Right wing extremists set a new low in disrepecting America

[Billo_Really]

The ones we've been fighting for the last 10 years were all started by the republican right.

You mean like Hillary Clinton and John Kerry who supported the invasion of Iraq? Bet if the Bitch Of Benghazi runs for President you will conveniently forget her stance on interventionism because that is just the kind of hypocrite you are. Obama fought the war in Iraq for three years and called it a success.

Hillary is a closet neocon. I've been against the Iraq war from day one. Ever since Bush and Cheney started lying about it. Nothing you can say, changes the fact that it was Bush who made the call to go in.

You can't ignore 100 years of Democrat interventionism. Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton and Obama. Clinton bombed Christians to support Muslims and what the hell was he doing bombing Iraq and sending Rangers to get killed going after Somalian warloards?

I'm not ignoring anything.

But it was Reagan that politicized our intelligence agencies and mainstream media.

Bullshit! The Cold War war was started by Truman and fought very hard by Kennedy, Johnson and even that nitwit pussy Carter. Kennedy almost got us all killed. You should thank Reagan because he is the one with the help of Kohl and Thatcher put an end to the Soviet Union that led to further disarmament.

Reagan didn't put an end to the Soviet Union, they just ran out of money.

His foreign policy is basically the neocon agenda. And no, I don't like it. BTW, Obama's not my boy,

I don't believe you. From your Libtard rhetoric I think you are lying and I think you voted for him. The one that fought the Iraq War for three years and called it a success and has now reintroduced both bombing and ground troops, escalated the war in Afghanistan and is now talking about keeping troops on indefinitely and who bombed Libya. That is a Liberal interventionist for you.

You can believe whatever you want. I don't argue against a person's beliefs. Just don't try to push them off as facts without evidence to prove it.

If you mean what you say let me hear you denounce Obama. Say the words.

I withdrew my support from Obama's policies over 5 years ago, when it became clear he was not a liberal. And yes, I voted for him. Twice. I also voted for Reagan. Twice.

You really don't know what you're talking about, do you? Some preacher making an off-color remark, does not make Obama a racist.

The Rev Wright was preaching from the pulpit in a Black Chicago hate church where Obama attended for 20 years and called Wright his "spiritual advisor". Obama's agenda in trying to use every racial event in America to publicize the Blacks as being victims when they are usually the aggressors has very racial hatred overtones to it. He is like many Blacks. A race hating shithead. The Left in America thrives on racial division. They love it and encourage it whenever possible.

This is pure Goebbels's 101. Accuse the victims of racism, as being racist.

It would be better if you spent more time knowing your own facts, than guessing about mine

I didn't have to guess, you stated your confusion, ignorance and hypocrisy.

No, you were guessing. And now you're playing word games.

 

[1stRambo]

Yo, "TAX THE RICH" this is the Radical talk of today! Problem, it was tried by the son of Ted Kennedy! Yes, Teddy was always pushing that "Radical Strategy" and I guess it ran in the family? Yes, Patrick failed like his daddy!!!

Tax Break for the Yachting Class

By George F. Will

Thursday, October 28, 1999; Page A33

Once when Paul Hindemith, composer of very modern music, was rehearsing one of his especially dissonant compositions, he interrupted the orchestra, saying, "No, no, gentlemen. Even though it sounds wrong, it's still not right."

Contemporary politics, a kind of atonal music, produces moments like that. Consider Rep. Patrick Kennedy's (D-R.I.) proposed legislation to succor the yacht industry and assuage the pains of its most put-upon customers.

The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 was the budget agreement by which President Bush broke his "read-my-lips" vow not to agree to new taxes. The act was, as omnibus bills tend to be, an eye-of-newt-and-hair-of-toad brew of this and that and some other things, and it included--in the name of fairness, of course--a stern tax on "luxury items."

Those items included automobiles, aircraft, jewelry and furs over certain prices. And yachts costing more than $100,000.

In 1990 there were no luxury excise taxes, all of them having been repealed in 1965. But perhaps every quarter-century or so government--it cannot help itself--must go on a "fairness" bender, the memory of the hangover from similar misadventures having faded.

