Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Yes Republicans, there IS a global test...

page: 17
42
<< 14  15  16   >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


Taxes are relative so "the rich" will still be at the same level in the game; in other words they still get to be rich.

As for the other part; not sure how else to break it down.

Being rich will become meaningless if we don't have a strong economy...




posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus
reply to post by macman
 


Taxes are relative so "the rich" will still be at the same level in the game; in other words they still get to be rich.

As for the other part; not sure how else to break it down.

Being rich will become meaningless if we don't have a strong economy...


Same crap, different thread.

Go play with matches somewhere.



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 12:56 PM
link   
During the eight years of the Bush Administration policies, the U.S. maintained a Standard & Poor's AAA rating. Now, however, Standard & Poor's seems to be blaming the Bush Administration for the current downgrade. So what changed?



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 02:12 PM
link   
What it boils down to is a very simple case of taxation without representation.

Soon, there will be no middle class, only workers and prisoners.

I see this argument as completely focusing on the wrong aspects of what is happening.

Red versus Blue for the Shiny Bull(snip) Award.

What are we, five, six years old?

'We the corporations, in order to form a more perfect quarter'...

One man's 'debt' is another man's pirate treasure.

We were robbed, and everyone is arguing about the color of the get away car,

How about a more constructive, problem solving conversation?



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by simplybill
During the eight years of the Bush Administration policies, the U.S. maintained a Standard & Poor's AAA rating. Now, however, Standard & Poor's seems to be blaming the Bush Administration for the current downgrade. So what changed?


We could have paid forthe war in Iraq and Afgahnistan as well as the massive drain that Katrina and Rita put on us, but when the prez to be started campaigning on universal healthcare and handouts out the whazoo the gears of commerce came to a gring halt. Investors stopped buying bigger homes and started downsizing. Instead of trading in their cars after two years for new ones, they kept them and paid down on the note...The housing and auto industries were crippled along with many others- thus the spike in unemployment...

Shortly after being elected wall st. caved and demanded a bailout, and of course with the democrats holding all of the cards and their worship of the almighty government, they said,"Oh course, we'll help you out." With tax revenue down because of the massive unemployment situation, they decided that all we needed was a few bucks of stimulas cash. Surely with all that stimulas money in there pockets people would want to go out and purchase a few extras and our economy would bounce back causing a reverse effect. They said, "Lets throw some money at the problem and solve it that way, after all we can always just print more..."

Well they followed through on the printing money part, but instead of going out and buying a new big screen tv or a new car, americans used it to pay their bills so that their famillies could have things like electricty and food. Even when it didn't work the first time, they kept trying different angles on the same plan. They flooded the economy with baseless curency when we were already in trouble... So how do you think they plan to solve the issue? Well the choice is obvious, "borrow more money to throw at it!"

We all know what happened last week so there is no need to recap that part.

S&P looked at our situation from a rational business perspective. When asked whose administratio was to blame they were honest. They told us that if Bush hadn't put us in a hopeless war WITH AN IDEA (and yes we are at war with terrorism, not al quaida, not osama, not with any nation. it is the war on terror) that we continue to funnel money into everyday in ungodly amounts then there would be problem paying off our debts at a determinable time. But we are still there thus giving us residual debt that has no end date of accrument.

Was the spending that was done under obama excessive and pointless? Absolutely! But can we put a dollar amount on it and make fiscal adjustments to see it paid off? Yes again. Thus far obama has an end date and a dollar amout but bush is still racking up a tab...



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheThirdAdam
Lengthy quote of prior post deleted


Ah, yes, it's all Obama's fault, and nothing done by any prior adminsitration, particularly the republican ones, was a contributing factor.

That's an unbelievably distorted misleading patently false propagandistic point of view. Other than that, a great post. People can learn much by dissecting it into its fallacious components.

If you want your propaganda to pass through people's bull# filter you'll need to be just a little bit more subtle.
edit on 8/7/2011 by dubiousone because: Clarification



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 05:29 PM
link   
This is all just simple math. You can either A) increase spending and increase revenue to cover it, or B) keep revenue the same and decrease spending. S&P can blame the lack of increased revenue all they want and it's true if they assume increased spending. On the other side one can assume constant revenue and then blame increased spending for the problem. Two sides of the same coin.

The issue here is that you can't both increase spending AND keep revenue constant. I don't really care what anyone thinks about which is correct, the bottom line is R and D collaborated to keep revenue constant AND increase spending.

You fools arguing about whose fault it is have missed the point. Once again, ALL in government have shot the American people in the face financially.



