DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano MUST BE FIRED!

[Oldshooter]

I got hit with AMT two years in a row!

Can you clarify that for me?

[nomosendero]

I happen to believe in progressive taxation as did the founders long before Marx's capitalism theory was developed, and I got hit with AMT two years in a row!

Question is this:

If the top earner 1% of the population makes 45% of the income in this country, should they be responsible for paying 45% of the nation's tax liability?

...TM7

No, because they are employers & bigger buyer/sellers of consumer goods also. "progressive" is for "progressives".

[curtism1234]

Cooped up all winter and I find myself inside with 80 degree weather 


Ok, so the US government is currently oppressive, we've already established that on like page 1

I thought most of you guys were strict Constitutionalists

The 1st Article of the Constitution says
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

So let's break this down:
The Congress has the right to make and collect taxes to cover expenses (what the voters feel nessisary for the good of the country --- also as discussed in the Constitution) and those taxes do not have to equal be to eachother.

So to the say "the government has no right to MY money" is right --- the government doesn't have the right to your money. However, they aren't taking your money for their personal funds like a King would. 
They absolutely do have the right to tax you to cover the spending they do (as respresentatives of the people who voted them in)...and it does have the right to be bracketed or else it would of said "taxes shall be uniform".

In the near 100 years we've had a bracketed income tax, the current rates are on average and probably a little lower than average. Even if you take my proposed 50% top bracket, it's not above average.
The other taxes we pay have been long established too.

To say the US government is oppressive in it's tax system is 100% incorrect

U.S. Federal Marginal Income Tax Rates (ranging from bottom to top tier)

1913-1915 1% 7%
1916         2% 15%
1917         2% 67%
1918         6% 73% 
1919-1920 4% 73%
1921         4% 73%
1922         4% 56%
1923          3% 56%
1924          1.5% 46% 
1925 1928  1.5% 25%
1929          0.375% 24%
1930-1931  1.125% 25%
1932-1933  4% 63%
1934-1935  4% 63%
1936-1939  4% 79%
1940          4.4% 81.1%
1941          10% 81%
1942-1943  19% 88%
1944-1945  23% 94%
1946-1947  19% 86.45%
1948-1949  16.6% 82.13%
1950          17.4% 84.36%
1951          20.4% 91%
1952-1953  22.2% 92%
1954-1963  20% 91%
1964          16% 77%
1965-1967  14% 70%
1968          14% 75.25%
1969          14% 77%
1970          14% 71.75%
1971-1981  14% 70%
1982-1986  12% 50%
1987          11% 33%
1988-1990  15% 28%
1991-1992  15% 31%
1993-2000  15% 39.6%
2001          15% 39.1%
2002          10% 38.6%
2003-2009  10% 35%



As for having 1 tax rate
If you want to further tear apart the middle class and make the poor poorer, by all means do it !
A dollar means a lot more to someone making $25,000 than it does to someone making $100,000 than it does to someone making $1,000,000.

[curtism1234]

How'd a homeland security thread turn into tax thread? 

 

[nomosendero]

Cooped up all winter and I find myself inside with 80 degree weather 


Ok, so the US government is currently oppressive, we've already established that on like page 1

I thought most of you guys were strict Constitutionalists

The 1st Article of the Constitution says
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

So let's break this down:
The Congress has the right to make and collect taxes to cover expenses (what the voters feel nessisary for the good of the country --- also as discussed in the Constitution) and those taxes do not have to equal be to eachother.

So to the say "the government has no right to MY money" is right --- the government doesn't have the right to your money. However, they aren't taking your money for their personal funds like a King would. 
They absolutely do have the right to tax you to cover the spending they do (as respresentatives of the people who voted them in)...and it does have the right to be bracketed or else it would of said "taxes shall be uniform".

In the near 100 years we've had a bracketed income tax, the current rates are on average and probably a little lower than average. Even if you take my proposed 50% top bracket, it's not above average.
The other taxes we pay have been long established too.

