Proof that obama lies about who's paying their fair share. - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

SonOfaBeach · 07-31-2009, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nation-x

In other news... 58% of Republicans polled are idiots...

Is there anyone else here (US citizen) that CAN NOT produce a certified copy of their birth certificate???! I mean - what the fuck?!?! If it is such a non-issue, why can't he just produce the document... makes no sense.

I've had to use mine over the course of my life numerous times - school, college, passports, etc. I've got a copy here at the house now - and if it went up in flames, I could be on the phone to Cook County, IL and have another one in less than a week.

Why doesn't HE have one... Just sayin... a lil weird...

David! · 07-31-2009, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Porn Grounds

This post actually made me laugh more then the others in this thread. Considering they are voting today to EXTEND this program TODAY since it was so popular.

They actually ran out of money already because people bought so many cars... so they want to increase it....yeah they shut that down alright!

You see, one should be a little smarter than you to understand. The Obama admin is so good that they could not accurately estimate a $1 billion program. It's just a week old and already 200% over budget, imagine how nice the healthcare reform will be

dyna mo · 07-31-2009, 04:08 PM

i have to say it's ridiculous the fucking program ran out of money in the 1st week. jesus, what a train wreck our government is- on everything.

Brujah · 07-31-2009, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SonOfaBeach

Is there anyone else here (US citizen) that CAN NOT produce a certified copy of their birth certificate???! I mean - what the fuck?!?! If it is such a non-issue, why can't he just produce the document... makes no sense.

I've had to use mine over the course of my life numerous times - school, college, passports, etc. I've got a copy here at the house now - and if it went up in flames, I could be on the phone to Cook County, IL and have another one in less than a week.

Why doesn't HE have one... Just sayin... a lil weird...

You just proved that you don't even bother to research most of what you believe to be true. You just pick and choose what you want to be true instead and go with that.

nation-x · 07-31-2009, 04:18 PM

^^ See what Brujah said.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SonOfaBeach

Is there anyone else here (US citizen) that CAN NOT produce a certified copy of their birth certificate???! I mean - what the fuck?!?! If it is such a non-issue, why can't he just produce the document... makes no sense.

I've had to use mine over the course of my life numerous times - school, college, passports, etc. I've got a copy here at the house now - and if it went up in flames, I could be on the phone to Cook County, IL and have another one in less than a week.

Why doesn't HE have one... Just sayin... a lil weird...

From the liberal media itself (snark) >> http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...VjNzRmODE2NTI=

Quote:

The fundamental fiction is that Obama has refused to release his ?real? birth certificate. This is untrue. The document that Obama has made available is the document that Hawaiian authorities issue when they are asked for a birth certificate. There is no secondary document cloaked in darkness, only the state records that are used to generate birth certificates when they are requested.

If one applies for a United States passport, the passport office will demand a birth certificate. It defines this as an official document bearing ?your full name, the full name of your parent(s), date and place of birth, sex, date the birth record was filed, and the seal or other certification of the official custodian of such records.? The Hawaiian birth certificate President Obama has produced?the document is formally known as a ?certificate of live birth??bears that information. It has been inspected by reporters, and several state officials have confirmed that the information in permanent state records is identical to that on the president?s birth certificate?which is precisely what one expects, of course, since the state records are used to generate those documents when they are requested. In other words, what President Obama has produced is the ?real? birth certificate of myth and lore. The director of Hawaii?s health department and the registrar of records each has personally verified that the information on Obama?s birth certificate is identical to that in the state?s records, the so-called vault copy. Given that fact, we are loath even to engage the fanciful notion that President Obama was born elsewhere, contrary to the information on his birth certificate, but we note for the record that his mother was a native of Kansas, whose residents have been citizens of the United States for a very long time, and whose children are citizens of the United States as well.

SonOfaBeach · 07-31-2009, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brujah

You just proved that you don't even bother to research most of what you believe to be true. You just pick and choose what you want to be true instead and go with that.

So then what the hell is all the hoopla about???

I don't have an opinion one way or the other on IF he has one - I've only heard it mentioned before and then responded to the chart here. I was saying if it is such a concern, why hasn't it been produced... according to the article above it has - so - again, I guess I'm wondering what all the hoopla is about...

Relentless · 07-31-2009, 04:29 PM

It's strange how the barely rich equate high taxes on the top 1% with themselves. Warren Buffet has PERSONALLY paid more in taxes than most of the 1% combined. In 2003 his company paid 2.5% of all corporate taxes paid in the US... TOTAL.

Some people see a strong country, a well funded military, a healthy populace, an educated citizenry and the rest of the things taxes pay for as more important than their next car or webmaster toy.... including the guy paying more taxes than anyone in the last couple decades...

Quote:

Warren Buffett's Tax Fetish
Vahan Janjigian, Forbes Growth Investor 05.01.08

It may seem a bit odd that Warren Buffett, one of the greatest capitalists the world has ever seen, resides firmly in the liberal camp when it comes to tax policy.

Buffett favors higher taxes on both income and wealth. His writings call for higher income taxes at the corporate level and more progressive income taxes at the personal level.

In his 2003 letter to shareholders, Buffett stated that Berkshire was about to make a $3.3 billion tax payment, or 2.5% of all corporate taxes paid to the U.S. Treasury that year. Buffett said Berkshire was "among the country's top 10 taxpayers." Buffett also made a strong--but perhaps unintentional--case for tax simplification. He said Berkshire's tax return for the previous year (2002) totaled 8,905 pages.
Forbes Growth Investor readers doubled their money in Goldman Sachs (GS). What are they doing now? Click here for the updated model portfolios with a free trial of Forbes Growth Investor.