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by newcovenant

Originally posted by billyjack
Concerning ignorant white trash Tea party. I'll forgo voter photo ID at the polls if you will agree instead that each voter must solve a 6th grade Algebra word problem before being allowed to vote. Let's see how many Secular Socialist versus Tea Party candiddates are elected.

What's with the algebra? I'd be happy if they could add and subtract.
If they knew who was running, what they stand on, who funded their campaign and what the long term effects of this appointment will be on down the road. That would be something. You would see some changes then.


Wow, that a great way to get dialogue going.....just call the other side idiots and declare victory. Maybe we should include a spelling test too. (see above quote)...... People who construct glass houses shouldn't throw stones, IMO.


Please stop with the name calling, it's really going to get you absolutely nowhere except get "atta-boys" from people who already agree with you. You aren't changing anyone's mind with that kind of talk. What's your constructive idea on getting the debt and budget under control?



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by pavil

Originally posted by newcovenant

Originally posted by billyjack
Concerning ignorant white trash Tea party. I'll forgo voter photo ID at the polls if you will agree instead that each voter must solve a 6th grade Algebra word problem before being allowed to vote. Let's see how many Secular Socialist versus Tea Party candiddates are elected.

What's with the algebra? I'd be happy if they could add and subtract.
If they knew who was running, what they stand on, who funded their campaign and what the long term effects of this appointment will be on down the road. That would be something. You would see some changes then.


Wow, that a great way to get dialogue going.....just call the other side idiots and declare victory. Maybe we should include a spelling test too. (see above quote)...... People who construct glass houses shouldn't throw stones, IMO.


Please stop with the name calling, it's really going to get you absolutely nowhere except get "atta-boys" from people who already agree with you. You aren't changing anyone's mind with that kind of talk. What's your constructive idea on getting the debt and budget under control?



Clearly you are new to the conversation and jumping to conclusions. Poster and I are in agreement and saying constituents should be educated.

I know ..radical.

A small faction of Americans want to do away with the DOE, evolution, education in general. This education is a necessary requirement of your voter base for the Constitution and the Government to work. 'Course you are free to disagree.



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by newcovenant
 


I'm not new to the discussion. I see you haven't provided any solutions to the problem at hand. Don't make the assumption that only your opponents voter's are the only ones lacking education. You don't really want to get into that kind of match. If you really looked at polling data, you would find that both parties when they are the winning side, take the some college and graduated college vote. Democrats almost always have a commanding lead in the "didn't graduate High School" vote. Your claim would actually seem to hurt the Democratic voter more than the Republican one. If you doubt me... look up this data
NY Times Exit Polls 1980-2008

Pretty nifty site.

But hey, you believe what you want to..........it's always the other side that is the idiot, right? I mean how could they be right when they don't agree with you?
edit on 7-8-2011 by pavil because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by pavil
reply to post by newcovenant
 


I'm not new to the discussion. I see you haven't provided any solutions to the problem at hand. Don't make the assumption that only your opponents voter's are the only ones lacking education. You don't really want to get into that kind of match. If you really looked at polling data, you would find that both parties when they are the winning side, take the some college and graduated college vote. Democrats almost always have a commanding lead in the "didn't graduate High School" vote. Your claim would actually seem to hurt the Democratic voter more than the Republican one. If you doubt me... look up this data
NY Times Exit Polls 1980-2008

Pretty nifty site.

But hey, you believe what you want to..........it's always the other side that is the idiot, right? I mean how could they be right when they don't agree with you?
edit on 7-8-2011 by pavil because: (no reason given)


Hey good eye, but why do you look to a poster on a web sight to provide solutions? If I had all the answers would I be sitting here? If you were serious about finding them you might try consulting experts. Maybe you just want to argue?

You seem to think this undereducated discussion is directed at you.
I think you protest too much for whatever reason.
Usually I am directing these types of comparisons to the academically challenged RIGHT but this time I am not. It is about voters in general. Both sides. So yeah...you're new and I don't want to pick your brain. Thanks for the offer though. I don't think you are an idiot....Nobody has to agree with me. I present what facts are out there not in an emotional stew already and NOT designed to persuade based on emotion rather than intellect. Education like a free press is essential to the democracy. We might consider hangin' on to the Department of Education. Don't think education is a bad thing...all's I'm sayin' ...www.peace-action.org... Working for peace since 1957
edit on 7-8-2011 by newcovenant because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Keeper of Kheb
 


Why didn't you mention the Military Budget ?, if you allocate in all the interest, the Govft is spending 56% on Military (included in that is Military aid to places like Pakistan). They Borrow 40 cents of every $1 spent ... on the Global scale our Military budget is 42.8% of all Global spending, China is the next biggest spender at 7.3% ....... (which is at least double anyonre else) so this is the 800lb Gorrilla in the room.....if we scaled back to China's level we wouldn't need to cut anything ...



