Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
]Altering quotes is not tolerated, Joe
Please don't start talking about roads and fire and police. That is NOT where inheritance tax goes because those are local services provided by the state.
What?There is no difference to the bottom line between spending and tax cuts and lord, do they want to spend on the billionaires.
Your reply made no sense with regard to My question.
Who is talking about giving more money to the 1%?
Changing the inheritance tax law alone is like a 100 billion dollar gift to billionaires, keep up, your party wants to push trickle down to its extreme limit.
The inheritance tax is probably the single worst tax there is because it destroys the capital stock. We should end it and raise taxes or cut spending elsewhere. If people don't want to cut spending and don't want the burden shifted downward, to offset the loss of the inheritance tax, we should raise income taxes on the wealthiest.
The inheritance tax is probably the single worst tax there is because it destroys the capital stock. We should end it and raise taxes or cut spending elsewhere. If people don't want to cut spending and don't want the burden shifted downward, to offset the loss of the inheritance tax, we should raise income taxes on the wealthiest.
Or, here's a crazy idea.
We could pay working people decent wages and not accumulate so much "capital".
You see, the untold story is that in the process of making the 1% richer, we've made the 99% poorer... and when you have half the country not paying taxes because they don't have jobs or the jobs they have don't pay enough to even bother taxing after standard deductions, you have a decrease in revenue.
So we really are burning the candle at both ends.
[
We have not made the 99% poorer. Your facts are wrong and it's not a zero sum game.
If you want to start a business and pay people a "decent" wage, feel free. I'd support you 100% in your endeavor.
Funny how the rw's are piling on in the Hate Obama And Tell New Lies About Him but tip toe past The Truth About Romney threads.
As soon as they can think of some lameass excuse for this slip by Mittens, they'll post though. Count on it.
Reminds me when the dems were piling on Bush when he was in office.
You really think only Ds were smart enough twaste what an unmitigated disaster that man was and is?
I disagree. I think a lot of Rs finally wised up as well. Hell, it was pretty hard for anyone to mistake him for an actual president.
Funny how the rw's are piling on in the Hate Obama And Tell New Lies About Him but tip toe past The Truth About Romney threads.
As soon as they can think of some lameass excuse for this slip by Mittens, they'll post though. Count on it.
Reminds me when the dems were piling on Bush when he was in office.
Let me try it this way. We always talk about how much taxes and at what time the government takes these taxes, but we never seem to ask why the government needs to take the taxes to begin with. However, lets address the inheritance tax first.Wow, really?
It STILL IS NOT THE GOVERNMENTS money, is it? The government has to confiscate it. On top of all that, you are talking about money that HAS ALREADY BEEN TAXED as it was earned. Inheritance should not be taxed at all in My opinion because it was taxed as it entered the family to begin with. This is like saying that a ROTH 401k retirement account should be taxed again after it starts paying out. For those who don't know, a ROTH 401k is a retirement account that is post taxation and therefore is not taxed upon withdraw.
Taxes were not paid by the heirs...
The heirs never worked for that money or paid a dime on it.
But my guess is, if you are rich, somehow the government benefited you when you were amassing your fortune.
Again, if you guys are really serious about making government smaller, just actually make people pay for it. It'll get smaller really fast, then.
A man starts a farm and through his life, he has a son and when the son is old enough, he works the farm of his father. As the farm grows larger, so does the family. The son gets married, has a son of his own, and that person also grows and works on the farm.
Now, the labor of the man, his son, and his grandson have been taxed. The equipment has been taxed, the very land they farm has been taxed. Each time the farm increases in size, they are taxed more and more. The product they use to grow their product is taxed. The fuel, fertilizer, even the water if they have to use irrigation.
The man dies.
The ONLY thing that has changed is that the son and his son now have to do the work that the old man won't be doing anymore. Everything else is exactly the same.
You want to, because the old man died, take away half of the farm. Talk about greed! The land and farm have been in the ""FAMILY'" for three generations now, yet somehow; the government hasn't managed to take enough of their life.
Now, let's ask why the government wants all this wealth that has been sweated and worried over for the past three generations....
So, tell Me, why does government need half of what this family has worked for over the past 80 years?
