John F. Kennedy - radical wing-nut teabagger

So you're saying you don't actually care what the tax rates are. You just care if they are lower today than they were yesterday. Correct?

Basically. The lower the taxes, the more all of us thrive as individuals. You want best case scenario? Flat tax of 10% across the board. No deductions. No loopholes.

The savings alone from closing the unnecessary IRS alone would be $12.4 billion. Do you realize how many people you have to tax just to cover the cost of the organization charged with taxes?!?! That's astounding waste. But then again, waste, fraud, and abuse is the only thing the government does well.

Here - learn about taxes:

http://www.laffercenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/2011-Laffer-TaxCodeComplexity.pdf
 
Bush didn't start two wars - Al Qaeda did when they attacked us on 9/11. How dumb are you?

Bush also didn't even try to pay for them. That's the larger more important point. If the wars were worth fighting (and they were) than they should have been worth a financial sacrifice at the very least by the citizens. Instead, the only sacrifices were born by the soldiers and their families...and the US Credit.

You're right - the citizens who are sucking this nation for all it is worth should have sacrifices for ONCE in their miserable lives. All funds for Medicaid should have immediately been rerouted to defense. All funds for food stamps should have immediately been rerouted to defense. All funds for subsidized housing should have immediately been rerouted to defense.

The wars would have been paid for in FULL and we would have had significant reserves left to start paying down the debt. And lets not forget the reason they were able to attack us in the first place was because idiot dumbocrat completed gutted defense spending half a trillion dollars over 8 years and refused to address the Al Qaeda problem for 8 years.

You'd be surprised by how much of what you said I actually agree with. Bush missed a golden opportunity to reform entitlements by correctly pointing out that if the US was going to fight a war, it would need to divert money to defense. If he'd made his push to reform Social Security as part of a push to actually pay for Afghanistan or Iraq, he'd have likely succeeded as folks would have seen it as a necessary sacrifice to support the troops going into harm's way.

But he didn't. And so we now have the seeds of the debt we have today. Yes, Obama has increased it, but the actually root of the problem stretches back to the two wars, the new Rx entitlement, and the tax cuts that were in no way "paid for" or even budgeted for.
 
All the evidence you need to illustrate how the dumbocrat party has been completely and totally hijacked by unhinged socialists, marxists, and communists.

If someone today suggests tax cuts because it's proven to correct a struggling economy, you're now attacked as a "wing-nut teabagger" by radicals right out of Atlas Shrugged (scary just how much Ayn Rand's novel has come to fruition). Yet here is the party's ultimate "golden boy" clearly stating this fact!

JFK: The Case For Tax Cuts : Paul Williams : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive

This is similar to how right wingers try to portray Hitler as a "leftist."

LOL

stupid fucks
 
So you're saying you don't actually care what the tax rates are. You just care if they are lower today than they were yesterday. Correct?

Basically. The lower the taxes, the more all of us thrive as individuals. You want best case scenario? Flat tax of 10% across the board. No deductions. No loopholes.

The savings alone from closing the unnecessary IRS alone would be $12.4 billion. Do you realize how many people you have to tax just to cover the cost of the organization charged with taxes?!?! That's astounding waste. But then again, waste, fraud, and abuse is the only thing the government does well.

Here - learn about taxes:

http://www.laffercenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/2011-Laffer-TaxCodeComplexity.pdf

Ok, but why 10%? If the rate doesn't matter, why did you pick 10%? Why not 9%, why not 5%? I mean, if lower is always better than why stop at 10%? We could all be millionaires if we put the rate at 0%, right?
 
Why not?

It was a call for public service and was used to justify the establishment of the Peace Corps

Because all you unhinged radical dumbocrats can scream today is, "this country owes me - what can this country do for me".

Kennedy was a liberal. The party today has been hijacked by socialists, marxists, and communists. Here is proof: The zombietime Hall of Shame

I thought "Leave ME alone, I don't want to help anyone" was the right wing motto these days. Nice spin though.

What spin? We were talking about dumbocrats.

However, if you want to talk about conservatives now, you actually are very close with your quote. Allow me to make the proper adjustment to your quote:

"Leave ME alone, I don't want to be forced to help anyone"

It's truly tragic in your greed and laziness you fail to realize that government has no right to tell me what to do or to be involved in my life. I'm in charge of the government, it is not in charge of me.

But you'd rather be the obedient mutt to your masters, so long as they allow you to beg by their feet at the table and throw you the occasional table scrap. Gotta love communists... :cuckoo:
 
Because all you unhinged radical dumbocrats can scream today is, "this country owes me - what can this country do for me".

Kennedy was a liberal. The party today has been hijacked by socialists, marxists, and communists. Here is proof: The zombietime Hall of Shame

I thought "Leave ME alone, I don't want to help anyone" was the right wing motto these days. Nice spin though.

What spin? We were talking about dumbocrats.

However, if you want to talk about conservatives now, you actually are very close with your quote. Allow me to make the proper adjustment to your quote:

"Leave ME alone, I don't want to be forced to help anyone"

It's truly tragic in your greed and laziness you fail to realize that government has no right to tell me what to do or to be involved in my life. I'm in charge of the government, it is not in charge of me.

