bigrebnc1775
][][][% NC Sheepdog
littledebFascist, you are a drunk, poorly educated, a racist, and rather illiterate. You know that, I know that.
you're a blathering idiot, because you post shit with no proof.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
littledebFascist, you are a drunk, poorly educated, a racist, and rather illiterate. You know that, I know that.
you're a blathering idiot, because you post shit with no proof.
What we are seeing from the rich is a flow of their money out of this country, and into safer places. We are watching them counter the unions by moving production to China, or Mexico.NeoFacist babbles on . . . and on . . . and on . . . and on.
His little mind can't handle that he and his very few likethinkers on the far fascist right don't have the numbers to dictate to the rest of us how to live.
That is his tough luck.![]()
So in the end, the guy on the bottom, is going to find himself even lower, with no chance of a job.
And mooching left just does not have the power to stop this. that is their tough luck.
What we are seeing from the rich is a flow of their money out of this country, and into safer places. We are watching them counter the unions by moving production to China, or Mexico.
So in the end, the guy on the bottom, is going to find himself even lower, with no chance of a job.
And mooching left just does not have the power to stop this. that is their tough luck.
George H.W. Bush, in the success of Desert Storm, enjoyed one of the highest approval ratings any President has enjoyed in his country. Until he broken his 'no new taxes' pledge to 'raise revenues' when the Democratically controlled Congress pledged to cut $2 in spending for every $1 in new taxes. You would have thought he would have learned when Reagan got suckered into the same deal.
They got their new taxes. The spending cuts never seemed to materialize.
Are you paying attention raising the debt ceiling advocates? The spending cuts never seem to materialize.
But anyway, Papa Bush signed the new taxes into law that included taxes on luxury items - private planes, private yachts, high value jewelry.
Result? The dometic private plane and boat building industires were decimated when the rich went elsewhere to buy their 'toys'. More than 50,000 lost and we still haven't regained all the manufacturing jobs lost. A very prosperous high value jewelry industry moved off shore to places like Grand Cayman to escape the taxes. More jobs lost. Bush lost his re-election bid.
Bush didn't learn from Reagan's history.
And nobody seems to be paying any attention to Bush's history.
But some seem to want to just hand them over more and more power and bigger allowances to spend.
You do know, don't you, that this loophole was created by (drum roll please)...the stimulus bill?
That's right, Obama's own stimulus plan is where this "jet loophole" originiated, and now he's blaming it on the GOP?
From your own link:Were in obied doodle/dims stimulus package. it was their own damn legislation..
oops and hardeeeeee har har har
merged with existing thread on topicWhich party gave us the corporate jet tax loophole? Guess again
Ryan told Greta:
'It was in the stimulus package. None of us voted for the stimulus package. This was called accelerated depreciation. It's a tax policy that the president put into his stimulus package and passed. Now he's saying that it's a corporate jet loophole. It applies to lots of things, airplanes included. What I find interesting about this one particular issue was it never came up in our debt negotiations, it never came up in discussions. The first time I heard about a corporate jet loophole, which was in the stimulus package, was when he mentioned it six times in a press conference
What to Read Today: Which party gave us the corporate jet tax loophole? Guess again.
oops and hardeeeeee har har harThe incentive -- first used to help plane makers recover from the 2001 terror attacks -- sharply reduces the up front tax bill for companies who buy assets like business planes.
What we are seeing from the rich is a flow of their money out of this country, and into safer places. We are watching them counter the unions by moving production to China, or Mexico.
So in the end, the guy on the bottom, is going to find himself even lower, with no chance of a job.
And mooching left just does not have the power to stop this. that is their tough luck.
George H.W. Bush, in the success of Desert Storm, enjoyed one of the highest approval ratings any President has enjoyed in his country. Until he broken his 'no new taxes' pledge to 'raise revenues' when the Democratically controlled Congress pledged to cut $2 in spending for every $1 in new taxes. You would have thought he would have learned when Reagan got suckered into the same deal.
They got their new taxes. The spending cuts never seemed to materialize.
Are you paying attention raising the debt ceiling advocates? The spending cuts never seem to materialize.
But anyway, Papa Bush signed the new taxes into law that included taxes on luxury items - private planes, private yachts, high value jewelry.
Result? The dometic private plane and boat building industires were decimated when the rich went elsewhere to buy their 'toys'. More than 50,000 lost and we still haven't regained all the manufacturing jobs lost. A very prosperous high value jewelry industry moved off shore to places like Grand Cayman to escape the taxes. More jobs lost. Bush lost his re-election bid.
Bush didn't learn from Reagan's history.
And nobody seems to be paying any attention to Bush's history.
But some seem to want to just hand them over more and more power and bigger allowances to spend.
Indeed
James Pethokoukis makes some good points
Why are Republicans demanding a debt deal that has big spending cuts but no tax increases? (Besides, of course, the fact that spending is the problem and the last thing this weak economy needs is a tax hike?) Maybe it’s because the last time they agree to one of these “$2 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax hikes” agreements, they got snookered.
![]()
No, spoken like an American who knows that the progressive income tax has been around for almost 100 years and has been ruled Constitutional.He is giving his money to the Gates Foundation.
Nice try, though.
I realize that is just an expression, but it's not a nice try, it's a pathetic, lame try. Warren Buffett should be taxed in accordance with the wealth that being an American has allowed him to achieve.
And this moron you are replying to should not get a free ride on the backs of patriotic, working Americans, just because he is a loser who thinks he is owed something.
