Thanks to Obama MY PAYCHECK IS LESS!!!

[NYcarbineer]

Bonds are borrowing. They are paid back when they mature. If they are paid back with new borrowed money, they remain effectively unpaid loans.

A war tax would be better, placed neatly on top of that Balanced Budget Amendment.

When people are paying an extra X percentage for everything they purchase to finance a war, perhaps they'll be less likely to play Armchair Rambo and actually think things through first. You know, reason.

.

A tax would take money from you and give you nothing in return. A bond gives you interest in return. That way the people who actually pay reap the reward.

The $1000 you loan the government in a bond is spent and then paid back out of your taxes.

The money to pay back the bonds has to come from tax revenues.

 

[Too Tall]

Just think of it as your having to start making payments on those 2 wars you bought on credit while Bush was president.

Bush gave Obama a signed agreement to get out of Iraq and we still have over 60,000 troops in Afghanistan after 4 years of Obama.

 

[mjollnir]

War bonds.

War bond - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But most here aren't old enough to remember them.

Bonds are borrowing. They are paid back when they mature. If they are paid back with new borrowed money, they remain effectively unpaid loans.

But they are not borrowin from banks. They are borrowing from the American people. And the interest goes directly to the American people and not to a corporation. The problem is these days people manage their money so stupidly they couldn't buy a bond if their neck depended on it.

Please know what you're talking about before looking like a complete fucking idiot.

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/tic/Documents/mfh.txt

The TRUTH About Who Really Owns All Of America's Debt - Business Insider

 

[paperview]

Paying for the Spanish-American War:

1898 The Spanish-American War proved too brief to inspire the array of financial innovations required to prosecute the Civil War. Congress, however, did not rely exclusively on tariffs or excises to fund the war effort; it turned instead to a national inheritance tax to meet the costs of combat.

The inheritance tax boasted several well-known proponents, the most surprising of whom may have been steel magnate Andrew Carnegie. In "The Gospel of Wealth," his renowned 1890 essay in the North American Review, Carnegie advocated a progressive federal inheritance tax designed to confiscate most of a decedent’s estate, leaving only a modest allowance for immediate heirs. Notable academic economists from Richard T. Ely to E.R.A. Seligman concurred with Carnegie.


Cartoon commenting on excise tax increases during the Spanish-American War, 1898.The bill passed by Congress in 1898 taxed legacies and inherited personal property on a graduated scale according to the size of the estate and the degree of relationship to the deceased (surviving husbands and wives received a general exemption). A maximum rate of 15 percent applied to bequests from estates valued over $1 million to distant relatives, nonrelatives, or "bodies politic or corporate." The bill also included an excise on receipts in excess of $200,000 assessed to firms in the petroleum and sugar refining industries. Overall, war-time inheritance taxation yielded about $22.5 million.

Tax History Project: Reconstruction to the Spanish-American War

And the Civil War saw the first creation of -- The Income Tax.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Cool. I own a company and hire people. I am a wealth creator! Thanks for the new label.

You seem angry and jealous of assembly line workers and first responders. What a sad existence.

Bu.....bu.....bu.... he spent two weeks donating time to Habitat! That makes him a big philantropist now doesn't it!

I am going to attempt to kill (sadly, only figuratively) two looney birds with one post:

LoneLaugher Nobody has a sadder existence than the unfortunate one who laughs alone.

Sunshine, did I claim to be philanthropist? (Check your spelling, BTW). Two weeks out of 52 is a higher percentage of donation than the reported time donated to charity by either Joe Biden or President Obama, which is, in both cases zero. Care to reveal to the world the time you donated to charity?

And as a trivia: In all those years I volunteered I only met one lady from Indianapolis who was Democrat. She cried when Gore lost.

Neither of you are very apt at sarcasm.

Oh! You killed me! You said that I am " not apt at sarcasm "!

Quick.....say that 10 times really fast!

 

[Dick Tuck]

NM candidate accused of slashing opponent's tires - Farmington Daily Times

What a class act.

 

[DiamondDave]

Let's see.....for the sake of lame argument......

Spork + 8 hours labor equals one hole dug.

Gas post hole auger + 8 hours labor equals 100 holes dug.

Do you see why your argument is stupid?

And the operation of the spork or the auger is not hard except on the muscles or breaking a sweat... but the person who has to train and fix the machinery in the auger when nobody else in town can fix it is going to demand the money.. not because he broke a sweat or came home after 14 hours straight working, sore as con be.. because his efforts added value and met a demand... and he could not be replaced with one of millions of people who can bend over and dig a hole or hold on to 2 handles whole the machine digs the hole for them

OK...I'll play...even though you are changing the subject.

How many times the income of the auger operator should the auger repairman earn?

Should the auger operator earn enough money to live on, or is his full time job so easy that he can get another one.

