It is currently Tue Feb 25, 2025 5:37 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 189 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Rand Paul 2016
PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2015 8:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2005 1:04 pm
Posts: 13465
Location: God's country
pizza_Place: Gem City
pittmike wrote:
Zippy-The-Pinhead wrote:
pittmike wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
What is it about a progressive tax that you find "unfair"?


Besides penalizing drive. Ambition and success and being patently unfair to have different percentages you mean?

You don't seem to grasp that taxing a person has a more negative affect on a poor person than a wealthy one. In simple terms, a poor person has no disposable income. $2,000 dollars to somebody making $20,000 a year is about food, clothing and shelter. $100,000 to somebody making $1,000,000 means what? Less in a stock fund? Does taxing them at 15% really affect their lifestyle? Does it penalize their ambition? I'm guessing that you would still strive to maximize your income and would ultimately be very happy with $850,000.


Once again you fucking moron... In the examples we are talking about people with income less than 50k pay nothing and are likely to get a subsidy/refund. Think of
Something new.

Wow. Very nice. At least Denis is capable of having a reasoned discussion. And it is you that doesn't understand...but I don't need to resort to calling you a moron. Your posts speak for themselves.

_________________
Mr. Trump is unfit for our nation’s highest office.- JD Vance
If you committed violence on that day, obviously, you shouldn’t be pardoned.- JD Vance on the J-6 insurrectionists


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rand Paul 2016
PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2015 8:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:29 pm
Posts: 40942
Location: Everywhere
pizza_Place: giordanos
My apologies for attacking you out of my frustration. There are only so many times though you can pound your head against the wall saying people making less than 50k pay 0 taxes and having no one let it sink in as it doesn't fit their stance.

_________________
Elections have consequences.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rand Paul 2016
PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2015 9:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2005 1:04 pm
Posts: 13465
Location: God's country
pizza_Place: Gem City
pittmike wrote:
My apologies for attacking you out of my frustration. There are only so many times though you can pound your head against the wall saying people making less than 50k pay 0 taxes and having no one let it sink in as it doesn't fit their stance.

I understand the 50k exemption. That's not the point. I used the 20k example for simplicity only. The same principle applies at 60k too. Wherever you pick the starting point, the people at the low end are hurt more by a flat tax than those at the high end. A graduated tax rate helps address that and also makes it easier to balance the budget.

_________________
Mr. Trump is unfit for our nation’s highest office.- JD Vance
If you committed violence on that day, obviously, you shouldn’t be pardoned.- JD Vance on the J-6 insurrectionists


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rand Paul 2016
PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2015 9:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2005 1:04 pm
Posts: 13465
Location: God's country
pizza_Place: Gem City
Scorehead wrote:
KDdidit wrote:
Scorehead wrote:
Well, I am certainly no pioneer with this line of thinking. Nearly every analyses of a flat rate tax system has the 1%ers paying more.

Yeah, no.


Surely you have heard about the rich & corporations who pay no tax. That ends with a flat rate tax system.

Jesus, now I sound like a liberal!

You repeatedly state this about the 1% not paying taxes. This falls into the "welfare queen" storyline. Are there some examples where it is true? Yes...but that is the rare exception, not the reality.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/story/2011-09-20/buffett-tax-millionaires/50480226/1#.VYV7df4WDyE.mailto

_________________
Mr. Trump is unfit for our nation’s highest office.- JD Vance
If you committed violence on that day, obviously, you shouldn’t be pardoned.- JD Vance on the J-6 insurrectionists


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rand Paul 2016
PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2015 9:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 9:29 am
Posts: 66054
Location: Darkside Estates
pizza_Place: A cat got an online degree.
Nas wrote:
denisdman wrote:
Nas, in Rand's plan, the payroll tax is rolled into the Federal income tax. The poor would pay nothing on their income. The tax code is not the reason people are poor. That's an entirely different issue. I celebrate success. The left is terrified by it.


Really? That's what you think our issue is? Even eliminating the 7.65% won't change my statement. Federal taxes may not crush the working poor but local taxes definitely accomplish that. The reality is the working poor pay a larger portion of their income in taxes but all we hear are the people that claim to be successful complaining about taxes.

The problem is there just aren't enough rich people to pay all the taxes.

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014
bigfan wrote:
Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rand Paul 2016
PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2015 6:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2006 3:29 pm
Posts: 34795
pizza_Place: Al's Pizza
pittmike wrote:
Zippy-The-Pinhead wrote:
pittmike wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
What is it about a progressive tax that you find "unfair"?


Besides penalizing drive. Ambition and success and being patently unfair to have different percentages you mean?

You don't seem to grasp that taxing a person has a more negative affect on a poor person than a wealthy one. In simple terms, a poor person has no disposable income. $2,000 dollars to somebody making $20,000 a year is about food, clothing and shelter. $100,000 to somebody making $1,000,000 means what? Less in a stock fund? Does taxing them at 15% really affect their lifestyle? Does it penalize their ambition? I'm guessing that you would still strive to maximize your income and would ultimately be very happy with $850,000.


Once again you fucking moron... In the examples we are talking about people with income less than 50k pay nothing and are likely to get a subsidy/refund. Think of
Something new.


I love drunk PittMike.