Spoken like a true Statist.
![]()
He is giving his money to the Gates Foundation.
Nice try, though.
I realize that is just an expression, but it's not a nice try, it's a pathetic, lame try. Warren Buffett should be taxed in accordance with the wealth that being an American has allowed him to achieve.
And this moron you are replying to should not get a free ride on the backs of patriotic, working Americans, just because he is a loser who thinks he is owed something.
Truly moronic is one who thinks we have a tax problem and
not a spending problem. Well, someone like you I guess
![]()
Are you saying that they are not getting a tax break? Come on - man up.No you didn't.I just did.I'm not the one attacking the break without even knowing what it is.
So why don't you use Google and tell us what the break is?
Be specific.
What tax break is enjoyed by the private jet owners but not by commercial airlines?
Actual numbers would be appreciated.
Are you saying that they are not getting a tax break? Come on - man up.No you didn't.I just did.
What tax break is enjoyed by the private jet owners but not by commercial airlines?
Actual numbers would be appreciated.
No, spoken like an American who knows that the progressive income tax has been around for almost 100 years and has been ruled Constitutional.I realize that is just an expression, but it's not a nice try, it's a pathetic, lame try. Warren Buffett should be taxed in accordance with the wealth that being an American has allowed him to achieve.
And this moron you are replying to should not get a free ride on the backs of patriotic, working Americans, just because he is a loser who thinks he is owed something.
Spoken like a true Statist.
![]()
Sucks for you, loser.
Are you saying that they are not getting a tax break? Come on - man up.No you didn't.
What tax break is enjoyed by the private jet owners but not by commercial airlines?
Actual numbers would be appreciated.
I'm saying you should tell me what break they're getting.
Then we can discuss it.
Assuming you can ever find the break they're getting.......
I'm asking you is it true that they are getting a tax break? Yes or no?Are you saying that they are not getting a tax break? Come on - man up.No you didn't.
What tax break is enjoyed by the private jet owners but not by commercial airlines?
Actual numbers would be appreciated.
I'm saying you should tell me what break they're getting.
Then we can discuss it.
Assuming you can ever find the break they're getting.......
Are you saying that they are not getting a tax break? Come on - man up.
I'm saying you should tell me what break they're getting.
Then we can discuss it.
Assuming you can ever find the break they're getting.......
One, they are getting tax breaks.
Two, this has been shown to you.
Three, you do not wish to accept the fact.
Four, you are entitled to your opinion but not to your own facts.
Five, thus, you are wrong.
I'm asking you is it true that they are getting a tax break? Yes or no?Are you saying that they are not getting a tax break? Come on - man up.
I'm saying you should tell me what break they're getting.
Then we can discuss it.
Assuming you can ever find the break they're getting.......
No, spoken like an American who knows that the progressive income tax has been around for almost 100 years and has been ruled Constitutional.Spoken like a true Statist.
![]()
Sucks for you, loser.
An American who does not know their history (public school again)
Actually, income tax had to be put into the Constitution by The 16th amendment.
It was not "ruled", as you say.
Actually, direct tax by the Feds was ruled unconstitutional in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. (1895)
Our founding fathers had put limits on the Federal gov't and direct taxes on the people
Wonder why that would be?
As such, the gov't had to change the Constitution to collect tax
Also, there is no requirement in the amendment for it to be progressive.
The gov't could make it flat, if it wanted to
No, spoken like an American who knows that the progressive income tax has been around for almost 100 years and has been ruled Constitutional.Spoken like a true Statist.
![]()
Sucks for you, loser.
An American who does not know their history (public school again)
Actually, income tax had to be put into the Constitution by The 16th amendment.
It was not "ruled", as you say.
Actually, direct tax by the Feds was ruled unconstitutional in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. (1895)
Our founding fathers had put limits on the Federal gov't and direct taxes on the people
Wonder why that would be?
As such, the gov't had to change the Constitution to collect tax
Also, there is no requirement in the amendment for it to be progressive.
The gov't could make it flat, if it wanted to
No, spoken like an American who knows that the progressive income tax has been around for almost 100 years and has been ruled Constitutional.
Sucks for you, loser.
An American who does not know their history (public school again)
Actually, income tax had to be put into the Constitution by The 16th amendment.
It was not "ruled", as you say.
Actually, direct tax by the Feds was ruled unconstitutional in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. (1895)
Our founding fathers had put limits on the Federal gov't and direct taxes on the people
Wonder why that would be?
As such, the gov't had to change the Constitution to collect tax
Also, there is no requirement in the amendment for it to be progressive.
The gov't could make it flat, if it wanted to
Who gives a fuck if it was included by the founding fathers? It's a Constitutional amendment, that has been ruled Constitutional by the SCOTUS.
Sucks for you, loser!
No, spoken like an American who knows that the progressive income tax has been around for almost 100 years and has been ruled Constitutional.
Sucks for you, loser.
An American who does not know their history (public school again)
Actually, income tax had to be put into the Constitution by The 16th amendment.
It was not "ruled", as you say.
Actually, direct tax by the Feds was ruled unconstitutional in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. (1895)
Our founding fathers had put limits on the Federal gov't and direct taxes on the people
Wonder why that would be?
As such, the gov't had to change the Constitution to collect tax
Also, there is no requirement in the amendment for it to be progressive.
The gov't could make it flat, if it wanted to
American stupidity has nothing to do with public schools, as I have already said.