To say the US government is oppressive in it's tax system is 100% incorrect

U.S. Federal Marginal Income Tax Rates (ranging from bottom to top tier)

1913-1915 1% 7%
1916         2% 15%
1917         2% 67%
1918         6% 73% 
1919-1920 4% 73%
1921         4% 73%
1922         4% 56%
1923          3% 56%
1924          1.5% 46% 
1925 1928  1.5% 25%
1929          0.375% 24%
1930-1931  1.125% 25%
1932-1933  4% 63%
1934-1935  4% 63%
1936-1939  4% 79%
1940          4.4% 81.1%
1941          10% 81%
1942-1943  19% 88%
1944-1945  23% 94%
1946-1947  19% 86.45%
1948-1949  16.6% 82.13%
1950          17.4% 84.36%
1951          20.4% 91%
1952-1953  22.2% 92%
1954-1963  20% 91%
1964          16% 77%
1965-1967  14% 70%
1968          14% 75.25%
1969          14% 77%
1970          14% 71.75%
1971-1981  14% 70%
1982-1986  12% 50%
1987          11% 33%
1988-1990  15% 28%
1991-1992  15% 31%
1993-2000  15% 39.6%
2001          15% 39.1%
2002          10% 38.6%
2003-2009  10% 35%



As for having 1 tax rate
If you want to further tear apart the middle class and make the poor poorer, by all means do it !
A dollar means a lot more to someone making $25,000 than it does to someone making $100,000 than it does to someone making $1,000,000.

Yes & 10% of a million is 100,000       
And I like a consumption tax better because rich buy more & everyone else has options, used, etc.

"I thought most of you guys were strict Constitutionalists  " Give me a break!!! Do you think the founders would approve of the rates or methods involved in our system now, what a joke. Like I said your view is you know what's best for us, just as you showed the "progressive" rates that were fine with you. Plain ole Socialism, at best the Yankee mentality of people oweing you something. If you want to move to England we can set up a fund for you, GBO is a big site, I would contribute a little myself, long term it would be a bargain. If we get enough of you moved, our taxes will drop. 

[nomosendero]

How'd a homeland security thread turn into tax thread? 

 

If you and the other progressives quit talking about it, so will the rest of us & it can be a homeland Security, vertically challanged Napolitano thread again, easy.

[nomosendero]

NS

No, because they are employers & bigger buyer/sellers of consumer goods also. "progressive" is for "progressives".

You must be the only guy left on the planet, aside from a few others here, that still believes the 'trickle down' theory actually works when it has been proven to be the 'gush up' and consolidation of wealth theory. Just look at the last 20 years...extreme wealth consolidation, 6 million jobs expeorted, consumer goods primarily manufactured out of this country, major industries failing in this country, con artist running the meltdown economy, 680, 000 jobs lost per month, phony foreign wars and secret DHS departments, and national theft endemic. Yet you still profess and will defend this feudal economic theory.

This country had a revolution to ostensiblely throw off economic plunder, inequality, and royal instituted serfdom.  If you are happy being a serf...well then, that is just fine. If you are one of the 'royals' beware. History has shown that the serfs rise up when their tithe to the throne or lord is to durn much.

