Big Fitz
User Quit *****
- Nov 23, 2009
- 16,917
- 2,522
- 48
Yep! Look at them tuition costs drop...? Oh wait. Nevermind.
The ends justify the means, right?
- Thread starter Amelia
- Start date
Neotrotsky
Council to Supreme Soviet
Wait till we get the UK and Europe type of taxes...Yeah we're going to love it
The Left would love to see tax rates in the 60 70% range, for all.
At that point, people would have so little disposable income
they would have to turn to gov't for help and increase
everyone's "dependency" on gov't.
It would be a gov't created dependency but
dependency nonetheless
Nothing to like to kill the individual spirit and liberty
For crying out loud why don't they just take everything people earn and give us a stipend to live off of? Even at that the leftists won't be happy.
Sad to say
the left and their statist gov't in Britain has actually suggested that
UK Proposes All Paychecks Go to the State First
Published: Monday, 20 Sep 2010 | 7:57 AM ET
By: Robin Knight
CNBC Associate Web Producer
The UK's tax collection agency is putting forth a proposal that all employers send employee paychecks to the government, after which the government would deduct what it deems as the appropriate tax and pay the employees by bank transfer.
The proposal by Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC) stresses the need for employers to provide real-time information to the government so that it can monitor all payments and make a better assessment of whether the correct tax is being paid."
.
ConservaDerrps
Rookie
- Banned
- #123
Oh, you guys want lower tuition costs?
Cool. Just start letting our government subsidize education at the same rate we subsidize oil companies. Oh, we can't afford that? I guess you morons will have to let us either raise taxes OR cut corporate welfare. Or we do nothing, let education remain far too expensive, we'll fall even further behind, and then you'll have a nation of really stupid voters. You know, Republicans.
Ohhhhhhhh. I get what you guys are doing now.
Cool. Just start letting our government subsidize education at the same rate we subsidize oil companies. Oh, we can't afford that? I guess you morons will have to let us either raise taxes OR cut corporate welfare. Or we do nothing, let education remain far too expensive, we'll fall even further behind, and then you'll have a nation of really stupid voters. You know, Republicans.
Ohhhhhhhh. I get what you guys are doing now.
ConservaDerrps
Rookie
- Banned
- #124
ITT: Conservatives prove just how little they know about Liberalism.
The T
George S. Patton Party
Wait till we get the UK and Europe type of taxes...Yeah we're going to love it
The Left would love to see tax rates in the 60 70% range, for all.
At that point, people would have so little disposable income
they would have to turn to gov't for help and increase
everyone's "dependency" on gov't.
It would be a gov't created dependency but
dependency nonetheless
Nothing to like to kill the individual spirit and liberty
Uh. No. The Left would like to see the 1% pay about 39% at the absolute highest. You know, like it was before the Bush Tax Cut. Repeal that ******, and you'll see a lot of us on the Left leave your taxes alone for a long time.
39% isn't going to be enough to do squat, even Obama recognizes that, but he goes with it's the fair thing to do.
I think that the 1%'ers wouldn't mind a tax increase if the government would start living within it's means through tax cuts...actual cuts.
Also, I'm part of the 99% and it pisses me off to no end that 47% of Americans pay no income tax. I just know that 47% don't live in poverty in this country. In fact some of those that are living off the government have more of the "toys" than I do.
WillowTree
Diamond Member
- Sep 15, 2008
- 84,532
- 16,116
- 2,180
you are so ******* stupid, the more the government gives to colleges the more they will want hence they will just keep jacking up the cost of tuition.
Neotrotsky
Council to Supreme Soviet
The Left's appetite for taxes can never be satisfied
The Obama administration on Friday threatened to veto a defense appropriations bill in part because it does not include higher health care fees for members of the military.
“The Administration is disappointed that the Congress did not incorporate the requested TRICARE fee initiatives into either the appropriation or authorization legislation,” the White House wrote in an official policy statement expressing opposition to the bill, which the House approved in May.