By 2006, Berkshire's federal tax burden had grown to $4.4 billion. Its tax return that year amounted to 9,386 pages.

The government is no doubt grateful that Berkshire pays so much tax. Berkshire's shareholders, however, should be at least a little concerned. As Buffett said, Berkshire's federal tax bill amounted to 2.5% of all taxes collected in 2003. But Berkshire made only 1.2% of total corporate income that year. In other words, Berkshire appears to be paying much more than its fair share of taxes.

Yet Buffett seems proud that Berkshire generates so much money--and so efficiently--for the government. And although he thinks individual taxpayers carry too much of the overall tax burden, in a Washington Post op-ed dated May 20, 2003, Buffett took the Senate to task for passing a bill that would have eliminated individual taxes on dividend income.

Buffett argued that the bill would benefit no one but the rich. Although Berkshire pays no dividends, Buffett pointed out that if the dividend tax were eliminated and Berkshire were to implement a $1 billion dividend, he personally would receive $310 million tax free. He said this would drive his personal tax rate all the way down to 3%.

Despite the Senate's efforts, taxes on dividends were not eliminated. However, when President Bush finally signed the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, the maximum tax rates on dividends and long-term (i.e., longer than a year) capital gains were both lowered to 15%.

Those like Buffett who oppose lower taxes on dividends ignore the fact that dividends have already been taxed at the corporate level. This is the "double taxation" investors and economists often complain about. Many economists argue that corporate income should be taxed only once. If corporations pay the tax, individuals should not have to pay an additional tax. However, if individuals pay the tax, then corporations should not pay a tax in the first place.

Berkshire's directors made a wise decision not to pay a dividend in 2003. Unlike interest payments on debt, which are tax-deductible, dividend payments must be made from a corporation's after-tax income. Therefore, if Berkshire had paid a dividend in 2003, there would have been absolutely no effect on its $3.3 billion tax bill. However, by paying a dividend, Berkshire would have forced its shareholders to pay an additional tax. If for some reason they really wanted to return cash to investors, it would have been better to initiate a share repurchase. Although the shareholders would have been taxed on their gains, the tax would have been less onerous than if they had received dividends.

Unlike income taxes, the estate tax is based on wealth. Liberals refer to it as the "wealth tax." They argue it is right for the government to confiscate wealth from those who have substantial estates soon after they pass on. After all, as the argument goes, the privilege of living in America is what made them rich in the first place. Instead of simply passing on their wealth to the next generation, the wealthy should be forced to relinquish a large chunk of their treasure to the government once they die.

This kind of thinking equates wealth to luck. Those who think this way believe luck is the most significant factor explaining the difference between the rich and poor. Even Buffett credits luck for much of his success. He says he was lucky to have been born in America and even luckier that "I came wired at birth with a talent for capital allocation."

Conservatives, on the other hand, refer to the estate tax as the "death tax." They object to the government confiscating someone's estate simply because he or she died. They point out that wealth is what is left over after taxes have been paid. It would be wrong to tax that wealth over and over again. Conservatives stress that a death tax punishes hard work and frugality, and encourages wastefulness and spendthrift behavior.
Special Offer: Click here to register for the first-ever Forbes.com Investor iConference, a live virtual event on May 22, 2008, with Steve Forbes, Vahan Janjigian, "Rich Dad" Robert Kiyosaki and more. Registrants are eligible to win a dinner cruise for two on the Forbes Highlander yacht, a $500 Apple gift card and one year of zero-commission trading.

In addition, conservatives argue that wealth is not always liquid. Some of it might be in stocks and bonds, but a good chunk might be invested in hard assets that are needed to run a business. Taxing wealth could force the business to shut down because it has to sell assets to raise cash to pay the government. Conservatives say it would be wiser to allow the heirs to continue running the business. The government, after all, will get its due by taxing the income the business produces.

Nobel laureate Milton Friedman was a vocal critic of the estate tax. He called it an immoral tax that punishes virtue, discourages saving and encourages wasteful spending. He even questioned its value as a source of revenue for the government. He argued that the government spends more money each year trying to collect the tax than the tax actually brings in.

Singer Pat Boone, who also serves as spokesman for the 60 Plus Association, even went so far as to accuse Buffett in The Washington Times of personally benefiting from the estate tax. He said Berkshire had purchased a business that profited from selling estate tax insurance. This kind of insurance policy makes sure that heirs have enough money available to pay the estate tax without having to liquidate assets.

Several members of the megarich class, including Buffett, George Soros and William Gates, Sr (Bill Gates' father), opposed efforts by the Bush administration in 2001 to eliminate the estate tax. Gates testified in Congress and expressed concern that eliminating the estate tax would reduce charitable donations.

Although there is little empirical evidence linking charitable contributions to a motivation to avoid taxes, giving away your fortune before you die is one sure way to avoid the estate tax. In 2004, The Wall Street Journal suggested to Buffett that he should make sure his money would go to the government if he felt so strongly about the need for an estate tax. The Journal challenged him not to take advantage of the loophole in estate-tax laws by donating his wealth to a foundation before his death. However, as everyone knows by now, this is exactly what Buffett did when he pledged to give $31 billion to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and another $6 billion to foundations run by his children.

2012 · 07-31-2009, 04:34 PM

kane · 07-31-2009, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SonOfaBeach

Is there anyone else here (US citizen) that CAN NOT produce a certified copy of their birth certificate???! I mean - what the fuck?!?! If it is such a non-issue, why can't he just produce the document... makes no sense.