You need to do the research on what the Founders thought about taxation and just how progressive they were. Think about my question again....what is fair is fair. Extreme accumulations of wealth only creates a supreme influence class owning government and a serf class.

~~~~~~~~~

As for Napalitano and the secret DHS and police.....all of you guys should be thanking her and leader Obama for leaking this report out. Now you know what they are thinking for the last 8 years, and maybe get a handle on what is coming next. Then again perhaps you perfer the governmnet operating in complete secrecy mode.... . Out of site out of mind...

....TM7

No, let's tax the rich to death so that everyone is poor, whatever oh Hammer & sickle one.

As for Napolitano & secret DHS & police: Of course we have been working that direction for a long time, well before Bush regardless of the agencies involved, everyone should know that. But it is obvious to everyone except complete morons I guess that the situation is escalating rapidly now with these new folks, which is the actual reason that is
more open now, it is not because they just want us to know more. I'll let you thank them, not my department to thank those who are determined to do in the USA even faster than the previous path. It fits you just fine.

[Cabin4]

NS

No, because they are employers & bigger buyer/sellers of consumer goods also. "progressive" is for "progressives".

As for Napalitano and the secret DHS and police.....all of you guys should be thanking her and leader Obama for leaking this report out. Now you know what they are thinking for the last 8 years, and maybe get a handle on what is coming next. Then again perhaps you perfer the governmnet operating in complete secrecy mode.... . Out of site out of mind...

....TM7

TM7,

Of course the government should assess threats both internal and external. I expect this administration to do perform this just like the last. That is the job of HS. We can dispute the real value of the department as well, but for the purpose of this discussion concerning Napolitano, it’s a mute point. My issue with this report is not that there was a report. It’s the reason why the report was released. This report was released as part of a coordinated political effort between HS and the White House. The release of this report was not to enlighten the public on the work within HS. It was designed as part of the coordinated political message to bash the "right wing". This administration has been going after private citizens that oppose them, talk show hosts, New Agencies and any organization it sees or wants to define as right wing. They want to try and change the public perception that "right wing" (Rush, Hannity, O'Riely, Fox News, Lou Dobbs, NRA, Joe the Plumber, Tea Parties, etc, etc,) are all part of this so called "Right Wing" domestic threat.

That is my issue and the real true intent of this report. It’s just another one of many coordinated moves by this administration to demonize their political opponents. Hitler had the Jews, Pol Pot has his targeted opponents and  Hussein had the Kurds. Typical work of alleged leaders like these and Obama. When faced with the challenge to remain in power, demonize your opponents and go after them with the full force of all your faculties. This White House will stop at nothing to demonize its opponents even if it means using departments like HS as pure political machines.

This is what’s wrong with this report from HS.

[nomosendero]

NS....my dear sir.....somebody that gets 100 million/year and pays 45 million in taxes is not poor!! If you go to a ball game do you pay more for 3rd base box seats or the same for right out nose bleed seats..?

The rich have never been taxed to death...instead they have always risen to become more efficient and creative and earn evermore incomes, and not just passing it on to the serfs.  Your model is outdated and incorrect. However, if you are happy with a feudal system and serfdom than have at it. If you are in the top 1% of income earners in this country than I can see why you are trying to hoodwink us.

The question I posited is just good ole egalitarian common sense. Frankly, I gather that from your model the rich should be getting TARP and other subsidies immediately because they are the only chosen ones that can stimulate the economy, perhaps checks for 10 million should immediately be sent to the top 10% income group since they are the only ones that can stimulate the economy... which is in essence what Bush did AND Obama is doing;;; and it is not only a form of theft, it is ridiculous.

...TM7
.

No, I am not in the 1% bracket by a long shot. MY model, you have no clue. Your assumptions about tarp & so forth are a complete opposite of my view actually. I do know some wealthy folks who have never received any of this Gov. help. Shame on them I guess for doing well, TM wants a piece of it.

[nomosendero]

NS

No, because they are employers & bigger buyer/sellers of consumer goods also. "progressive" is for "progressives".

As for Napalitano and the secret DHS and police.....all of you guys should be thanking her and leader Obama for leaking this report out. Now you know what they are thinking for the last 8 years, and maybe get a handle on what is coming next. Then again perhaps you perfer the governmnet operating in complete secrecy mode.... . Out of site out of mind...

....TM7

TM7,