But you'd rather be the obedient mutt to your masters, so long as they allow you to beg by their feet at the table and throw you the occasional table scrap. Gotta love communists... :cuckoo:

LOL, I forgot I'm talking to someone who doesn't know the definition of communist. Thanks for reminding me.
 
So you're saying you don't actually care what the tax rates are. You just care if they are lower today than they were yesterday. Correct?

Basically. The lower the taxes, the more all of us thrive as individuals. You want best case scenario? Flat tax of 10% across the board. No deductions. No loopholes.

The savings alone from closing the unnecessary IRS alone would be $12.4 billion. Do you realize how many people you have to tax just to cover the cost of the organization charged with taxes?!?! That's astounding waste. But then again, waste, fraud, and abuse is the only thing the government does well.

Here - learn about taxes:

http://www.laffercenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/2011-Laffer-TaxCodeComplexity.pdf

There's a reason the progressive tax rate exists, namely, it encourages investment. If I make $1,000,000 a year, and my tax burden is $100,000 a year, that leaves me with a disposable income of around $900,000 a year. Even factoring in gas, mortgage, utilities, food, etc, that leaves me with a fairly large amount of money that is just sitting on the table.

In a good economy, I might be tempted to invest. In a bad economy though, there's no reason to put the money anywhere other than in a mattress, where it literally does no one any good. It doesn't fuel the economy. It doesn't help people find jobs. Etc.

However, if my tax burden is $600,000 a year but I can deduct $2 from my burden for every $1 I invest, suddenly I have an enormous incentive to invest my cash and help out the economy.
 
"The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts." David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.

Where the problem comes in is the radical, uncontrolled spending by liberal government. Revenues to the government under the Bush tax rate were as high as they had ever been. But Obama steps in and spends $7 trillion in 4 years (it had taken us 235 years to reach $9 trillion) and all you people can do is cry "the rich don't pay their fair share".

prTCC12.png


Adding to the deficit: Bush vs. Obama

Since President Obama became chief executive, the national debt has risen almost $5 trillion. But how much of that was because of policies passed by Obama, and how much was caused by the financial crisis, the continuation of past policies and other effects? For this analysis, we worked with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities to attach a price tag to the legislation passed by Obama and his predecessor. George W. Bush’s major policies increased the debt by more than $5 trillion during his presidency. Obama has increased the debt by less than $1 trillion.

UuEp8NP.jpg


Adding to the deficit: Bush vs. Obama - The Washington Post
 
So you're saying you don't actually care what the tax rates are. You just care if they are lower today than they were yesterday. Correct?

Basically. The lower the taxes, the more all of us thrive as individuals. You want best case scenario? Flat tax of 10% across the board. No deductions. No loopholes.

The savings alone from closing the unnecessary IRS alone would be $12.4 billion. Do you realize how many people you have to tax just to cover the cost of the organization charged with taxes?!?! That's astounding waste. But then again, waste, fraud, and abuse is the only thing the government does well.

Here - learn about taxes:

http://www.laffercenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/2011-Laffer-TaxCodeComplexity.pdf

Ok, but why 10%? If the rate doesn't matter, why did you pick 10%? Why not 9%, why not 5%? I mean, if lower is always better than why stop at 10%? We could all be millionaires if we put the rate at 0%, right?

Because we have to fund the constitutional responsibilities of the federal government (defense, salaries of congress, etc.).

If you went with the flat tax with no deductions and no loopholes, the $12.4 billion of the IRS alone would cover all of the salaries of the federal employees IF we limited the federal government to it's constitutional responsibilities only (which means closing shit like the department of energy, the department of education, the EPA, etc. - which in turn would save well over a trillion more).
 
"The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts." David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.

Where the problem comes in is the radical, uncontrolled spending by liberal government. Revenues to the government under the Bush tax rate were as high as they had ever been. But Obama steps in and spends $7 trillion in 4 years (it had taken us 235 years to reach $9 trillion) and all you people can do is cry "the rich don't pay their fair share".

prTCC12.png


Adding to the deficit: Bush vs. Obama

Since President Obama became chief executive, the national debt has risen almost $5 trillion. But how much of that was because of policies passed by Obama, and how much was caused by the financial crisis, the continuation of past policies and other effects? For this analysis, we worked with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities to attach a price tag to the legislation passed by Obama and his predecessor. George W. Bush’s major policies increased the debt by more than $5 trillion during his presidency. Obama has increased the debt by less than $1 trillion.

What?!? How stupid are you?!?

His first stimulus package alone was almost $1 trillion (it was over $800 billion)!!!!

And that was NOT budgeted - that was all deficit spending.
 
So you're saying you don't actually care what the tax rates are. You just care if they are lower today than they were yesterday. Correct?

Basically. The lower the taxes, the more all of us thrive as individuals. You want best case scenario? Flat tax of 10% across the board. No deductions. No loopholes.