I've had to use mine over the course of my life numerous times - school, college, passports, etc. I've got a copy here at the house now - and if it went up in flames, I could be on the phone to Cook County, IL and have another one in less than a week.

Why doesn't HE have one... Just sayin... a lil weird...

He does have one.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama...ertificate.asp

Read the information there.

Here is another source.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...n_the_usa.html

Why don't you see a signature? Because it is on the back and scanned copy on all the websites is just the front. If you look at Factcheck they have pictures of the raised seal and signature stamp that has everyone's panties in a bundle. The reality is this a non-issue. The guy is a citizen, he has a birth certificate, the right wingers are so full of hatred and anger about losing the election that they are grasping for anything they can to pull them back together.

12clicks · 07-31-2009, 05:32 PM

It's cute when one of the leeches points to buffet as relevent to the overtaxation of the rich.
One man's opinion on the unequal taking of another's money means nothing.

For a good read, find Walter Williams who famously said,"if a group of people vote to steal someone else's money, it's not democracy, it's theft"

it's just amazing the lengths the have nots will go to justify taking what isn't theirs.
"But but but, Warren buffet says......."

Dcat · 07-31-2009, 05:37 PM

What was Obama's VERY FIRST act as President?

Oh right, ..it was the signing of EXECUTIVE ORDER 13489 (January 26, 2009) banning release of any of his records.

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E9-1712.pdf

nation-x · 07-31-2009, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dcat

What was Obama's VERY FIRST act as President?

Oh right, ..it was the signing of EXECUTIVE ORDER 13489 (January 26, 2009) banning release of any of his records.

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E9-1712.pdf

Did you actually read that or just repeat what some idiot posted about it? Read it and then say it says what you say it says... because it doesn't at all. It is an executive order to overturn the claim of executive privilege made by Bush... that is why it says "Former" and "Incumbent". Some of you people just make me scratch my head and wonder where you were educated.

Quote:

Sec. 6. Revocation. Executive Order 13233 of November 1, 2001, is revoked.

nation-x · 07-31-2009, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12clicks

blah blah blah rabble blah blah rabble rabble blah blah

Were you saying something?

Dcat · 07-31-2009, 05:55 PM

Here's a little more fuel for this this Obama fire..

Regarding the issue of Obama's birth certificate. I have no idea if indeed Obama was born in the USA or not, but here is a link to a forensic analysis of the issue of his certificate of live birth done by an active member of the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, American College of Forensic Examiners, The International Society of Forensic Computer Examiners, International Information Systems Forensics Association.

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/a...exclusive.html

12clicks · 07-31-2009, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nation-x

Were you saying something?

Yeah, I was ridiculing shitstains like yourself but as with all of your kind, you didn't realize it

Brujah · 07-31-2009, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dcat

Here's a little more fuel for this this Obama fire..

Regarding the issue of Obama's birth certificate. I have no idea if indeed Obama was born in the USA or not, but here is a link to a forensic analysis of the issue of his certificate of live birth done by an active member of the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, American College of Forensic Examiners, The International Society of Forensic Computer Examiners, International Information Systems Forensics Association.

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/a...exclusive.html

And the rebuttal
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/5745

Bad Science - How Not to Do Image Analysis
http://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/ind...-Analysis.html

Dcat · 07-31-2009, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nation-x

Did you actually read that or just repeat what some idiot posted about it? Read it and then say it says what you say it says... because it doesn't at all. It is an executive order to overturn the claim of executive privilege made by Bush... that is why it says "Former" and "Incumbent". Some of you people just make me scratch my head and wonder where you were educated.

Dig a little deeper...

Here is a good analysis:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/R40238.pdf

If you don't have time to read it, here's the section that summarizes it best.

"On November 1, 2001, President George W. Bush issued an executive order (E.O. 13233), which
allowed the incumbent President?as well as former Presidents, former Vice Presidents, and their
designees whose records are affected?to withhold from public disclosure the records of former
Presidents and Vice Presidents or to delay their release indefinitely under claims of executive
privilege.3 On January 7, 2009, the House passed a bill (H.R. 35) that would statutorily revoke
E.O. 13233. The bill would also allow the Archivist to reassume control of access to the records
of former Presidents.

On January 21, 2009, President Barack Obama issued E.O. 134894 on his first full day in office.
The new executive order explicitly rescinded E.O. 13233. Many of the aims of H.R. 35 are
incorporated into President Obama?s executive order. However, unlike H.R. 35, which would
grant the Archivist final determination over record disclosure, President Obama?s order allows
the incumbent President to stop disclosure through claims of executive privilege. This report
will discuss policy changes incorporated into E.O. 13489 and analyze the possible effects of H.R. 35."

E.O. 134894 was basically answering H.R. 35 (which revoked E.O. 13233 anyways) to once again allow Obama to "halt disclosure" through claims of executive privilege. H.R. 35 took that away.

Relentless · 07-31-2009, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12clicks

One man's opinion on the unequal taking of another's money means nothing.

Excellent point... though it shows exactly how unimportant your own POV is if you believe that... ;)

I pay more in taxes than I am ever likely to receive directly from taxes. It's the cover charge at the door and you don't get to go inside the club, let alone the VIP room if you are unwilling to pay it. You don't have to pay taxes, you are free to leave ant time you want.