Of course the government should assess threats both internal and external. I expect this administration to do perform this just like the last. That is the job of HS. We can dispute the real value of the department as well, but for the purpose of this discussion concerning Napolitano, it’s a mute point. My issue with this report is not that there was a report. It’s the reason why the report was released. This report was released as part of a coordinated political effort between HS and the White House. The release of this report was not to enlighten the public on the work within HS. It was designed as part of the coordinated political message to bash the "right wing". This administration has been going after private citizens that oppose them, talk show hosts, New Agencies and any organization it sees or wants to define as right wing. They want to try and change the public perception that "right wing" (Rush, Hannity, O'Riely, Fox News, Lou Dobbs, NRA, Joe the Plumber, Tea Parties, etc, etc,) are all part of this so called "Right Wing" domestic threat.

That is my issue and the real true intent of this report. It’s just another one of many coordinated moves by this administration to demonize their political opponents. Hitler had the Jews, Pol Pot has his targeted opponents and  Hussein had the Kurds. Typical work of alleged leaders like these and Obama. When faced with the challenge to remain in power, demonize your opponents and go after them with the full force of all your faculties. This White House will stop at nothing to demonize its opponents even if it means using departments like HS as pure political machines.

This is what’s wrong with this report from HS.

"This is what's wrong with this report from HS."   Yes indeed!!

[Oldshooter]

This is from an article in 2004 it does not appear that the rich got such a big tax break as some would have you believe, Hmmmmmmmm!

The Bush tax cuts (which Congress just voted to extend) are an affront to the most fundamental principles of fairness. They are skewed in favor of those who already pay less than their rightful share of taxes and shift the burden even farther onto the shoulders of the most overtaxed. In other words, the Bush tax cuts are unfair to the rich.
 If you and your spouse have a taxable income of $60,000 a year, you've had almost a 24 percent income tax cut since President Bush took office. (And ditto if your income was just $20,000.) Meanwhile, the folks who make $350,000 a year got a cut of only about 12.5 percent; those who make $1 million a year got an even smaller cut.

Pre-Bush, the $1 million a year couple paid 33 times as much as the $60,000 couple; today they pay more than 38 times as much.

Overall, the biggest percentage cuts went to the poorest of the poor (those with incomes in the $10,000 range) and the next biggest to those making about $60,000. After that, with some minor dips up and down, the relative size of your tax cut falls off as your income rises.

That's if you pay taxes only on ordinary income. But what about capital gains, dividends, and inheritance—the cuts that supposedly skew the gains in favor of the rich? Well, let's throw all those changes in, and while we're at it let's include changes in the child-care tax credit, the earned income tax credit, the alternative minimum tax, and payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare.

Here's what we get. The biggest percentage tax cut—about 17.6 percent—went to taxpayers in the second-lowest quintile, that is to taxpayers with below-average incomes. After that, the size of the tax cut falls off as you move from the lower middle to the middle middle (12.6 percent) to the upper middle class (9.9 percent). It rises again slightly for the top quintile, but only to a little over 11 percent.

Moreover, if you break that top quintile down into finer pieces, you discover that the super-rich weren't treated much better than the near-super-rich—and certainly no better than the middle class. If you were in the top 20 percent of taxpayers, your tax cut was about 11 percent. If you were in the top 1 percent, your tax cut was still about 11 percent. And if you were in the top one-tenth of 1 percent? Then you got about a 12.7 percent cut—almost exactly the same as the median taxpayer.

Well, you might say, at least everyone got a tax cut. But that's true only under a ridiculously literal interpretation of the term "tax cut." In fact, federal spending has increased dramatically under President Bush (with only a small fraction of that spending attributable to the war). Sooner or later, somebody's going to have to pay for all that spending, which means that just as the president's been cutting the taxes of today, he's been raising the taxes of tomorrow.

And who's going to pay those taxes? The "cuts" of the past few years have established a precedent that in the future the rich will bear a larger share of the burden than they bore in the past. Thanks to the president, the tax code is more progressive now than it's been in recent memory, and that's a hard sort of change to undo. We got where we are by cutting taxes mostly for the poor and the middle class; to reverse that, you'd have to raise taxes mostly on the poor and the middle class—and think of the outcry that would cause.

So in the not too distant future, most of us will be paying higher taxes, but the rich will be paying a larger share of those taxes than anyone would have expected before the Republicans came to town. How should we feel about that?