The savings alone from closing the unnecessary IRS alone would be $12.4 billion. Do you realize how many people you have to tax just to cover the cost of the organization charged with taxes?!?! That's astounding waste. But then again, waste, fraud, and abuse is the only thing the government does well.

Here - learn about taxes:

http://www.laffercenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/2011-Laffer-TaxCodeComplexity.pdf

There's a reason the progressive tax rate exists, namely, it encourages investment. If I make $1,000,000 a year, and my tax burden is $100,000 a year, that leaves me with a disposable income of around $900,000 a year. Even factoring in gas, mortgage, utilities, food, etc, that leaves me with a fairly large amount of money that is just sitting on the table.

In a good economy, I might be tempted to invest. In a bad economy though, there's no reason to put the money anywhere other than in a mattress, where it literally does no one any good. It doesn't fuel the economy. It doesn't help people find jobs. Etc.

However, if my tax burden is $600,000 a year but I can deduct $2 from my burden for every $1 I invest, suddenly I have an enormous incentive to invest my cash and help out the economy.

But nobody is going to "put it in a mattress" and you know it.

First of all, it goes into a bank account where it does get INVESTED. Banks loan that out for home loans, automobile loans, business loans, etc.

Second, and much more important, they spend it. They buy plasma tv's, go on vacations, but toys for their children, eat out at restaurants, and whole lot more. All of which create demand, which creates JOBS (which in turn also creates a larger tax base).
 
But nobody is going to "put it in a mattress" and you know it.

First of all, it goes into a bank account where it does get INVESTED. Banks loan that out for home loans, automobile loans, business loans, etc.

Second, and much more important, they spend it. They buy plasma tv's, go on vacations, but toys for their children, eat out at restaurants, and whole lot more. All of which create demand, which creates JOBS (which in turn also creates a larger tax base).

Folks don't put the money in a mattress now, but prior to the existence of the FDIC, they sure as heck did during the Depression. Banks were (and to some extent still are) unsafe places for money.

Yes, when you have more you spend more, but even the most extravagant folks don't spend or invest every penny. The goal of the progressive tax code was to encourage investment.

One unfortunate side effect of it has become that the tax code is a useful way to "encourage" other behaviors too, so it has problems too.

There's a definite appeal to a flat tax, but overall I'm in favor of the progressive tax despite the fact I've cracked the $100,000 level myself. I do agree it needs major revamping though.
 
The reactionary loons, like Rott and his buds, are . . . loony.

It's what they do and why they are being minimalized in the GOP.
 
If Kennedy was alive and running for president he would never be elected or at least he would not be a democrat
He was very pro second amendment.

How did that work out for him?

That would depend on who was responsible and who supplied the weaponry and ammunition. I think it's safe to say that the NRA had No involvement with the Kennedy Assassination. His death had nothing to do with the Second Amendment. ;) :cuckoo:

Thanks for the funny. ;)

Frankly, in the early 1960s the NRA was a nice, friendly organization touting hunting, gun sports and firearm safety. Nobody in the country was much concerned with second amendment rights

All that changed with the assasination of JFK. Followed closely with assasinations of Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy there became a louder cry for reducing the number of guns

The assasinations that outraged us in the 60s and early 70s were replaced by the massacres we have seen in the last two decades
 
If the Kennedy tax rates were so great, why aren't conservatives like you arguing to put them back?

Perhaps you should also look at (once again) what was deemed income, what was deductible, etc... or just look at the effective tax rate...

What next?? Another call for the "90% rate"?

Why don't you just tell us what the effective tax rate for Americans was in the 60's.

Whatever it took to cover Gov't spending...

That's what EVERY tax rate is --- well, except for the money they print and borrow...
 
Another left winger with an opinion piece as proof or fact.. LOL

Lest we have to tell another one about what was considered income, what was able to be deducted, and what the effective tax rate really was...

Incredible.. they breed on this board like fucking rabbits

The only opinion which really counts is Kennedy's..

"If by a 'Liberal' they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a 'Liberal,' then I'm proud to say I'm a 'Liberal.'"
- Jack Kennedy
 
Actually, it has worked flawlessly. You fail to realize that the more money in the hands of the people, the more employment. And the more employment, the more people there to collect taxes from. This is not rocket science chief.

This unfortunately is not a linear model, i.e. tax cuts only work up to a point. Once you go too far, they do as more harm than good.

For a real and current example of this, look at Louisiana. Jindal has cut every tax he can get his hands on and pushed for every corporate tax break he can dream of. Now, the State infrastructure, health care, and education systems are falling apart beyond the state of repair because the state is perpetually hovering on bankruptcy. Employers are noticing the third world conditions that are starting to develop and are either refusing to relocate to the State or leaving.

The government has to bring in enough to cover the necessary and required expenses. That means you either have to raise taxes, or cut services. The current mess will likely require both.

That's funny - New York City taxes are sky high and businesses are leaving NY at an alarming pace because of that.

Well not any more.

They've been coming back.

And economic activity in NYC is on overdrive.
 

Forum List

Back
Top