12clicks · 07-31-2009, 07:08 PM

None of the top 1% give a shit about obama's birth certificate.
This isn't about him, it's about the direction of the country. It's just embarrassing to think my fellow Americans think our present course is right or sustainable

theking · 07-31-2009, 07:12 PM

When JFK became President the tax on every 1 million dollars earned was 92%. During the Nixon administration...if I remember correctly...it was reduced to 58%. During the Regan administration...if I remember correctly...it was reduced to 38%...and I think it was cut to 36% during the Bush administration.

Obama wants to bring it back up to 38-40%...if my memory serves me correctly.

The chart is meaningless other than to show that there are more and more millionaires/billionaries and that over all they pay the bulk of the taxes but the percentage rate they pay is far from overwhelming.

12clicks · 07-31-2009, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Relentless

Excellent point... though it shows exactly how unimportant your own POV is if you believe that... ;)

I pay more in taxes than I am ever likely to receive directly from taxes. It's the cover charge at the door and you don't get to go inside the club, let alone the VIP room if you are unwilling to pay it. You don't have to pay taxes, you are free to leave ant time you want.

It's a lovely story but a troll who makes his money in text like you do is a leech on society. Pretend all you want on chatboards but the reality is you you don't pay anything in tax, you merely say you do to seem relevent to the conversation.

12clicks · 07-31-2009, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theking

When JFK became President the tax on every 1 million dollars earned was 92%. During the Nixon administration...if I remember correctly...it was reduced to 58%. During the Regan administration...if I remember correctly...it was reduced to 38%...and I think it was cut to 36% during the Bush administration.

Obama wants to bring it back up to 38-40%...if my memory serves me correctly.

The chart is meaningless other than to show that there are more and more millionaires/billionaries and that over all they pay the bulk of the taxes but the percentage rate they pay is far from overwhelming.

Oh look, another sucker of the public teat speaks.
What the chart shows is that what you recieve for free, your betters pay 6 and 7 figures for.
The thought process of you trash sends a shiver up my spine.
20yrs and more ago millionaires could hide all of their money off shore so the tax rates were irrellivent

theking · 07-31-2009, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12clicks

Oh look, another sucker of the public teat speaks.
What the chart shows is that what you recieve for free, your betters pay 6 and 7 figures for.
The thought process of you trash sends a shiver up my spine.
20yrs and more ago millionaires could hide all of their money off shore so the tax rates were irrellivent

I suspect that the capital gains tax I have paid exceeds your total worth...but maybe not as I do not know anything about what you are worth financially.

12clicks · 07-31-2009, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theking

I suspect that the capital gains tax I have paid exceeds your total worth...but maybe not as I do not know anything about what you are worth financially.

Pathfinder, I suspect the lie about your deTh is equal to the lie about your capital gains.

Dcat · 07-31-2009, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brujah

And the rebuttal
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/5745

Bad Science - How Not to Do Image Analysis
http://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/ind...-Analysis.html

Nice find. I don't have the time to run through it and compare things, but check out the comments at the bottom. ..It didn't even fool most of the people that read it.

"Dr. Krawetz

In your 1st paragraph you lost the whole audience. Techdude did not make the claim that all COLB's since 1959 were printed on the same printer.

What a moron you are if think you that is the case.

No need to read further. That large a blunder set you up for the ridicule you justifiably deserve.

If you happen to retract your mistake, I might waste my time reading the rest."

crockett · 08-01-2009, 01:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SonOfaBeach

So then what the hell is all the hoopla about???

I don't have an opinion one way or the other on IF he has one - I've only heard it mentioned before and then responded to the chart here. I was saying if it is such a concern, why hasn't it been produced... according to the article above it has - so - again, I guess I'm wondering what all the hoopla is about...

What is all the hoopla about? People like you that choose not to research anything for themselves, or think with their own brain. You are the reason stuff like that kept getting lied about, because instead of actually looking up the info to see if it was true, you just keep repeating it, because you want it to be true.

Libertine · 08-01-2009, 02:48 AM

Whining about taxes is a pastime of lower class individuals who happen upon a bit of money and become paranoid that others are trying to take it away from them.

cykoe6 · 08-01-2009, 04:32 AM

It is quite amusing to see the usual useful idiots trying to deflect attention away from a legitimate issue with a bunch of nonsense about Obama's birth certificate (which is obviously a non issue). The fact is Obama's class war bullshit is all based on on lies about who pays the majority of taxes in the US. His socialist wealth distribution schemes depend on the ignorance of the general populace about the current tax system......... which is why you see his most starry eyed defenders desperately trying to change the subject.

12clicks · 08-01-2009, 07:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Libertine

Whining about taxes is a pastime of lower class individuals who happen upon a bit of money and become paranoid that others are trying to take it away from them.

Said the one bedroom apartment dweller who's never made more than 30k in his life.

kane · 08-01-2009, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cykoe6

It is quite amusing to see the usual useful idiots trying to deflect attention away from a legitimate issue with a bunch of nonsense about Obama's birth certificate (which is obviously a non issue). The fact is Obama's class war bullshit is all based on on lies about who pays the majority of taxes in the US. His socialist wealth distribution schemes depend on the ignorance of the general populace about the current tax system......... which is why you see his most starry eyed defenders desperately trying to change the subject.

I don't know that it was lies . Obama said all along he would raise taxes on the wealthy and felt that there should be a "sharing of the wealth." He never hid that fact. Taxes in general are a system of wealth distribution. Obama was just the first person to admit it and then say he was going to increase it.

LiveDose · 08-01-2009, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PussyMan

The Obama administration put the cash for clunkers program in place. After a few days they had to shut it down because it already became unmanageable. Imagine what will happen with the health care reform...

In a sick kind of way it will be pretty funny to watch.