President Obama’s most recent budget proposal includes billions of dollars in higher fees for members of TRICARE, the military health care system, and is part of the administration’s plan to cut nearly $500 billion from the Pentagon’s budget.
Some fear the administration’s proposal is an effort to increase enrollment in the state-run insurance exchanges mandated under the president’s controversial health care law.
The administration urged the House to “reconsider” to fee increase, arguing they are “essential for DOD to successfully address rising personnel costs.”
Plus
Papa Obama and the Left lied about ObamaCare being a tax
Which is why you can never trust the left when it comes to taxes and spending
Obamacare: It’s a big f***ing tax.
The alternative is what American communists want, the way Russia tried to do it. The government owns all the businesses and employs the citizens at wages that the government considers fair, and controls prices that the government considers fair.
No, win(corporatists)-win(insurance industry)-lose(the rest of us)
ConservaDerrps
Rookie
- Banned
- #131
Okay, for starters, you really need to do some research on what the Bush Tax Cuts cost us every single year. The top marginal rates under Clinton, before the BTC, was 39%. That is indeed what we want the rates to return to. That's what Obama has said forever and ever.
Next, you strike me as one of the more intelligent Conservatives here, so I know you have to understand that the 47% of people who pay no Federal income tax do so because they don't make enough to be taxed. I live my life SQUARELY in the middle class. I make too much money for government assistance, and I don't make enough to really live totally comfortably. My wife and I absolutely NEED every single tax deduction we can get, from our mortgage deduction to the deductions for our kids. And even with all that, we still end up having a yearly tax debt in the couple of thousand dollars. Luckily we withhold enough to not make that debt sting, but we are in no way rich or affluent, and we pay taxes even at the VERY MODEST income level we rest in.
It's a complete fantasy idea to think that EVERYONE should pay income tax. The bottom line is that there are indeed many, many people who do live in poverty, or on the very brink of it. You don't have to BELIEVE it for it to be true. The middle class has shrunk; it has been on the decline. And the decline has coincided perfectly with the Conservative fiscal policies of the last 30+ years. The Right can spin and spin and spin it, but the facts remain that income inequality is a major, major issue in this country. Do yourself a favor and research what happens to countries when their middle class is destroyed like it has been here. It's not good things.
Look, you guys might hate Krugman, but dude is right about one thing: If you want to see Conservative Fiscal Policy writ large and on display, go to Ireland. Check out their 14% unemployment rate. They're not a welfare state; they've had massive austerity measures put in place. And didn't fix shit.
This is already in tl;dr territory, so all I'll say is: we tried Conservanomics for the last 30+ years and we're not exactly kicking ass with it, are we? Before you go complain about government spending, remember that the deficit is so large mainly thanks to the Bush Tax Cuts. That's not spin, that's not lies, that's what independent economists point to. Recent studies have shown the Bush Tax Cuts cost this country 11.7 million dollars an hour.
Again, not spin, just cold, hard data that we now have thanks to the BTC being in place so long.
****. Sorry I wrote so much.
ConservaDerrps
Rookie
- Banned
- #132
Your big, bold text doesn't make what you say any more true. It's just Right Wing propaganda. Besides, what you're describing applies much more accurately to Defense spending, assfuck. But thanks for trying to seem smart.
Look, we get the society we deserve, and if we decide saddling young Americans fresh out of college with a quarter of a million dollars of debt in exchange for their education, we'll see how much further we fall behind.
You stay stupid if you want Willow, the rest of us will try to actually put education back as a top priority in this country.
tjvh
Senior Member
- May 10, 2012
- 6,893
- 919
- 48
No it isn't, the deficit is outrageous because of outrageous reckless spending.
Neotrotsky
Council to Supreme Soviet
Three Little Pigs: How Entitlements Will Destroy Us
In the next few years, our major entitlement programs, in particular Social Security and Medicare, will begin to run cash-flow deficits, adding hundreds of billions each year to the debt. In fact, Social Security's total unfunded liabilities top $15.8 trillion, and depending on what accounting measure is used, Medicare's future shortfall could exceed $100 trillion.
