+- Mock (https://mockforums.net)
+-- Forum: Serious Shit? (https://mockforums.net/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: POLITICS (https://mockforums.net/forum-36.html)
+--- Thread: 2012 ELECTION (/thread-5690.html)
RE: 2012 ELECTION - Riotgear - 07-06-2012
Hotd - Fuck off out of our business.
RE: 2012 ELECTION - HairOfTheDog - 07-06-2012
(07-06-2012, 01:04 PM)IMaDick Wrote: The day government saw themselves as "the economy" is the day the lights went out.
gear we could maybe find a business that could be paid for by EBT, with more than 42 million people on EBT assistance I think a good "Carousel" would be in order, they only need to spend it once and we would generate enough profit to pay Hotd to promote more government involvement/intrusion into our business.
Dick, you're not only off today on my being obtuse, but you've inferred the exact opposite of my position on government intervention in regards to private business. I never stated any such thing as you've suggested today and plenty of times have stated a desire to have the government's hands taken out of my biz in our previous exchanges.
You're either being purposely obtuse or intentionally baiting me. I'd like to take the bait (as I usually do), but I can't, damn it. I'll look forward to reading the Dick & Gear business plan later.
RE: 2012 ELECTION - HairOfTheDog - 07-06-2012
(07-06-2012, 01:09 PM)Riotgear Wrote: Hotd - Fuck off out of our business.
Done.
RE: 2012 ELECTION - Riotgear - 07-06-2012
You're just pissed because I figured out a way to get our money back.
I'm a fucking genius.
RE: 2012 ELECTION - IMaDick - 07-06-2012
Ummmmm ya I can see where I fucked up.
Quote:"Let the private sector loose" is a general statement. Are you talking deregulation, lesser or no business tax, etc? It's the details not the general concepts that I'm anxious to hear from Romney and Obama in regards to plans for future economic improvement and job creation; including timeline and projections.
once again let me say this slowly for you, government cannot create jobs without taking money from the people, if they take more money from the people to create more jobs then they dismantle those who actually create the jobs.
Government does not have their own money.
Government creates government jobs thus creating a heavier burden on the people to sustain government that doesn't have their own money.
it's all bullshit and mirrors everytime Government says it created jobs.
RE: 2012 ELECTION - HairOfTheDog - 07-06-2012
(07-06-2012, 01:16 PM)IMaDick Wrote: Ummmmm ya I can see where I fucked up.
Quote:"Let the private sector loose" is a general statement. Are you talking deregulation, lesser or no business tax, etc? It's the details not the general concepts that I'm anxious to hear from Romney and Obama in regards to plans for future economic improvement and job creation; including timeline and projections.
once again let me say this slowly for you, government cannot create jobs without taking money from the people, if they take more money from the people to create more jobs then they dismantle those who actually create the jobs.
Government does not have their own money.
Government creates government jobs thus creating a heavier burden on the people to sustain government that doesn't have their own money.
it's all bullshit and mirrors everytime Government says it created jobs.
Let me say this really slowly for you, again. I understand the concepts.
"Letting loose" doesn't mean "doing nothing"; it means that there is some action required to change/lessen the current level of involvement.
When you advocated for "letting loose" while also claiming that the "government should do nothing" it prompted me to seek clarification because I was interesed in what you meant.
If you meant backing out rather than leaving things as they are, I was curious regarding your opinion as to what it would take to get the level of involvement from where it is now to the point that you think is optimal. That's all. You can answer my specific question or not. If you do, I'll look forward to reading it.
RE: 2012 ELECTION - HairOfTheDog - 07-06-2012
Romney made a press announcement regarding the release of the June employment report:
He contends that the numbers from the jobs report are "a kick in the gut" and that Obama has no ideas to create more jobs and that he does. Here are the ideas he suggested today:
-the Keystone pipeline;
-open markets in Latin America;
-lower marginal tax rates; fewer deductions;
-taking on China when they "cheat"
Obama later held a press conference:
He challenged GOP criticism that his policies are wrong and blamed a political stalemate in Washington for the failure by Congress to pass needed job creation measures he has endorsed, such as ending tax breaks for companies that send jobs overseas.
He said that the the job growth, while smaller than needed, continued a trend which has added 4.4 million jobs in the past 28 months following what he called "the worst economic crisis of our lifetime." He contends that this demonstrates a step in the right direction.