1) The repairman should earn what he can derive when the auger is broken.. and if he has more competition from other repairmen or because of the introduction of an automatic auger repair machine, he will not demand as much... pretty simple concept
2) The auger operator should earn only as much as the level that makes it worthwhile not to bring in another who will do the same unskilled labor.. whether he can afford to feed and house a family of 4 is irrelevant.. that is a responsibility of the person and if they have to work 3 jobs because each one they do is easily replaced by another person or service, so be it

 

[syrenn]

Tax increase if for only those making over 400,000 per year

I guess you missed the 2% payroll thing.....

 

[Too Tall]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Behold the most intelligent post from del.

When all else fails, parrot a Democrat talking point.
Or a Democrat subsidized word.
Or a syllable, approved by Democrats.

When you have absolutely no brains beyond controlling your bodily functions (and even there there are some doubts) you must sink to repeating ONE (1) letter.

I am not surprised that you you punched the "Z" button on your keyboard 75 times.

After all you are a Democrat.

The pause is the Z's was when Del had to change his Depends.

 

[LoneLaugher]

And the operation of the spork or the auger is not hard except on the muscles or breaking a sweat... but the person who has to train and fix the machinery in the auger when nobody else in town can fix it is going to demand the money.. not because he broke a sweat or came home after 14 hours straight working, sore as con be.. because his efforts added value and met a demand... and he could not be replaced with one of millions of people who can bend over and dig a hole or hold on to 2 handles whole the machine digs the hole for them

OK...I'll play...even though you are changing the subject.

How many times the income of the auger operator should the auger repairman earn?

Should the auger operator earn enough money to live on, or is his full time job so easy that he can get another one.

1) The repairman should earn what he can derive when the auger is broken.. and if he has more competition from other repairmen or because of the introduction of an automatic auger repair machine, he will not demand as much... pretty simple concept
2) The auger operator should earn only as much as the level that makes it worthwhile not to bring in another who will do the same unskilled labor.. whether he can afford to feed and house a family of 4 is irrelevant.. that is a responsibility of the person and if they have to work 3 jobs because each one they do is easily replaced by another person or service, so be it

Therefore, we have labor unions. The only thing that prevents the owner/management from eventually having to dig those fucking holes themselves.

 

[Sunshine]

Tax increase if for only those making over 400,000 per year

I guess you missed the 2% payroll thing.....

When they don't work that part goes over their head like a 747.

 

[DiamondDave]

OK...I'll play...even though you are changing the subject.

How many times the income of the auger operator should the auger repairman earn?

Should the auger operator earn enough money to live on, or is his full time job so easy that he can get another one.

1) The repairman should earn what he can derive when the auger is broken.. and if he has more competition from other repairmen or because of the introduction of an automatic auger repair machine, he will not demand as much... pretty simple concept
2) The auger operator should earn only as much as the level that makes it worthwhile not to bring in another who will do the same unskilled labor.. whether he can afford to feed and house a family of 4 is irrelevant.. that is a responsibility of the person and if they have to work 3 jobs because each one they do is easily replaced by another person or service, so be it

Therefore, we have labor unions. The only thing that prevents the owner/management from eventually having to dig those fucking holes themselves.

You can have unions or groups of people all you want... with the right of the employer to dismiss or fire every last one in the union if they so choose...

If the owner has to dig their own hole, hire other people, or go bankrupt is on them... they have the freedom to compensate better that others or not...

You are not owed a comfortable living with a great house, toys, tv, cars, etc because you break a fucking sweat.. you can sweat over the fryer at McDonalds and complain it is hard because of how you FEEL.... because it is not adding much value and anyone in the fucking world, including the mentally challenged, can replace you, you do not deserve any 'good living'

 

[Sunshine]

1) The repairman should earn what he can derive when the auger is broken.. and if he has more competition from other repairmen or because of the introduction of an automatic auger repair machine, he will not demand as much... pretty simple concept
2) The auger operator should earn only as much as the level that makes it worthwhile not to bring in another who will do the same unskilled labor.. whether he can afford to feed and house a family of 4 is irrelevant.. that is a responsibility of the person and if they have to work 3 jobs because each one they do is easily replaced by another person or service, so be it

Therefore, we have labor unions. The only thing that prevents the owner/management from eventually having to dig those fucking holes themselves.

You can have unions or groups of people all you want... with the right of the employer to dismiss or fire every last one in the union if they so choose...

If the owner has to dig their own hole, hire other people, or go bankrupt is on them... they have the freedom to compensate better that others or not...

You are not owed a comfortable living with a great house, toys, tv, cars, etc because you break a fucking sweat.. you can sweat over the fryer at McDonalds and complain it is hard because of how you FEEL.... because it is not adding much value and anyone in the fucking world, including the mentally challenged, can replace you, you do not deserve any 'good living'

Awwwwwwwww, sure he is. Whazza matter wit chew?

 

[Big Black Dog]

Tax and spend... It's the battle cry of all Democrats.