Snake Doctor · 08-01-2009, 01:31 PM

This will be my first and last post in this thread, since debating with 12clicks cannot be, by definition, intellectually honest.

What that graph doesn't show you is how the wealth of the top 1% has grown in disproportion to the bottom 95% in that same period of time. The wealthiest Americans share of the total tax burden is disproportionately low compared to their share of our national wealth.

That graph also only shows income taxes. It doesn't take into account any other form of taxation. The reason it doesn't is because most other forms of taxation are regressive, and would show the argument that the rich pay more is a flat out lie.
Oh sure they may pay more in terms of raw dollars, but in terms of percentage of total income or total wealth, they pay a much smaller share than the middle class.

For instance Social Security and Medicare are 1/3 of our total federal budget. Yet social security taxes are capped at around 100K per year. Meaning if you make $1MM per year, you only pay Social Security tax on 10% of your income, while the guy making 50K per year pays those taxes on 100% of his income.
You also can't separate Social Security from the rest of the budget because it currently runs a surplus and those surplus dollars are used to pay for things like defense spending and interest on the debt.

Anyone with access to google and a little bit of intellectual curiousity can find out the truth about these things. 12clicks is not one of those people.
I have owned his sorry ass in many of these arguments before, but he just ignores the facts and continues with his insults and bullshit.

I'm sure a post will be coming soon with the words "son, rabble, idiot" or something similar soon. Whoopty fuckin doo.

Speaking of this "honest debate over the progressivity of the tax system", we already had that Ron. It was last November, and your side lost, by a significant margin.
I understand that you're a sore loser and want a do-over, but that ain't gonna happen. So kiss your offshore shelters and 35% marginal rate buh bye.

12clicks · 08-01-2009, 02:39 PM

What trash like snake doctor pretend isn't so is that the rich pay for what the poor trash like himself vote for.
We have this idiot system of taxation because the politicians realized that it was the best way to pander to the underclass whom snakesoctor is a part of.
Just as we wouldn't go to the grocery store and snakesoctor would get his bread for free because of his economic status and I'd pay $20 for the same bread, all Americans should pay the same amount for the services the government provides.

Snakesoctor pretends I'm intellectually dishonest so he can continue to get his government services for free, courtesy of his betters.

But then, he's a failure, it's not like he "could" pay his fair share.

12clicks · 08-01-2009, 02:42 PM

Oh, and about the election.
It marked the tipping point where the handout vote is larger than the intelligent vote.
Snakeboy, you don't have a clue how bad that is for the country because your kind can never see past the shiny coin that is your handout. Obama banked on that

Libertine · 08-01-2009, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12clicks

Said the one bedroom apartment dweller who's never made more than 30k in his life.

The world you live in must be so wonderfully simple. It's almost a shame it isn't the real one.

nation-x · 08-01-2009, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12clicks

Oh, and about the election.
It marked the tipping point where the handout vote is larger than the intelligent vote.
Snakeboy, you don't have a clue how bad that is for the country because your kind can never see past the shiny coin that is your handout. Obama banked on that

So in your twisted little mind it would have been more intelligent for someone to vote for a complete sell out (McCain) and his mental midget VP pick? I LOL'd.

epitome · 08-01-2009, 03:38 PM

This chart is USELESS.

Do you honestly not understand how that can appear to be more than it's is, or are you just hoping a sucker will believe it?

Let's analyze the total % of income the top 1% pay vs. those in the bottom 95%. That is what matters. Of course 10% of $30,000,000 is a lot more than 10% of $17,400.

Oh, that's right, it wouldn't support your right wing propaganda.

The irony is that the same people that bitch about taxes are the same ones that think Reagan the puppet was a genius. Guess what? Reagan started the outrageous spending! Nobody complains and his predecessors realized they could get away with it, too. Nobody slapped their hands for putting it into the cookie jar.

epitome · 08-01-2009, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12clicks

Said the one bedroom apartment dweller who's never made more than 30k in his life.

Says the guy who loves taking advantage of all the publicly funded things around him but has no interest in paying for them. In the real world, we call those people 'hypocrites.'

Snake Doctor · 08-01-2009, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12clicks

Snakesoctor pretends I'm intellectually dishonest

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12clicks

Oh, and about the election.
It marked the tipping point where the handout vote is larger than the intelligent vote.

So like I was saying, about intellectual honesty. Here are a few simple facts.

The top tax rate during the Eisenhower administration was 90%.

During Nixon, 70%.

When Reagan cut taxes, it was from 70% all the way down to 50%.

Today the top rate is 35%, and capital gains taxes are at ridiculously low levels. Yet Obama's plan to let the Bush tax cuts expire, and have the top rate go back to 39.6%, that was the tipping point where the handout vote is larger than the intelligent vote

If all there is to debate is facts and public policy, you lose and you lose huge. Every single time.
You just start these threads so you can call people shitstains, or failures, or whatever. You can't win the argument honestly so you resort to personal insults.

It's so predictable and so pathetic, that I could log in as you, start one of these threads, and keep it going for days without anyone knowing it wasn't really you. You're just that much of a repetitive douche.
It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.

Grow up.

12clicks · 08-01-2009, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by epitome

This chart is USELESS.

Do you honestly not understand how that can appear to be more than it's is, or are you just hoping a sucker will believe it?

Let's analyze the total % of income the top 1% pay vs. those in the bottom 95%. That is what matters. Of course 10% of $30,000,000 is a lot more than 10% of $17,400.

Oh, that's right, it wouldn't support your right wing propaganda.