In 1990 the Joint Committee on Taxation projected that the 1991 revenue yield from luxury taxes would be $31 million. It was $16.6 million. Why? Because (surprise!) the taxation changed behavior: Fewer people bought the taxed products. Demand went down when prices went up. Washington was amazed. People bought yachts overseas. Who would have thought it?

According to a study done for the Joint Economic Committee, the tax destroyed 330 jobs in jewelry manufacturing, 1,470 in the aircraft industry and 7,600 in the boating industry. The job losses cost the government a total of $24.2 million in unemployment benefits and lost income tax revenues. So the net effect of the taxes was a loss of $7.6 million in fiscal 1991, which means the government projection was off by $38.6 million.

This illustrates the shortcomings of "static analysis." Concerning which, consider an imaginary case.

It has been calculated that if the federal government imposed--in the name of fairness, of course--a 100 percent tax on all the earnings, from the first penny, of all millionaires, which is to say if the government confiscated all their earnings, the sum would suffice to run the government for just six weeks. The problem with that calculation is that it reflects "static analysis." That is, it does not allow for behavioral changes the tax would provoke: No one would earn the one-millionth dollar, thereby triggering the confiscation, so the revenue yield from the 100 percent rate on millionaires would be zero.

But back to reality. "Practical politics," Henry Adams famously said, "consists in ignoring facts." But facts are famously stubborn things, particularly when they involve unpleasantness for one's constituents. In 1993 Congress repealed the excise taxes on boats, aircraft, jewelry and furs. It also indexed, phased down and scheduled the expiration of the tax on cars.

Now comes Kennedy with "The Boat Building Investment Act," which he calls "exactly the opposite of a luxury tax." Indeed it is.

Its centerpiece is a 20 percent tax credit for purchasers of American-made luxury yachts more than 50 feet long. So the purchaser of a $1 million yacht would get a $200,000 credit against his federal income taxes.

However, this would not be an unlimited benefit for the upper crust. The credit would be capped at $2 million, so the government would help only with the first $10 million that a purchaser spends on a yacht.

You probably have not heard of Kennedy's legislation. Do you think you might have heard a media uproar about it if its author were a Republican? Just a thought.

Kennedy says America lags behind other nations in "supporting" boat manufacturers, so this bill also would spend $25 million annually on "export assistance"--for example, marketing American-made yachts at overseas expositions--and training employees of America's yacht-builders. This is necessary, Kennedy says, to "continue the revitalization" of the industry after the "near-fatal experience when the luxury tax was implemented."

This legislation is a matter of fairness, says Kennedy, who acknowledges that hitherto he has supported "targeted tax cuts" targeted at people of modest means. But his proposal, as he explains it, is really sort of like that. The benefit of up to $2 million for each purchaser of a luxury yacht would benefit the nearly 6,000 Rhode Islanders working in the state's more than $1 billion-a-year boat-building industry, and workers elsewhere.

You see, the subsidy to the wealthy would, to coin a phrase, trickle down.

"GTP"

 

[Billo_Really]

Yo, "TAX THE RICH" this is the Radical talk of today! Problem, it was tried by the son of Ted Kennedy! Yes, Teddy was always pushing that "Radical Strategy" and I guess it ran in the family? Yes, Patrick failed like his daddy!!!

Tax Break for the Yachting Class

By George F. Will

Thursday, October 28, 1999; Page A33

Once when Paul Hindemith, composer of very modern music, was rehearsing one of his especially dissonant compositions, he interrupted the orchestra, saying, "No, no, gentlemen. Even though it sounds wrong, it's still not right."

Contemporary politics, a kind of atonal music, produces moments like that. Consider Rep. Patrick Kennedy's (D-R.I.) proposed legislation to succor the yacht industry and assuage the pains of its most put-upon customers.

The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 was the budget agreement by which President Bush broke his "read-my-lips" vow not to agree to new taxes. The act was, as omnibus bills tend to be, an eye-of-newt-and-hair-of-toad brew of this and that and some other things, and it included--in the name of fairness, of course--a stern tax on "luxury items."