Please don't start talking about roads and fire and police. That is NOT where inheritance tax goes because those are local services provided by the state.
Of course.....I wouldn't expect an honest answer from you on your best day, dean.
Of course.....I wouldn't expect an honest answer from you on your best day, dean.
It's the best I could do. Suppose you give some examples of "Democrats piling on".
Of course.....I wouldn't expect an honest answer from you on your best day, dean.
It's the best I could do. Suppose you give some examples of "Democrats piling on".
When the unemployment was at 5.6% in 2004
Tax cuts that DID actually reduce the deficit until 2008
Recess appointments by Bush
High gas prices
Bush stole the election, which was proved not to be true.
Women's rights
Anything that Obama says he did
Of course.....I wouldn't expect an honest answer from you on your best day, dean.
It's the best I could do. Suppose you give some examples of "Democrats piling on".
When the unemployment was at 5.6% in 2004
Tax cuts that DID actually reduce the deficit until 2008
Recess appointments by Bush
High gas prices
Bush stole the election, which was proved not to be true.
Women's rights
Anything that Obama says he did
[
We have not made the 99% poorer. Your facts are wrong and it's not a zero sum game.
If you want to start a business and pay people a "decent" wage, feel free. I'd support you 100% in your endeavor.
No problem.
We take the money away from the plutocrats, we invest in education and infrastructure like any sensible advance democracy does, good wages and prosperity follow.
In fact, that is EXACTLY what we did in the wake of the Great Depression and WWII, and we had decades of awesome prosperity...
Even your miserable country benefited...
William K. Black: Romney Messes Up, Tells the Truth About Austerity
oops ...
OTOH, the Rs seem to think we don't know what austerity has done to other countries or that investing in one's own country is an enormous boost to that economy.
Stupid Rs think we are so stupid that we will believe them when they tell us that giving more money to the one percent will result in jobs. They actually believe the American voter doesn't know that, since corrupt Reagan first made us a debtor nation with his tinkle down theory, NO jobs have been created by taking money from the lower classes and ging it to the wealthy.
Don't worry about Mitts little slip. I'm sure he's right back to lying again.
Those who don't like the source are free to prove that Mittens didn't say it.
Halperin: Why not in the first year, if you're elected -- why not in 2013, go all the way and propose the kind of budget with spending restraints, that you'd like to see after four years in office? Why not do it more quickly?
Romney: Well because, if you take a trillion dollars for instance, out of the first year of the federal budget, that would shrink GDP over 5%. That is by definition throwing us into recession or depression. So I'm not going to do that, of course.
Halperin: I want to get to a lot of those, and let’s go to spending, which is a big thing for you, one of the bases of comparison – you say you’d cut spending a lot more than the President has. And like most governors I know, you can get down in the detail. A lot of people don’t know that about you; you can really get your arms around a policy issue and go deep, so let’s talk about spending. You have a plan, as you said, over a number of years, to reduce spending dramatically. Why not in the first year, if you’re elected — why not in 2013, go all the way and propose the kind of budget with spending restraints, that you’d like to see after four years in office? Why not do it more quickly?
Romney: Well because, if you take a trillion dollars for instance, out of the first year of the federal budget, that would shrink GDP over 5%. That is by definition throwing us into recession or depression. So I’m not going to do that, of course. What you do is you make adjustments on a basis that show, in the first year, actions that over time get you to a balanced budget. So I’m not saying I’m going to come up with ideas five or ten years from now that get us to a balanced budget. Instead I’m going to take action immediately by eliminating programs like Obamacare, which become more and more expensive down the road – by eliminating them, we get to a balanced budget. And I’d do it in a way that does not have a huge reduction in the first year, but instead has an increasing reduction as time goes on, and given the growth of the economy, you don’t have a reduction in the overall scale of the GDP. I don’t want to have us go into a recession in order to balance the budget. I’d like to have us have high rates of growth at the same time we bring down federal spending, on, if you will, a ramp that’s affordable, but that does not cause us to enter into a economic decline.