The irony is that the same people that bitch about taxes are the same ones that think Reagan the puppet was a genius. Guess what? Reagan started the outrageous spending! Nobody complains and his predecessors realized they could get away with it, too. Nobody slapped their hands for putting it into the cookie jar.

Dear unintelligent halfwit,
Reagan did not have a republican congress supporting him. The democrats refused to stop spending. Reagan cut taxes, the democrats kept spending.
You're out of your depth and it makes you appear stupid.

StickyGreen · 08-01-2009, 07:13 PM

12clicks · 08-01-2009, 07:22 PM

Snakeboy, you're "facts" are irrelivent to this discussion.(it's so hard to tell when you're playing dumb)

%s from 30+ years ago are meaningless.
Today the rich pay for almost everything already. However, trash like yourself (the typical Obama voter) Still don't think it's enough. Your resentment of successful people has an outlet now!
As I said, you're not bright enough to understand the death spiral we're in or that the bottom will go first

Snake Doctor · 08-01-2009, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12clicks

Dear unintelligent halfwit,
Reagan did not have a republican congress supporting him. The democrats refused to stop spending. Reagan cut taxes, the democrats kept spending.
You're out of your depth and it makes you appear stupid.

Dear uneducated buffoon.

The legislative process requires both branches to cooperate. Otherwise there would have been a shutdown like there was with Clinton and the republican congress of the 90's.
The fact that you want to give Reagan credit for the good things of the 80's and blame the Democrats in congress for the bad things, shows just how disillusioned and intellectually dishonest you are.

Reagan signed all of those budgets.

BTW, the biggest item in the discretionary budget, by far, is defense spending. Which Reagan wanted increased by an order of magnitude higher than he actually got. (Over [Fiscal Year] 1980-85, real military spending would increase 39 percent)
http://www3.niu.edu/~td0raf1/history468/apr0401.htm

So this idea that he wanted to toe the line on spending is pure bullshit revisionist history.

Calling people shitstains and halfwits doesn't change the fact that you have no facts to support your arguments. Only rhetoric.

kane · 08-01-2009, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12clicks

Dear unintelligent halfwit,
Reagan did not have a republican congress supporting him. The democrats refused to stop spending. Reagan cut taxes, the democrats kept spending.
You're out of your depth and it makes you appear stupid.

So what about Clinton. When he got elected in 1993 there was a democrat controlled house and senate. The next election saw the republicans take control of both and they held it for the remainder of his presidency. They did nothing to curb spending. Bush had a republican controlled house and senate for the first 6 of his 8 years. They did nothing to control spending. Spending is not a democrat or republican issue.

Here is the difference.

Democrats - tax and spend.
Republicans - cut taxes then spend and run up debt.

Oh and as for Reagan. There was a republican controlled senate for the first 6 of his 8 years. So the republican senate and president could do nothing to control the democrats spending? Of course they didn't they wanted to spend just as much money, they just want to spend it on different things.

neither party has any interest in spending less.

12clicks · 08-01-2009, 07:36 PM

Sorry asshat, you're incorrect.
After Carter gutted the military and ruined the economy, Reagan did exactly what was needed. The only one revising history is you.

Congress controls the spending no matter how the mighty snakeboy pretends otherwise.

But I'd argue about Reagan too if I were you since you don't have a leg to stand on considering the top 1% pays for all of YOUR public services

12clicks · 08-01-2009, 07:38 PM

Kane, you're wrong. Google Newt Gingrich

xxxjay · 08-01-2009, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12clicks

obama, his followers, and the rabble want you to believe that the rich don't pay their fair share. the truth is quite different. I wonder how many "I want someone else to pay for my lifestyle" trash will bother to reply to this post.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/24944.html

Tax Burden of Top 1% Now Exceeds That of Bottom 95%

by Scott A. Hodge

Newly released data from the IRS clearly debunks the conventional Beltway rhetoric that the "rich" are not paying their fair share of taxes.

Indeed, the IRS data shows that in 2007—the most recent data available—the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 40.4 percent of the total income taxes collected by the federal government. This is the highest percentage in modern history. By contrast, the top 1 percent paid 24.8 percent of the income tax burden in 1987, the year following the 1986 tax reform act.

Remarkably, the share of the tax burden borne by the top 1 percent now exceeds the share paid by the bottom 95 percent of taxpayers combined. In 2007, the bottom 95 percent paid 39.4 percent of the income tax burden. This is down from the 58 percent of the total income tax burden they paid twenty years ago.

To put this in perspective, the top 1 percent is comprised of just 1.4 million taxpayers and they pay a larger share of the income tax burden now than the bottom 134 million taxpayers combined.

Some in Washington say the tax system is still not progressive enough. However, the recent IRS data bolsters the findings of an OECD study released last year showing that the U.S.—not France or Sweden—has the most progressive income tax system among OECD nations. We rely more heavily on the top 10 percent of taxpayers than does any nation and our poor people have the lowest tax burden of those in any nation.

We are definitely overdue for some honesty in the debate over the progressivity of the nation's tax burden before lawmakers enact any new taxes to pay for expanded health care.

Good thing I am not in the top 1% or even the top 5%...fuck the rich people. LOL

kane · 08-01-2009, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12clicks

Kane, you're wrong. Google Newt Gingrich

What about Newt Gingrich?

Here are some highlights of his career:

He had a bunch of ethics charges brought against him. All but one of them were dropped, but that was a pretty ugly one where he supposedly lied about how money going to a tax free non-profit was being spent. "On January 21, 1997 the House voted overwhelmingly (395 to 28 ) to reprimand House Speaker Newt Gingrich for ethics violations dating back to September 1994. The house ordered Gingrich to pay an unprecedented $300,000 penalty, the first time in the House's 208-year history it had disciplined a speaker for ethical wrongdoing."