Those items included automobiles, aircraft, jewelry and furs over certain prices. And yachts costing more than $100,000.

In 1990 there were no luxury excise taxes, all of them having been repealed in 1965. But perhaps every quarter-century or so government--it cannot help itself--must go on a "fairness" bender, the memory of the hangover from similar misadventures having faded.

In 1990 the Joint Committee on Taxation projected that the 1991 revenue yield from luxury taxes would be $31 million. It was $16.6 million. Why? Because (surprise!) the taxation changed behavior: Fewer people bought the taxed products. Demand went down when prices went up. Washington was amazed. People bought yachts overseas. Who would have thought it?

According to a study done for the Joint Economic Committee, the tax destroyed 330 jobs in jewelry manufacturing, 1,470 in the aircraft industry and 7,600 in the boating industry. The job losses cost the government a total of $24.2 million in unemployment benefits and lost income tax revenues. So the net effect of the taxes was a loss of $7.6 million in fiscal 1991, which means the government projection was off by $38.6 million.

This illustrates the shortcomings of "static analysis." Concerning which, consider an imaginary case.

It has been calculated that if the federal government imposed--in the name of fairness, of course--a 100 percent tax on all the earnings, from the first penny, of all millionaires, which is to say if the government confiscated all their earnings, the sum would suffice to run the government for just six weeks. The problem with that calculation is that it reflects "static analysis." That is, it does not allow for behavioral changes the tax would provoke: No one would earn the one-millionth dollar, thereby triggering the confiscation, so the revenue yield from the 100 percent rate on millionaires would be zero.

But back to reality. "Practical politics," Henry Adams famously said, "consists in ignoring facts." But facts are famously stubborn things, particularly when they involve unpleasantness for one's constituents. In 1993 Congress repealed the excise taxes on boats, aircraft, jewelry and furs. It also indexed, phased down and scheduled the expiration of the tax on cars.

Now comes Kennedy with "The Boat Building Investment Act," which he calls "exactly the opposite of a luxury tax." Indeed it is.

Its centerpiece is a 20 percent tax credit for purchasers of American-made luxury yachts more than 50 feet long. So the purchaser of a $1 million yacht would get a $200,000 credit against his federal income taxes.

However, this would not be an unlimited benefit for the upper crust. The credit would be capped at $2 million, so the government would help only with the first $10 million that a purchaser spends on a yacht.

You probably have not heard of Kennedy's legislation. Do you think you might have heard a media uproar about it if its author were a Republican? Just a thought.

Kennedy says America lags behind other nations in "supporting" boat manufacturers, so this bill also would spend $25 million annually on "export assistance"--for example, marketing American-made yachts at overseas expositions--and training employees of America's yacht-builders. This is necessary, Kennedy says, to "continue the revitalization" of the industry after the "near-fatal experience when the luxury tax was implemented."

This legislation is a matter of fairness, says Kennedy, who acknowledges that hitherto he has supported "targeted tax cuts" targeted at people of modest means. But his proposal, as he explains it, is really sort of like that. The benefit of up to $2 million for each purchaser of a luxury yacht would benefit the nearly 6,000 Rhode Islanders working in the state's more than $1 billion-a-year boat-building industry, and workers elsewhere.

You see, the subsidy to the wealthy would, to coin a phrase, trickle down.

"GTP"

The bottom line is, I don't want anyone paying less of a tax rate than I do. So we need to raise the tax rate 10% on both capital gains and stock dividends. And in addition to that, we need to create a Financial Transactions Tax on every share traded on Wall Street.

 

[chikenwing]

If you aren't a liberal you are un-American, like good old Rudy.

LOL what a stupid shallow minded thing say,but then poster like this one a just drones that repeat whats told them,if your different,your no good,the so inclusive tolerant left shows what they are really abut,control

 

[1stRambo]

Yo, Billo_Really, who paid your way through life? Someone richer then you! That money you are talking about is not a job, so keep your nose where it belongs!

"GTP"