000. That group makes about 56 percent of all income and pay about 70 percent of all taxes. " Again, Jim, I'll ask you just how "fair" it ought to be? And lets look at this from a different perspective. After 8 years of Republican Presidency and it's economic policies, 47% (so nearly half) of working people don't even make enough money to pay income tax! Like with Iraq- mission accomplished. Quote
glassgowkiss Posted May 1, 2015 Posted May 1, 2015 Please share the source of your statistical "facts". http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125997180 "It turns out that nearly half of all Americans don't have to pay any federal income tax. In 2009, 47 percent of all filers paid nothing. It's a number that's gone up significantly in just a couple of years." "The top fifth starts a little bit above $100,000. That group makes about 56 percent of all income and pay about 70 percent of all taxes. " Again, Jim, I'll ask you just how "fair" it ought to be? It also occurred to me how moronically stupid and illogical your argument is. The criteria of not paying any income tax is simple- the person doesn't make enough money to be taxed on. Well, lets's look at the bottom 10 states judged by the income: Mississippi, West Virginia, Arkansas, Kentucky, Alabama, Tennessee, Louisiana, New Mexico, South Carolina, Oklahoma, and finally at #40 is Idaho. Seems like except for New Mexico all are heavily Republican states. So actually free loading is more associated with Republican base, rather then with generally more affluent liberal states. Quote
ivan Posted May 1, 2015 Posted May 1, 2015 Behold the libtard intellect. Mission accomplished, public education! sage or not so much, i thought old bob was a product of somebody else's edu-mucation system? carry on... ...but wait: wasn't fdr a socialist? and if he's on the currency, can he really be such a cock-sucker? Quote
genepires Posted May 1, 2015 Posted May 1, 2015 [quote=FairweatherThe bottom 40-something percent pay no effective federal tax. How much more "fair" should it be? Transportation taxes? We should start with bicycles. a $15/hr minimum wage would fix that tax problem real quick. (waiting for the baseless arguements of how the jobs will leave when the min wage is raised) as someone who commutes in my car daily, I don't want to discourage bicyclists from riding for their commute. Taxing them is stupid. Quote
genepires Posted May 1, 2015 Posted May 1, 2015 (edited) [quote=Fairweather http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125997180 "It turns out that nearly half of all Americans don't have to pay any federal income tax. In 2009, 47 percent of all filers paid nothing. It's a number that's gone up significantly in just a couple of years." Once again the devil is in the details. Those numbers are based on a 2009 tax returns. Lots of unempoyment then. Lots of tax incentives that may not be around today. It may not be relevant currently but those things are casually left out when trying to make a arguement " In 2008, President Bush's stimulus payments sent $600 to individuals, $1,200 to couples, plus a little bit more if you had kids, and that all showed up as a tax reduction when you filed your income taxes. This year we have the 2009 stimulus, which includes making work pay. Almost every American who works got benefit from that and a few other things that bring down tax bills. " Now to see if those programs are still around....... Edited May 1, 2015 by genepires Quote
Fairweather Posted May 1, 2015 Author Posted May 1, 2015 Behold the libtard intellect. Mission accomplished, public education! sage or not so much, i thought old bob was a product of somebody else's edu-mucation system? carry on... ...but wait: wasn't fdr a socialist? and if he's on the currency, can he really be such a cock-sucker? FDR is on currency? Well, I guess the dime is, somehow, appropriate. As for bob, yes, blaming him on public ed was probably a low blow. To public ed, I mean. And of course I am sympathetic to the difficulties that come with being raised in a place where fathers speak both German and Russian. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.