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by simplybill
During the eight years of the Bush Administration policies, the U.S. maintained a Standard & Poor's AAA rating. Now, however, Standard & Poor's seems to be blaming the Bush Administration for the current downgrade. So what changed?


We could have paid for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan had there never been a Hurricane Katrina or Rita, but when the “President to be” started campaigning on universal healthcare and handouts out the whazoo, the gears of commerce started grinding to a halt. Investment savvy consumers stopped buying bigger homes and started downsizing maximize equity. Instead of trading in their cars after two years for new ones, they kept the ones that they were driving and paid down on their existing loans. Many followed their lead and as a result, the housing and auto industries were crippled along with many other industries whose products are generally financed.

Unemployment rose dramatically in the construction and manufacturer labor fields. Although the national unemployment rate did not fully reflect the severity of the situation because most non-union construction workers are usually paid as contract laborers or in off the books cash, both disqualify an individual for unemployment insurance. Also, this was the beginning of the end for many small businesses.

Shortly after Obama was elected, Wall St. caved in and the corporate executives pleaded for federal bailouts, which of course were given and set us back exponentially further than before. With tax revenue down because of the unemployment crisis that we had only begun to see, they decided that all we needed was a little stimulus cash to give the economy a bit of a boost. Surely, with all that stimulus money in there pockets, people would want to go out and purchase a few luxuries that they had been doing without, right? By their logic, we were going to spend like it was Black Friday and resuscitate America‘s economy. They said, "Lets throw some money at the problem and it will solve itself, and if this doesn’t work, we can always just print more money..."

Well they followed through on the printing more money part, but instead of us going out and buying a new big screen tv or a new car, most Americans used it to pay their bills so that their families could have things like electricity and food. Even after this plan had failed them time after time, the Democrats kept working different variations of the same plan. They flooded the economy with baseless currency when we were already inflated and mortgaged to the max... So how do you think they plan to solve the debt problem? Well, the choice is obvious isn‘t it?

"Just borrow more money to throw at the problem!"

We all know what happened last week so there is no need to recap that part.

S&P looked at our situation from a rational business perspective and gave us a very generous evaluation. When asked whose administration was to blame for our current situation, S&P answered truthfully. They told us that it began with Bush.

Bush put us in a hopeless war WITH A CONCEPT (and yes we are at war with a concept, not al Qaeda, not Osama, not with any army. It is the war on terrorism which is and idea or concept) that we to this very day continue to funnel money in ungodly amounts that we do not have. The War on Terror has been waged in the same fashion as and will have the same result as the War on Drugs. Neither enemies can be captured or defeated and can not because of their very nature ever surrender. Aside from the principle of the matter, we have to recognize that we could give an exact dollar amount of financial damage that the Obama Administration has caused tax payers. With a tangible amount we could then give a realistic timeframe as to when we could repay our creditors.

Bush hasn‘t been in office for a few years, but his policies are costing us right now.

Was the spending that was done under Obama leadership excessive and pointless? Absolutely! But can we put a dollar amount on it and make fiscal adjustments to see it paid off? Yes again. Thus far Obama has an end date and a dollar amount but Bush is still racking up a tab...

Hope that answered your questions J

Sorry about previous post, my daughter sent it from my phone and I thought she had deleted it before I could upload.



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 05:08 AM
link   
we need to slim down about 40 cents on every dollar, 40%, just to stay within our revenue stream....

okay, 20% increase in revenue
20% decrease in spending...

cut everything across the board by 10%....including gov't salaries...
all gov't salaries above $100,000, cut another 10%

cut all agency budgets, including the dod by 20%
all foreign aid by 20%
all food stamps, hud vouchers, welfare, social secuirity checks by 20%
payments to hopsitals, doctors, ect....by 20%

and well you get the idea.....
increase revenue by 20%
10% or more by closing the loopholes that enable the rich to walk away without paying hardly any taxes....
10% on the tax credits for being poor, buying solar energy and on and on...
and well, make up the different with a overall tax increase....

don't give me the bs about contractual obligations, there's contracts involved with the servicemen and women, and some were eager to throw those out the window!!!

problem painfully solved....but we'd at least let the healing process begin!!!