My own opinion is that the rich already pay too much—it seems patently unfair to ask anyone to pay over 30 times as much as his neighbors (unless he receives 30 times as much in government services, which strikes me as implausible). If you share my sense of fairness, you'll join me in condemning the president's tax policy.

But if, on the other hand, you believe that the tax system should soak the rich even more than it already does—or, to put it more genteelly, that the tax system should be more progressive than it already is—if, in other words, you are a mainstream Democrat—then George W. Bush is your guy.

By Steven E. Landsburg

Edited to add that if someone can find numbers to the contrary I would be glad to see them. This is the best my feeble fingers and mind can do with such short notice. 

[nomosendero]

This is from an article in 2004 it does not appear that the rich got such a big tax break as some would have you believe, Hmmmmmmmm!

The Bush tax cuts (which Congress just voted to extend) are an affront to the most fundamental principles of fairness. They are skewed in favor of those who already pay less than their rightful share of taxes and shift the burden even farther onto the shoulders of the most overtaxed. In other words, the Bush tax cuts are unfair to the rich.
 If you and your spouse have a taxable income of $60,000 a year, you've had almost a 24 percent income tax cut since President Bush took office. (And ditto if your income was just $20,000.) Meanwhile, the folks who make $350,000 a year got a cut of only about 12.5 percent; those who make $1 million a year got an even smaller cut.

Pre-Bush, the $1 million a year couple paid 33 times as much as the $60,000 couple; today they pay more than 38 times as much.

Overall, the biggest percentage cuts went to the poorest of the poor (those with incomes in the $10,000 range) and the next biggest to those making about $60,000. After that, with some minor dips up and down, the relative size of your tax cut falls off as your income rises.

That's if you pay taxes only on ordinary income. But what about capital gains, dividends, and inheritance—the cuts that supposedly skew the gains in favor of the rich? Well, let's throw all those changes in, and while we're at it let's include changes in the child-care tax credit, the earned income tax credit, the alternative minimum tax, and payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare.

Here's what we get. The biggest percentage tax cut—about 17.6 percent—went to taxpayers in the second-lowest quintile, that is to taxpayers with below-average incomes. After that, the size of the tax cut falls off as you move from the lower middle to the middle middle (12.6 percent) to the upper middle class (9.9 percent). It rises again slightly for the top quintile, but only to a little over 11 percent.

Moreover, if you break that top quintile down into finer pieces, you discover that the super-rich weren't treated much better than the near-super-rich—and certainly no better than the middle class. If you were in the top 20 percent of taxpayers, your tax cut was about 11 percent. If you were in the top 1 percent, your tax cut was still about 11 percent. And if you were in the top one-tenth of 1 percent? Then you got about a 12.7 percent cut—almost exactly the same as the median taxpayer.

Well, you might say, at least everyone got a tax cut. But that's true only under a ridiculously literal interpretation of the term "tax cut." In fact, federal spending has increased dramatically under President Bush (with only a small fraction of that spending attributable to the war). Sooner or later, somebody's going to have to pay for all that spending, which means that just as the president's been cutting the taxes of today, he's been raising the taxes of tomorrow.

And who's going to pay those taxes? The "cuts" of the past few years have established a precedent that in the future the rich will bear a larger share of the burden than they bore in the past. Thanks to the president, the tax code is more progressive now than it's been in recent memory, and that's a hard sort of change to undo. We got where we are by cutting taxes mostly for the poor and the middle class; to reverse that, you'd have to raise taxes mostly on the poor and the middle class—and think of the outcry that would cause.

So in the not too distant future, most of us will be paying higher taxes, but the rich will be paying a larger share of those taxes than anyone would have expected before the Republicans came to town. How should we feel about that?

My own opinion is that the rich already pay too much—it seems patently unfair to ask anyone to pay over 30 times as much as his neighbors (unless he receives 30 times as much in government services, which strikes me as implausible). If you share my sense of fairness, you'll join me in condemning the president's tax policy.

But if, on the other hand, you believe that the tax system should soak the rich even more than it already does—or, to put it more genteelly, that the tax system should be more progressive than it already is—if, in other words, you are a mainstream Democrat—then George W. Bush is your guy.

By Steven E. Landsburg

Edited to add that if someone can find numbers to the contrary I would be glad to see them. This is the best my feeble fingers and mind can do with such short notice. 

"My own opinion is the rich pay already too much" Like TM said pretty good article.