Nor can you tax your way out of debt. Eliminate all of the Bush tax cuts, including the tax cuts for low- and middle-income Americans, and you would reduce the debt by perhaps 10% — assuming you didn't cripple the economy in the process. Tax the rich? That won't get you there either. In fact, according to the Congressional Budget Office, in order to pay for all currently scheduled federal spending would require raising both the corporate tax rate and top income tax rate from their current 35% to 88%, the current 25% tax rate for middle-income workers to 63%, and the 10% tax bracket for low-income workers to 25%.
In the next few years, our major entitlement programs, in particular Social Security and Medicare, will begin to run cash-flow deficits, adding hundreds of billions each year to the debt. In fact, Social Security's total unfunded liabilities top $15.8 trillion, and depending on what accounting measure is used, Medicare's future shortfall could exceed $100 trillion.
Nor can you tax your way out of debt. Eliminate all of the Bush tax cuts, including the tax cuts for low- and middle-income Americans, and you would reduce the debt by perhaps 10% — assuming you didn't cripple the economy in the process. Tax the rich? That won't get you there either. In fact, according to the Congressional Budget Office, in order to pay for all currently scheduled federal spending would require raising both the corporate tax rate and top income tax rate from their current 35% to 88%, the current 25% tax rate for middle-income workers to 63%, and the 10% tax bracket for low-income workers to 25%.
Big Fitz
User Quit *****
- Nov 23, 2009
- 16,917
- 2,522
- 48
The finest example of "Each according to his ability to each according to their needs."
Karl Marx must be dancing a jig in hell.
For those who don't know what the hell is going to happen, here's a predictive illustration of what will be the case to some form or another.
Campaign For Liberty — Each According to His Need: Story of the 20th Century Motor Company
Excerpt:
The T
George S. Patton Party
The finest example of "Each according to his ability to each according to their needs."
Karl Marx must be dancing a jig in hell.
For those who don't know what the hell is going to happen, here's a predictive illustration of what will be the case to some form or another.
Campaign For Liberty — Each According to His Need: Story of the 20th Century Motor Company
Excerpt:
Individual Liberty is dying over there...WE are close on thier heels IF we aren't careful.
Amelia
Rookie
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #137
With "good faith" like Obama's ....
Chalk you up as another vote for the ends justify the means. It's good faith because someone you like is doing it and it has a good chance of ending up at the goal which Obama stated he supported and then denied ever supporting.
Obama's career is built on lies and on the rotten things his enablers are willing to do from the sidelines to push him forward while keeping his jersey as clean as possible.
Roberts in an effort to preserve the reputation of the court became one of the enablers. America was against this. Congress went out of their way to not use the language Roberts said they actually intended. The Congress had to push the legislation forward by extraordinary means after the country made it clear how opposed we were to it and even Massachusetts sent a Republican to the Senate to try to stop it. And America became even more against it after it passed. But because of the attacks by people from the left who would refuse to acknowledge any action as legitimate other upholding the legislation America hated, Roberts interpreted the document in opposition to Congressional intent to preserve the court from the tarring and feathering you guys had prepared for it, and now you guys are happy.
Yes, the ends justify the means and you're in such denial you won't admit it because the ends mesh with what you want, so obviously it was a good thing.
But the ever dissembling Obama has acted in good faith. yeah.
Last edited:
ConservaDerrps
Rookie
- Banned
- #138
You're referring to the outrageous spending of two unfunded wars started and kept off the books until Obama took office by George W. Bush right?
Tell you what fucko, I'll give you links that back up my (and every other reputable economist's theory on the deficit), and you give us some links to yours, okay?
Let's just start with this one:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24sun4.html
Neotrotsky
Council to Supreme Soviet
Too funny
Teresa Tritch is not an economist
She has a B.A. in German from the UCLA and an M.S. in Journalism from Columbia University.