He was the guy who spearheaded the government shutdown in 1995. There are many who will say this was simply the republicans trying to curb out of control democrat spending and there might be some truth to that. Others say it was them playing petty games. Here is a quote from Tom Delay :
Delay writes in his book, No Retreat, No Surrender:[3]

"He told a room full of reporters that he forced the shutdown because Clinton had rudely made him and Bob Dole sit at the back of Air Force One...Newt had been careless to say such a thing, and now the whole moral tone of the shutdown had been lost. What had been a noble battle for fiscal sanity began to look like the tirade of a spoiled child..The revolution, I can tell you, was never the same."

He did help draft and pass the Contract With America. Most of which the Republican party themselves ended up not following. I understand that in some cases deomcrats fought them, but the republicans themselves could at least stand by many of these beliefs and act on them in their personal lives, but of course most of them don't.

So I guess I'm curious what makes Newt such a good guy?

And I am correct about the spending.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/budget.php

This site shows the budgets put forth by every president since 1930. It shows how much they put in outlays, how much they brought in in receipts and what the deficit/surplus was. Since 1930 there have only been 7 times that there was a budget that was actually smaller than the previous year and the last time it happened was 1948. Since 1980 the federal budget has grown from 517 billion to 3.1trillion. During that same time period the population has gone up by about 33%. So if it increased around 33-40% you could understand that, but it has increased 500%.

How exactly is that not just politicians spending money?

xxxjay · 08-01-2009, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

What about Newt Gingrich?

I had dinner with Newt Gingrich many moons ago when I lived in Georgia. He's a cooler guy than you would think.

kane · 08-01-2009, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxxjay

I had dinner with Newt Gingrich many moons ago when I lived in Georgia. He's a cooler guy than you would think.

I don't know anything about him personally and there have been times that I have met politicians in the past and they have seemed like pretty cool people, but I wonder what he means when he says Newt is proof that every administration doesn't just spend money and they politicians don't really care about reeling in the budgets.

07-31-2009, 04:34 PM	#58
2012 So Fucking What Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 17,189	__________________ best host: Webair \| best sponsor: Kink \| best coder: 688218966 \| Go Fuck Yourself

07-31-2009, 05:32 PM	#60
12clicks Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: God's right hand Posts: 19,788	It's cute when one of the leeches points to buffet as relevent to the overtaxation of the rich. One man's opinion on the unequal taking of another's money means nothing. For a good read, find Walter Williams who famously said,"if a group of people vote to steal someone else's money, it's not democracy, it's theft" it's just amazing the lengths the have nots will go to justify taking what isn't theirs. "But but but, Warren buffet says......." __________________ I'm not a dinosaur, I'm a crocodile. I've seen dinosaurs come and go and I'm left unimpressed.

07-31-2009, 07:08 PM	#69
12clicks Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: God's right hand Posts: 19,788	None of the top 1% give a shit about obama's birth certificate. This isn't about him, it's about the direction of the country. It's just embarrassing to think my fellow Americans think our present course is right or sustainable __________________ I'm not a dinosaur, I'm a crocodile. I've seen dinosaurs come and go and I'm left unimpressed.

07-31-2009, 07:12 PM	#70
theking Nice Kitty Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: The good old USA!!! Posts: 21,053	When JFK became President the tax on every 1 million dollars earned was 92%. During the Nixon administration...if I remember correctly...it was reduced to 58%. During the Regan administration...if I remember correctly...it was reduced to 38%...and I think it was cut to 36% during the Bush administration. Obama wants to bring it back up to 38-40%...if my memory serves me correctly. The chart is meaningless other than to show that there are more and more millionaires/billionaries and that over all they pay the bulk of the taxes but the percentage rate they pay is far from overwhelming. __________________ When you're running down my country hoss...you're walking on the fighting side of me! FOR THE LYING LOWLIFE POSTING AS PATHFINDER...https://gfy.com/fucking-around-and-pr...athfinder.html

08-01-2009, 02:48 AM	#77
Libertine sex dwarf Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 17,860	Whining about taxes is a pastime of lower class individuals who happen upon a bit of money and become paranoid that others are trying to take it away from them. __________________ /(bb\|[^b]{2})/

07-31-2009, 04:08 PM	#53
dyna mo The People's Post Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: invisible 7-11 Posts: 65,073	i have to say it's ridiculous the fucking program ran out of money in the 1st week. jesus, what a train wreck our government is- on everything.

07-31-2009, 05:37 PM	#61
Dcat Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Mexico Posts: 1,607	What was Obama's VERY FIRST act as President? Oh right, ..it was the signing of EXECUTIVE ORDER 13489 (January 26, 2009) banning release of any of his records. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E9-1712.pdf

07-31-2009, 05:55 PM	#64
Dcat Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Mexico Posts: 1,607	Here's a little more fuel for this this Obama fire.. Regarding the issue of Obama's birth certificate. I have no idea if indeed Obama was born in the USA or not, but here is a link to a forensic analysis of the issue of his certificate of live birth done by an active member of the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, American College of Forensic Examiners, The International Society of Forensic Computer Examiners, International Information Systems Forensics Association. http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/a...exclusive.html