Read more: The Page by Mark Halperin | The Complete Romney Interview Transcript
Let me try it this way. We always talk about how much taxes and at what time the government takes these taxes, but we never seem to ask why the government needs to take the taxes to begin with. However, lets address the inheritance tax first.Taxes were not paid by the heirs...
The heirs never worked for that money or paid a dime on it.
But my guess is, if you are rich, somehow the government benefited you when you were amassing your fortune.
Again, if you guys are really serious about making government smaller, just actually make people pay for it. It'll get smaller really fast, then.
A man starts a farm and through his life, he has a son and when the son is old enough, he works the farm of his father. As the farm grows larger, so does the family. The son gets married, has a son of his own, and that person also grows and works on the farm.
Now, the labor of the man, his son, and his grandson have been taxed. The equipment has been taxed, the very land they farm has been taxed. Each time the farm increases in size, they are taxed more and more. The product they use to grow their product is taxed. The fuel, fertilizer, even the water if they have to use irrigation.
The man dies.
The ONLY thing that has changed is that the son and his son now have to do the work that the old man won't be doing anymore. Everything else is exactly the same.
You want to, because the old man died, take away half of the farm. Talk about greed! The land and farm have been in the ""FAMILY'" for three generations now, yet somehow; the government hasn't managed to take enough of their life.
Now, let's ask why the government wants all this wealth that has been sweated and worried over for the past three generations....
So, tell Me, why does government need half of what this family has worked for over the past 80 years?
Please don't start talking about roads and fire and police. That is NOT where inheritance tax goes because those are local services provided by the state.
Wow, interesting story. Got a "link"? I want to find out who this family is.
[
We have not made the 99% poorer. Your facts are wrong and it's not a zero sum game.
If you want to start a business and pay people a "decent" wage, feel free. I'd support you 100% in your endeavor.
No problem.
We take the money away from the plutocrats, we invest in education and infrastructure like any sensible advance democracy does, good wages and prosperity follow.
In fact, that is EXACTLY what we did in the wake of the Great Depression and WWII, and we had decades of awesome prosperity...
Even your miserable country benefited...
No. Go start a business now. Hire people and pay them decent wages.
No problem.
We take the money away from the plutocrats, we invest in education and infrastructure like any sensible advance democracy does, good wages and prosperity follow.
In fact, that is EXACTLY what we did in the wake of the Great Depression and WWII, and we had decades of awesome prosperity...
Even your miserable country benefited...
No. Go start a business now. Hire people and pay them decent wages.
No, I'll just vote to tax you assholes.. it's a lot simpler and requires less work on my part.
Let me try it this way. We always talk about how much taxes and at what time the government takes these taxes, but we never seem to ask why the government needs to take the taxes to begin with. However, lets address the inheritance tax first.
A man starts a farm and through his life, he has a son and when the son is old enough, he works the farm of his father. As the farm grows larger, so does the family. The son gets married, has a son of his own, and that person also grows and works on the farm.
Now, the labor of the man, his son, and his grandson have been taxed. The equipment has been taxed, the very land they farm has been taxed. Each time the farm increases in size, they are taxed more and more. The product they use to grow their product is taxed. The fuel, fertilizer, even the water if they have to use irrigation.
The man dies.
The ONLY thing that has changed is that the son and his son now have to do the work that the old man won't be doing anymore. Everything else is exactly the same.
You want to, because the old man died, take away half of the farm. Talk about greed! The land and farm have been in the ""FAMILY'" for three generations now, yet somehow; the government hasn't managed to take enough of their life.
Now, let's ask why the government wants all this wealth that has been sweated and worried over for the past three generations....
So, tell Me, why does government need half of what this family has worked for over the past 80 years?
Please don't start talking about roads and fire and police. That is NOT where inheritance tax goes because those are local services provided by the state.
Wow, interesting story. Got a "link"? I want to find out who this family is.
I found it amusing that he used the example of a farmer, because we all feel really bad for farmers.
When if you want to talk about a group that is living high off the government hog, it's farmers. It's why all the "Rectangle" states get a lot more out of the fed than they ever put in.
Rural Electrification, Rural roads, farm subsidies... that family farm doesn't exist without government largress. That's what the Farm Aid thing was all about in the 1980's.