The last IRS figures I have access to is as follows: 1.TOP 50% PAY 96.54% of ALL INCOME TAXES"
                                                                     2.THE TOP 1% PAY MORE THAN 1/3
                                                                     3.LESS THAN 3 1/2 DOLLARS OF EVERY 100.00   
                 PAID IN INCOME TAXES IS PAID BY the bottom 50%
These are not the latest 2007 numbers, probably not available yet, if anyone can update, go ahead.

[nomosendero]

NS...sounds about right....since the top 10% earn what share of the income and earnings in this country you say?
The IRS tables are peculiar. The top 10% of earners starts around 350,000$ and goes to 8 million$. Then try to find data on that sector earning over 8 million$ and their share.

Meanwhile, is it true that the top 50% of earners paying 96% of the tax liability earn 96% of the income..?

...TM7

Concerning the top 50%, no Sir it is not true that the top 50% of earners who are paying 96.54% of the taxes are also earning 96% of the income. They are making 86.19% of the income per the latest figures. Also, with BO they will
pay even more due to the fact that BO wants to send "refund" checks to those of the lower 50% (not some of the good working ones) who don't even pay taxes. Plus those who are at the very top will move more business overseas to avoid the additional tax liability at an even faster rate than they do now. This will cause Congress to raise taxes for those of the top 50 who are not in the top 5% even more to equal out with the payments to the others.

Quick Socialism in the making.
 

[Oldshooter]

I suggest people think De-globalism these days.

Atta boy 7, I can go along with that!

[curtism1234]

Me too


We should end the thread on a good note 

[RaySendero]

DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano MUST BE FIRED!

     .....

     We're talking about millions of people who believe that our government is too large and taxes us too much, like those who participated in the TEA Parties on tax day. We are talking about everyday Americans who believe that the 2nd Amendment actually gives people the right to bear arms; people who are pro-life; the millions of people who believe that our nation's immigration laws should be strictly enforced.

     And the problem is not simply that this so-called security assessment targets patriotic Americans - and they are talking about YOU - as "right wing extremists," or, as Peter Kirsanow with the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights put it:

"That DHS report warning about all manner of 'right-wing extremists' could be considerably shortened if it simply alerted law-enforcement officials to be on the lookout for people from 'small towns (who are) bitter (and) cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment.'"

    .....
 


Yours In Freedom,

Jeffrey Mazzella

TM7,

The comments above did not come from the "BUSH" adminstration!

Get over Bush - He ain't there no more!

[jimster]

I think anyone that keeps trying to tell us that government has the right to tax us, and not paying attention to what they are spending it on, had their head stuck way down in the sand, or up some parties hind end.  

Spending millions, and billions, on pet projects, global warming, pig oder, and sending millions and billion to other countries...is NOT what our constitution says, or implies....

I thought most of you guys were strict Constitutionalists

The 1st Article of the Constitution says
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

The above is the smoke screen most often used by people who have an agenda....and who generally do not read what is in the legislation packages that gets passed....if they did read what Congress has legislated over the past few decades, they probably would not be supporting any party, and the only agenda they would have is to stop the lying going on.  To be a member of, or support either the republican party or the democrat party at this stage of the game shows ignorance in my view,  both those parties compliment each other nicely...their agenda is to divide people, thus keeping a place in power and and use our money, and funnel our money into questionable places, because there is so much of our money going to them.  It does no good to pay taxes if where it goes is corrupt...it does no good to print money period if there is already plenty of it...and there is...it's being stripped out of every working person's checks no matter if your rich or not.  It does no good to point at wealthy people and say they need to pay even more,  that's called class envy, and your new president has used this to divide people...even though he talks in a low drone voice calling for us to come together, he is a divider, and it's a good plan to stay in power, and gain power.

If ya all don't get on board and come together pretty soon, and break away from the party stuff, and always point at the other party trying to make them look worse, your in for a pretty rough ride, and a lot more of the same and worse.

Your Congress is totally corrupt,  your president is a politician with no experience at anything,  and it's all our fault so far.  Because we can't stand together on the simple things in life.....like they spend too much money on crap, and it's impossible to spend your way out of debt.  

We have to come together no matter what it takes,  and pretty fast, or it won't matter if your a Dem or a Rep, or nothing....you'll all be subjects, and we'll still be blaming the "other party" for our situation.