 

[HUGGY]

Thanks to Obama MY PAYCHECK IS LESS!!!


Hey Healthmyths !!!!

You are the only person that is responsible for the size of your paycheck.

You need to quit Jack In The Box and get a better payiing job.

 

[FJO]

1) The repairman should earn what he can derive when the auger is broken.. and if he has more competition from other repairmen or because of the introduction of an automatic auger repair machine, he will not demand as much... pretty simple concept
2) The auger operator should earn only as much as the level that makes it worthwhile not to bring in another who will do the same unskilled labor.. whether he can afford to feed and house a family of 4 is irrelevant.. that is a responsibility of the person and if they have to work 3 jobs because each one they do is easily replaced by another person or service, so be it

Therefore, we have labor unions. The only thing that prevents the owner/management from eventually having to dig those fucking holes themselves.

You can have unions or groups of people all you want... with the right of the employer to dismiss or fire every last one in the union if they so choose...

If the owner has to dig their own hole, hire other people, or go bankrupt is on them... they have the freedom to compensate better that others or not...

You are not owed a comfortable living with a great house, toys, tv, cars, etc because you break a fucking sweat.. you can sweat over the fryer at McDonalds and complain it is hard because of how you FEEL.... because it is not adding much value and anyone in the fucking world, including the mentally challenged, can replace you, you do not deserve any 'good living'

You are absolutely correct, DiamondDave!

When I first arrived as an immigrant, I sweat like a horse, working in the mines or in the bush, and later on the floor of a rubber company, with the added 'benefit' was that all kinds of chemicals were mixing with my sweat.

On the first opportunity I applied for and got an entry level job in Data Processing. (Yeah, that was what we called it, then). I thought myself COBOL (along with making English my second language) and became quite good at it. I developed a randomizing system that is not native to COBOL, and my effort added more value to the company than any amount of sweat would have. BTW, it was all WITHOUT union. In fact I proudly crossed picket lines several times, when the thugs were fighting a losing battle to ever regain what they were losing by striking.

From 1957 to 2003, when I retired, I was unemployed only for four months, because the mine I last worked at shut down and I enjoyed a little break from sweating. All the while , mind you, I knew that Unemployment Insurance was meager, miniscule and only for short duration. I am not sure if benefits had been then as they are now, I would not have remained a freeloader longer.

My generation knew work ethic.

In retirement I am comfortable to say that what I have I earned myself.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Tax and spend... It's the battle cry of all Democrats.

Yeah.....let's HEAR IT!!....for the logic behind.....

....TAX-CUTS & $PENDING!!!!!

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Tax and spend... It's the battle cry of all Democrats.

And indebt and spend is the Republicans.

 

[AquaAthena]

I get automatic deposit.
Because Obama is SO f..king Ignorant about economics having NEVER written one payroll check, having NEVER made any business decisions and because HE hates profits... THANKS to him my paycheck is less!

Taxes kicked in on ALL of us and not just those greedy wealthy 1%!

Because Obama like all of Washington THINKS when you reduce an INCREASE in say Cost of living adjustments.. THAT'S A SPENDING CUT!

NOT ONE true dime of spending cuts occurred. Simple reduction in increases! That's ALL! Except when it comes to collecting taxes!

Fiscal Cliff Deal: $1 in Spending Cuts for Every $41 in Tax Increases


According to the Congressional Budget Office, the last-minute fiscal cliff deal reached by congressional leaders and President Barack Obama cuts only $15 billion in spending while increasing tax revenues by $620 billion—a 41:1 ratio of tax increases to spending cuts.

When Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush increased taxes in return for spending cuts—cuts that never ultimately came—they did so at ratios of 3:1 and 2:1.

“In 1982, President Reagan was promised $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax hikes,” Americans for Tax Reform says of those two incidents. “The tax hikes went through, but the spending cuts did not materialize. President Reagan later said that signing onto this deal was the biggest mistake of his presidency.

"In 1990, President George H.W. Bush agreed to $2 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax hikes. The tax hikes went through, and we are still paying them today. Not a single penny of the promised spending cuts actually happened.”

 

[WillowTree]

I get automatic deposit.
Because Obama is SO f..king Ignorant about economics having NEVER written one payroll check, having NEVER made any business decisions and because HE hates profits... THANKS to him my paycheck is less!

Taxes kicked in on ALL of us and not just those greedy wealthy 1%!

Because Obama like all of Washington THINKS when you reduce an INCREASE in say Cost of living adjustments.. THAT'S A SPENDING CUT!

NOT ONE true dime of spending cuts occurred. Simple reduction in increases! That's ALL! Except when it comes to collecting taxes!

You are one stupid motherfucker. A deal was reached between the senate and the president. Why are you such a liar?

You are the stupid motherfucker, until it's passed in the House and singed into law the tax increases apply to everyone. jesus christ you people are stupid. go feed your damn unicorn.