RE: 2012 ELECTION - Cracker - 07-09-2012
Obama is intent on raising taxes for people who make over $250K annually. That what he says now, but it will trickle down.
How can you ask for one penny more from any actual tax payer when half the people in this country don't pay anything? Many of them get back more than they put in (we call that a refund even though it is charity).
It really should piss people off more than it does. It doesn't matter if you make more than $250K, you should be pissed off anyway. It's the idea of the thing. Half of these fuckers don't pay ANYTHING, but they want people who are doing well to pay more? Why punish them for their success? So you don't have to do more yourself? That is fucked up thinking.
This shit is important. It is the reason we are a country and not part of an empire. Taxation without representation, big idea. If you pay more in taxes but don't get more of a say on how those taxes are collected or utilized, are you represented? Our Founding Fathers were landowners. They wouldn't like this shit one bit. If you didn't know, they paid a heavy price for signing that Declaration: http://alumnus.caltech.edu/~marcsulf/our_sacred_honor.html
The Obamacare health bullshit will be collected/monitored by the IRS. Time to wake the fuck up, people. Poor people are dangerous because we are forced to keep them. I don't want to be one of them.
RE: 2012 ELECTION - Maggot - 07-09-2012
Sunshine go away today
I don't feel much like dancing
Some man's gone, he's tried to run my life
Don't know what he's asking
He tells me I'd better get in line
Can't hear what he's saying
When I grow up I'm going to make it mine
But these aren't dues I been paying
How much does it cost, I'll buy it
The time is all we've lost, I'll try it
But he can't even run his own life
I'll be damned if he'll run mine, Sunshine
Sunshine go away today
I don't feel much like dancing
Some man's gone he's tried to run my life
Don't know what he's asking
Working starts to make me wonder where
The fruits of what I do are going
He says in love and war all is fair
But he's got cards he ain't showing
RE: 2012 ELECTION - Ma Huang Sor - 07-09-2012
Sunshine come on back another day
I promise you I'll be singing
This old world, she's gonna turn around
Brand new bells'll be ringing
RE: 2012 ELECTION - username - 07-09-2012
(07-09-2012, 12:17 PM)Cracker Wrote: Obama is intent on raising taxes for people who make over $250K annually. That what he says now, but it will trickle down.
How can you ask for one penny more from any actual tax payer when half the people in this country don't pay anything? Many of them get back more than they put in (we call that a refund even though it is charity).
He's gone back and forth on that. Originally, it was going to be people who earned over $250k, then it was those that earned over $1million and now he's back to those that make over $250k.
If I thought Romney would ask the half of the country that doesn't pay anything to pitch in $5, I'd vote for him in a heartbeat. I'm leaning towards voting for him anyway in part because, yes, I don't think it's right to raise my taxes when so many people who can and should contribute something, don't.
The whole "Wall Street" gimme, gimme mentality is really pissing me off.
RE: 2012 ELECTION - Maggot - 07-09-2012
Oh lord, lead us to the door that opens unto "flat taxland"
RE: 2012 ELECTION - username - 07-09-2012
(07-09-2012, 02:29 PM)Maggot Wrote: Oh lord, lead us to the door that opens unto "flat taxland"
Yeah!!
RE: 2012 ELECTION - HairOfTheDog - 07-09-2012
(07-09-2012, 02:29 PM)Maggot Wrote: Oh lord, lead us to the door that opens unto "flat taxland"
That prayer will definitely go unanswered for at least the next 4 years.
Gingrich had proposed a flat income tax option of 15% and corporate tax cut from 35% to 12.5%. He's out.
Cain's 9 / 9 / 9 flat tax for personal income and corporate income really interested me. Also his alternative to Social Security was intriguing. He's out.
So, now the choices left are:
Ron Paul wants to extend the Bush-era income tax rates til they expire in 2013 and then end income tax altogether and get rid of the IRS; lower corporate tax from 35% to 15%. He's got no chance of winning, imo. He, of course, opposes mandatory health care coverage.
Obama who wants to end the Bush-era income tax rates for those making over $250k and extend them for everyone else until they expire. He proposes to lower corp tax to 20 - 25% (with credits for those who pull outsourced business back to US, no impact to me). I think the additional Buffet tax of min 30% for those making over $1 million is now officially dead, for the time being (also didn't impact me, damn it).
Romney who wants to extend the Bush-era income tax rates for everyone until they expire; including those who make over $250k and lower corp tax to 25%.