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by dawnstar
 



Very true... Everybody seems to be throwing out ideas on how we should fix our economy that do not take away from their interest or agenda. What everybody seems to be overlooking is the fact that cleaning up messes is not fun for anyone. We all have things that we would rather do besides clean crap out of the our sheets. You can get up and do it first thing and be done with it, or you can stall until you can't anymore and have to replace the mattress too. It doesn't matter who crapped the bed, it's where we sleep and it has to be cleaned before bedtime.

Like it or not Republicans, taxes will have to be raised. Don't get too excited Democrats, we can't afford any new spending either, and we should really consider cutting some of the old. I know I'm extremely unpopular right now but I'm just trying to think like any responsible adult would think if their family ended up on the verge of bankruptcy like our nation is now, metaphorically speaking. They would cut out unnecessary spending and pay down as much as possible on their debts.

Doesn't matter who you think is to blame. The ugly truth is that we are in financial trouble because of poor decisions made by both Bush and Obama Administrations, but we are where we are, and as much you may not like it, sacrifices are necessary if economic stability is to be regained.

As always, please feel free to correct me where necessary...



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimnuggits
What it boils down to is a very simple case of taxation without representation.

Soon, there will be no middle class, only workers and prisoners.

I see this argument as completely focusing on the wrong aspects of what is happening.

Red versus Blue for the Shiny Bull(snip) Award.

What are we, five, six years old?

'We the corporations, in order to form a more perfect quarter'...

One man's 'debt' is another man's pirate treasure.

We were robbed, and everyone is arguing about the color of the get away car,

How about a more constructive, problem solving conversation?


True.

The Republican Vs Democrat game is nothing but a distraction.

Logistically the solution is simple. Increase taxes and create jobs.

The fact that unemployment is not that main focus on the federal level should be a red flag to anyone paying attention...



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by simplybill
During the eight years of the Bush Administration policies, the U.S. maintained a Standard & Poor's AAA rating. Now, however, Standard & Poor's seems to be blaming the Bush Administration for the current downgrade. So what changed?


What changed?

The affects of the decisions made during the Bush administration. That is not a diss on Bush.

It is just logic. You do something - - it takes a few years to evaluate the affects.



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 12:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by JackBauer
This is a two way street. While the obama administration has spent an insane amount of money, and gotten us farther into this mess, the tea party is of no help. They can be a great group, but their thought process is completely backwards. They're tired of putting out so much in taxes, but yet they stand by and fight for extensions on the tax breaks. Hello?! These tax breaks are not for you, they're for the upper crust, the top 2% of major business.


Not so.

The Bush tax cuts cut taxes across the board and resulted in hundreds of thousands of people in lower income tax brackets (at the time) falling completely off the tax records.

Almost half of all Americans pay no income tax at all.

The democrats want to extend these tax cuts for everyone but the "rich." "Rich" being defined as anyone making over 250k a year (a couple.)

Granted, 250K is a lot of money where I live. But not everywhere in the US. 250k is the approximate income of a New York fire station house chief and his schoolteacher wife,

Not exactly the Rockefellers.

BTW, that same NY couple already pays approximately HALF their income in taxes, when you include state and local.

It seems to me that taxes aren't the real problem.

Harte



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 06:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 

no, this couple's problem is that they live in NY State!! the slush fund state of every politician's dreams!!! and who are the half of americans not paying taxes?? we're below the median wage in our area, meaning more than half of the people are earning more than us, and I assure you, we are paying taxes!! my coworker who I assume makes less than me, well, he ain't even making a living!! and he pays taxes....
so, it isn't all the poor that isn't paying taxes.....
more than likely it's the ones who have the means to be able to take advantage of enough tax credits and deductions that they can bring that tax obligation down to 0!! and well.....the poor don't usually put solar panels on their homes, or start new businesses in their homes, or buy company cars for their wives to go shopping in!!!

by the way, the gov't also gives more in tax credits and deductions than it takes in as revenue!!!
kind of like if I just came by and took your paycheck from you, all of it, and then decided, ooops!! I took too much, and then commenced to decide just how much I should give back to you, based on your behavior throughout the year. what, you didn't do enough to conserve energy?? well, you don't deserve this money here then....no kids to increase our population....nope, not this money either.....ooops!! you can't live on that much, guess I should give you a little bit at least, here, have a standard deduction, you might survive with that!!!
the tax laws or any other laws for that matter, shouldn't be used to steer us into making decisions we wouldn't be making if it wasn't for those laws!!! laws are for keeping us from doing things that harm others, shouldn't do much more than that......






top topics



 
42
<< 14  15  16   >>

log in

join