Just a left wing political hack
The entire thing is a big ideologically driven blame President Bush job
The article is Ms. Tritch's opinion and not fact.
Why?
It is in NY Times OpEd section and too many people take writings in OpEd pages and their chart's, as true.
Ms. Tritch never once cites the data sources for her graphs. Not the CBO. Not the Treasury Department etc
No sources of data for the numbers on the two charts.
Her ideological bent that she has...? See her paragraph :
A "willingness to pay more taxes"?
We can see why she is not an economist
Tritch shows the Iraq & Afghanistan wars as contributing $1.469T to the deficit.
According to the CBO, the total cost of the wars (even into 2010 during Papa Obama's time) is $709B. A 107% error is acceptable, no doubt, to a NYT left wing writer
and their readers since they have an agenda to push
Of course, according to CBO, over the same period fo time (2003-2010), the United States spent $2.932T on Medicare alone
-----------------------------------------------------------------
There is a reason posters like you have zero rep points
keep up the "good" work
Teresa Tritch is not an economist
She has a B.A. in German from the UCLA and an M.S. in Journalism from Columbia University.
Just a left wing political hack
The entire thing is a big ideologically driven blame President Bush job
The article is Ms. Tritch's opinion and not fact.
Why?
It is in NY Times OpEd section and too many people take writings in OpEd pages and their chart's, as true.
Ms. Tritch never once cites the data sources for her graphs. Not the CBO. Not the Treasury Department etc
No sources of data for the numbers on the two charts.
Her ideological bent that she has...? See her paragraph :
In future decades, when rising health costs with an aging population hit the budget in full force, deficits are projected to be far deeper than they are now. Effective health care reform, and a willingness to pay more taxes, will be the biggest factors in controlling those deficits.
A "willingness to pay more taxes"?
We can see why she is not an economist
Tritch shows the Iraq & Afghanistan wars as contributing $1.469T to the deficit.
According to the CBO, the total cost of the wars (even into 2010 during Papa Obama's time) is $709B. A 107% error is acceptable, no doubt, to a NYT left wing writer
and their readers since they have an agenda to push
Of course, according to CBO, over the same period fo time (2003-2010), the United States spent $2.932T on Medicare alone
-----------------------------------------------------------------
There is a reason posters like you have zero rep points
keep up the "good" work
Last edited:
Big Fitz
User Quit *****
- Nov 23, 2009
- 16,917
- 2,522
- 48
The NY Times Op/Ed page ISN'T fact???Too funny
Teresa Tritch is not an economist
She has a B.A. in German from the UCLA and an M.S. in Journalism from Columbia University.
Just a left wing political hack
The entire thing is a big ideologically driven blame President Bush job
The article is Ms. Tritch's opinion and not fact.
Why?
It is in NY Times OpEd section and too many people take writings in OpEd pages and their chart's, as true.
Ms. Tritch never once cites the data sources for her graphs. Not the CBO. Not the Treasury Department etc
No sources of data for the numbers on the two charts.
Her ideological bent that she has...? See her paragraph :
In future decades, when rising health costs with an aging population hit the budget in full force, deficits are projected to be far deeper than they are now. Effective health care reform, and a willingness to pay more taxes, will be the biggest factors in controlling those deficits.
A "willingness to pay more taxes"?
We can see why she is not an economist
Tritch shows the Iraq & Afghanistan wars as contributing $1.469T to the deficit.
According to the CBO, the total cost of the wars (even into 2010 during Papa Obama's time) is $709B. A 107% error is acceptable, no doubt, to a NYT left wing writer
and their readers since they have an agenda to push
Of course, according to CBO, over the same period fo time (2003-2010), the United States spent $2.932T on Medicare alone
-----------------------------------------------------------------
There is a reason posters like you have zero rep points
keep up the "good" work
Wow... my world view is just crushed.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
Russia Remade Its Economy for War, but It’s Come at a Huge Cost - The New York Times- Started by peacefan
- Replies: 0
-
-