08-01-2009, 04:32 AM	#78
cykoe6 Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Vegas Posts: 4,499	It is quite amusing to see the usual useful idiots trying to deflect attention away from a legitimate issue with a bunch of nonsense about Obama's birth certificate (which is obviously a non issue). The fact is Obama's class war bullshit is all based on on lies about who pays the majority of taxes in the US. His socialist wealth distribution schemes depend on the ignorance of the general populace about the current tax system......... which is why you see his most starry eyed defenders desperately trying to change the subject. __________________ бабки, шлюхи, сила

08-01-2009, 01:31 PM	#82
Snake Doctor I'm Lenny2 Bitch Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: On top of my soapbox Posts: 13,449	This will be my first and last post in this thread, since debating with 12clicks cannot be, by definition, intellectually honest. What that graph doesn't show you is how the wealth of the top 1% has grown in disproportion to the bottom 95% in that same period of time. The wealthiest Americans share of the total tax burden is disproportionately low compared to their share of our national wealth. That graph also only shows income taxes. It doesn't take into account any other form of taxation. The reason it doesn't is because most other forms of taxation are regressive, and would show the argument that the rich pay more is a flat out lie. Oh sure they may pay more in terms of raw dollars, but in terms of percentage of total income or total wealth, they pay a much smaller share than the middle class. For instance Social Security and Medicare are 1/3 of our total federal budget. Yet social security taxes are capped at around 100K per year. Meaning if you make $1MM per year, you only pay Social Security tax on 10% of your income, while the guy making 50K per year pays those taxes on 100% of his income. You also can't separate Social Security from the rest of the budget because it currently runs a surplus and those surplus dollars are used to pay for things like defense spending and interest on the debt. Anyone with access to google and a little bit of intellectual curiousity can find out the truth about these things. 12clicks is not one of those people. I have owned his sorry ass in many of these arguments before, but he just ignores the facts and continues with his insults and bullshit. I'm sure a post will be coming soon with the words "son, rabble, idiot" or something similar soon. Whoopty fuckin doo. Speaking of this "honest debate over the progressivity of the tax system", we already had that Ron. It was last November, and your side lost, by a significant margin. I understand that you're a sore loser and want a do-over, but that ain't gonna happen. So kiss your offshore shelters and 35% marginal rate buh bye. __________________ sig too big

08-01-2009, 02:39 PM	#83
12clicks Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: God's right hand Posts: 19,788	What trash like snake doctor pretend isn't so is that the rich pay for what the poor trash like himself vote for. We have this idiot system of taxation because the politicians realized that it was the best way to pander to the underclass whom snakesoctor is a part of. Just as we wouldn't go to the grocery store and snakesoctor would get his bread for free because of his economic status and I'd pay $20 for the same bread, all Americans should pay the same amount for the services the government provides. Snakesoctor pretends I'm intellectually dishonest so he can continue to get his government services for free, courtesy of his betters. But then, he's a failure, it's not like he "could" pay his fair share. __________________ I'm not a dinosaur, I'm a crocodile. I've seen dinosaurs come and go and I'm left unimpressed.

08-01-2009, 02:42 PM	#84
12clicks Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: God's right hand Posts: 19,788	Oh, and about the election. It marked the tipping point where the handout vote is larger than the intelligent vote. Snakeboy, you don't have a clue how bad that is for the country because your kind can never see past the shiny coin that is your handout. Obama banked on that __________________ I'm not a dinosaur, I'm a crocodile. I've seen dinosaurs come and go and I'm left unimpressed.

08-01-2009, 03:38 PM	#87
epitome So Fucking Lame Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: St. Petersburg, FL Posts: 12,156	This chart is USELESS. Do you honestly not understand how that can appear to be more than it's is, or are you just hoping a sucker will believe it? Let's analyze the total % of income the top 1% pay vs. those in the bottom 95%. That is what matters. Of course 10% of $30,000,000 is a lot more than 10% of $17,400. Oh, that's right, it wouldn't support your right wing propaganda. The irony is that the same people that bitch about taxes are the same ones that think Reagan the puppet was a genius. Guess what? Reagan started the outrageous spending! Nobody complains and his predecessors realized they could get away with it, too. Nobody slapped their hands for putting it into the cookie jar.

08-01-2009, 07:13 PM	#91
StickyGreen . Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 13,076	__________________ Refer Cam Girls and Take Home 10% of Everything They Make For Life

08-01-2009, 07:22 PM	#92
12clicks Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: God's right hand Posts: 19,788	Snakeboy, you're "facts" are irrelivent to this discussion.(it's so hard to tell when you're playing dumb) %s from 30+ years ago are meaningless. Today the rich pay for almost everything already. However, trash like yourself (the typical Obama voter) Still don't think it's enough. Your resentment of successful people has an outlet now! As I said, you're not bright enough to understand the death spiral we're in or that the bottom will go first __________________ I'm not a dinosaur, I'm a crocodile. I've seen dinosaurs come and go and I'm left unimpressed.

08-01-2009, 07:36 PM	#95
12clicks Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: God's right hand Posts: 19,788	Sorry asshat, you're incorrect. After Carter gutted the military and ruined the economy, Reagan did exactly what was needed. The only one revising history is you. Congress controls the spending no matter how the mighty snakeboy pretends otherwise. But I'd argue about Reagan too if I were you since you don't have a leg to stand on considering the top 1% pays for all of YOUR public services __________________ I'm not a dinosaur, I'm a crocodile. I've seen dinosaurs come and go and I'm left unimpressed.

08-01-2009, 07:38 PM	#96
12clicks Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: God's right hand Posts: 19,788	Kane, you're wrong. Google Newt Gingrich __________________ I'm not a dinosaur, I'm a crocodile. I've seen dinosaurs come and go and I'm left unimpressed.