And the thread is about Re: DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano MUST BE FIRED!

Well, the reason she is there, and lot's of idiots like her, is because we can't come together on much of anything....this is what happens when we have petty differences and become involved in the two system party I guess.  There is no one to fire her by the way....your stuck with her.

[curtism1234]

I'm just going to go right out and say that it's hard to come together when the person who suggested coming together is calling left wingers (me) oblivious, congress corrupt, the president not experienced at anything, and the head of the DHS an idiot.

Sounds like a pretty typical right wing party line spat instead.
"As long as you think just like me, we'll get along great"

That's not really a good first move towards cooperation

[Cabin4]

I'm just going to go right out and say that it's hard to come together when the person who suggested coming together is calling left wingers (me) oblivious, congress corrupt, the president not experienced at anything, and the head of the DHS an idiot.

Sounds like a pretty typical right wing party line spat instead.
"As long as you think just like me, we'll get along great"

That's not really a good first move towards cooperation

The truth can be brutal. Perhaps if this president & his appointees were not attacking private citizens that disagree with them, it might be a differant situtation. Come on, when was the last time a president attacked a plumber and talk show hosts as a normal course of WHite House business?? When was the last time a Cabinet Secretary released a report that Identified an opposing political ideology and supporters of one of the last presidentail primary election candidates as a group of potential domestic terrorists?? When was the last time a president proposed an economic stimulus bill that was nothing more then a way to pay back political favors to his supporters with tax payers money?? It not often that we have a president that just opens up the kitty of tax payers dollars and starts doling it out as so call "bail out" dollars to those companies that made copntributions to his caimpaign fund.....

The truth can be brutal. BTW: DO you remember the stuff we had to listen to comng from the Left while Bush was in office???

[curtism1234]

The truth can be brutal. BTW: DO you remember the stuff we had to listen to comng from the Left while Bush was in office???

Hey pot, this is kettle 

Yeah the truth can be brutal 


I agree (and have said before) that the left is just as guilty as the right. I won't dispute that at all. Let's just agree that you liked your guy and I like my guy 

[nomosendero]

The truth can be brutal. BTW: DO you remember the stuff we had to listen to comng from the Left while Bush was in office???

Hey pot, this is kettle 

Yeah the truth can be brutal 


I agree (and have said before) that the left is just as guilty as the right. I won't dispute that at all. Let's just agree that you liked your guy and I like my guy 

And including his gun record no doubt.

[nomosendero]

Well those offshoring will move offshore regardless if they paid little taxes...you just can't compete with $2.00/day wage and $16/hour wage and the ability to polute at will. It is just that simple. The modern corporation and businesssman is not as nationalistic as you or I might be...they think globally...the end result of this is easily projected.

Okay your tax synopsis is close enough and as I figured. But try to find data on those in the $8million and above catergory...most difficult because the IRS lumps them in the 1% and 10% catergory, etc. I once got the data from Bill O'Reilly of all places...even he was shocked, he was also shocked at what you or I might call real income for this group but is not by irs codes, which forces the government to tap you and me to pay for their pet projects, aid, and wars around the world. I suggest people think De-globalism these days.

..TM7

Yes, some will go abroad anyway, no doubt. But as I said before, increasing the taxes for those boys will make the exodus much bigger. The $8million group is of interest, post if you get data, I am pretty dang busy right now helping to pay for that other 50%, just enough to get the hit. 

[Cabin4]

The truth can be brutal. BTW: DO you remember the stuff we had to listen to comng from the Left while Bush was in office???

Hey pot, this is kettle 

Yeah the truth can be brutal 


I agree (and have said before) that the left is just as guilty as the right. I won't dispute that at all. Let's just agree that you liked your guy and I like my guy 

And including his gun record no doubt.

All I will say is McCain was not my guy either nor was Bush. I would have liked to have seen a Ron Paul, Bob Barr or some other more constitutionally focused candidate. Obama, Bush, McCain and the rest are all just politically focused.

[curtism1234]

All I will say is McCain was not my guy either nor was Bush. I would have liked to have seen a Ron Paul, Bob Barr or some other more constitutionally focused candidate. Obama, Bush, McCain and the rest are all just politically focused.

Just to comment on Ron Paul

Last fall I went to one of his meet and greets. I shoke his hand and told him something along the lines of "I'm a democrat, but I just wanted to say I find you fascinating"