Romney promises to repeal Obama's mandatory individual health care mandate (seen as a tax by many, but how long would that take?). For business owners, it offers cheaper employee coverage options than some have now and adds extra expense to others of us.
Economy (including employment) and taxes; two key issues for me.
I may really end up voting for Ron Paul depending on what we learn in the debates (looking for solid promises and plans).
RE: 2012 ELECTION - username - 07-15-2012
Romney and his tax returns and his status at Bain Capital vs. the demands for Obama's birth certificate and religious affiliations. Makes me laugh. Should Romney release more of his tax returns? Think he's lying about his departure of Bain in 1999? All just deflection or relevant? Your thoughts?
RE: 2012 ELECTION - Cracker - 07-16-2012
Good read:
In 2009, the Obamas gave 5.9 percent of their income to charity, about the same as they gave in 2006 and 2007. In the eight years before he became president, Obama gave an average of 3.5 percent of his income to charity, upping that to 6.5 percent in 2008.
George W. Bush gave away more than 10 percent of his income each year he was president, as he did before becoming president.
Thus, in 2005, Obama gave about the same dollar amount to charity as President George Bush did, on an income of $1.7 million — more than twice as much as President Bush’s $735,180. Again in 2006, Bush gave more to charity than Obama on an income one-third smaller than Obama’s.
In the decade before Joe Biden became vice president, the Bidens gave a total — all 10 years combined — of $3,690 to charity, or 0.2 percent of their income. They gave in a decade what most Americans in their tax bracket give in an average year, or about one row of hair plugs.
Of course, even in Biden’s stingiest years, he gave more to charity than Sen. John Kerry did in 1995, which was a big fat goose egg. Kerry did, however, spend half a million dollars on a 17th-century Dutch seascape painting that year, as Peter Schweizer reports in his 2008 book, “Makers and Takers.”
To be fair, 1995 was an off-year for Kerry’s charitable giving. The year before, he gave $2,039 to charity, and the year before that a staggering $175.
In 1998, Al Gore gave $353 to charity — about a day’s take for a lemonade stand in his neighborhood. That was 10 percent of the national average for charitable giving by people in the $100,000-$200,000 income bracket. Gore was at the very top of that bracket, with an income of $197,729.
When Sen. Ted Kennedy released his tax returns to run for president in the ’70s, they showed that Kennedy gave a bare 1 percent of his income to charity — or, as Schweizer says, “about as much as Kennedy claimed as a write-off on his 50-foot sailing sloop Curragh.”
The Democratic base gives to charity as their betters do. At the same income, a single mother on welfare is seven times less likely to give to charity than a working poor family that attends religious services.
In 2006 and 2007, John McCain, who files separately from his rich wife, gave 27.3 percent and 28.6 percent of his income to charity.
In 2005, Vice President Cheney gave 77 percent of his income to charity. He also shot a lawyer in the face, which I think should count for something.
RE: 2012 ELECTION - HairOfTheDog - 07-16-2012
(07-16-2012, 10:20 AM)Cracker Wrote: In 2005, Vice President Cheney gave 77 percent of his income to charity. He also shot a lawyer in the face, which I think should count for something.
All kinds of ways to donate to society; not only financial.j/k: Lots of admirable lawyers out there, but the bolded statement was funny...
RE: 2012 ELECTION - Riotgear - 07-16-2012
Plus he's a zombie. Remember when he didn't have a heartbeat for awhile?
RE: 2012 ELECTION - Cracker - 07-16-2012
I just think most Dems are full of shit. They are charitable with our money, not with their own. That is a character flaw that can't be overlooked.
It's like what I was saying about welfare recipients pretending they pay for any public service. They don't. They just take. Stealing from successful people to breed more losers is just bad policy. If you are really concerned with kids "not asking to be born," do something about that. If you made people ineligible for welfare if they conceive or impregnate, they would stop. Then we could keep more of our money for our own families. I don't mind paying my fair share, but it isn't the same fair share the Dems keep going on about. It should be a flat rate for everybody.
Anything else is just bullshit.
RE: 2012 ELECTION - Ma Huang Sor - 07-16-2012
I agree with everyone paying their fair share. I've paid into the system for years, maxed out my contributions 12 years ago, but that hasn't cut my tax bill at all.
I pay may way, and have since I was 14 so I agree with that sentiment.