_________________
Good people drink good beer - Hunter S. Thompson

<º)))><

Waiting for the time when I can finally say
That this has all been wonderful, but now I'm on my way


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rand Paul 2016
PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2015 12:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2006 3:29 pm
Posts: 34795
pizza_Place: Al's Pizza
pittmike wrote:
For me, I still would like to see the truth about how the secretary ran state and so on during the period of that event. Trey is looking into that.



pittmike wrote:
Again, If Gowdy is still investigating how is it complete and decided?


Gowdy still can't find a smoking gun, so he is going after mediamatters.com. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

How much more taxpayer money do these "fiscal conservatives" need to waste?

http://crooksandliars.com/2015/06/trey- ... vestigates

_________________
Good people drink good beer - Hunter S. Thompson

<º)))><

Waiting for the time when I can finally say
That this has all been wonderful, but now I'm on my way


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rand Paul 2016
PostPosted: Thu Jul 09, 2015 10:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2006 3:29 pm
Posts: 34795
pizza_Place: Al's Pizza
Image

_________________
Good people drink good beer - Hunter S. Thompson

<º)))><

Waiting for the time when I can finally say
That this has all been wonderful, but now I'm on my way


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rand Paul 2016
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2015 10:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2006 3:29 pm
Posts: 34795
pizza_Place: Al's Pizza
Why Trey Gowdy Is Concealing Blumenthal Deposition

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/ben ... n_20150710

The strange saga of the House Select Committee on Benghazi continues as its chair, Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., fends off renewed questions about the committee’s purpose, as well as demands to release the sworn deposition of Sidney Blumenthal, taken behind closed doors on June 16.

In a CNN interview, Hillary Clinton—the actual target of Gowdy’s investigation—recently brushed off accusations about her use of a private email server and mocked his partisan probe.

“This is being blown up with no basis in law or in fact,” said Clinton. “That’s fine. I get it. This is being, in effect, used by the Republicans in the Congress, OK. But I want people to understand what the truth is. And the truth is everything I did was permitted and I went above and beyond what anybody could have expected in making sure that if the State Department [servers] didn’t capture something, I made a real effort to get it to them.”

Gowdy answered by reiterating previous claims that only his committee’s intrepid work had revealed Clinton’s email practices.

“The fact of the matter is it took the Benghazi Committee to uncover Secretary Clinton’s use of personal email and a server to conduct official State Department business,” the chairman declared after her interview aired. He went on to make a series of further accusations about the emails, insisting that the messages about Libya sent to her by Sidney Blumenthal were “solicited” by her and not, as she described them, “unsolicited.”

These disputes might be cleared up if Gowdy would release Blumenthal’s testimony, since he answered all the committee’s questions under oath.

When questioned about the emails he sent to Clinton, Blumenthal probably mentioned the indisputable fact that her use of a private email server was revealed not by the Benghazi committee but by a Romanian hacker known as “Guccifer”—now serving time in prison for stealing messages from Blumenthal as well as former Secretary of State Colin Powell and Dorothy Bush, the sister of former president George W. Bush. Many of those emails, obtained by Guccifer in a suspected Russian intelligence operation, were published on the Internet months before the Benghazi committee came into existence.

And Blumenthal surely noted, again under oath, that his emails to Clinton were “unsolicited,” despite Gowdy’s strained attempt to prove otherwise—as Gowdy undoubtedly knows. That is one of many reasons why he continues to suppress the former Clinton aide’s testimony. The excuse proffered by committee Republicans is that releasing closed testimony might discourage candor by future witnesses—an argument undercut by letters from Blumenthal attorney James Cole, urging the committee to release his client’s full deposition.

Evidently, Gowdy prefers his staffers to leak the Blumenthal testimony, in order to smear both Clinton and the witness he claims to be protecting. For weeks, snippets of Blumenthal’s testimony and of his emails to and from Clinton have turned up in the media, to advance negative, highly distorted perceptions of both the former secretary of state and her longtime friend.

Meanwhile the Gowdy-led committee has learned little of real significance, despite spending millions of taxpayer dollars. But they have keenly pursued matters of partisan interest, such as Blumenthal’s work for Correct The Record, a political committee that publicly defends Clinton and other Democrats, and Media Matters for America, the watch dog against right-wing misinformation in the media. David Brock, the founder of both groups, and Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, the former Maryland lieutenant governor who chairs Correct The Record’s board sent a sharply worded letter with a simple demand.

Emphasizing that Gowdy and other Republican committee members asked at least 45 questions about Blumenthal’s “association with our organizations,” their letter urged him to disgorge the deposition in full:

Mr. Chairman, we are entitled to know what questions you and other committee members asked about our organizations in Mr. Blumenthal’s deposition…Your unethical leaking was a further abuse of Congressional power. The only way we can clear our good name is by knowing exactly what innuendoes and insinuations Republican members made about us behind the committee’s closed doors.

Indeed, Gowdy no longer seems to expect anyone to believe his denial that the recent leaks emanate from him and his staff—as Washington Post media blogger Erik Wemple noted recently, the chairman seemed to “wink” at a recent leak to Politico that sparked a brief controversy last week. Besides, nobody else would have either the motive or the opportunity to orchestrate the leak campaign.

_________________
Good people drink good beer - Hunter S. Thompson

<º)))><

Waiting for the time when I can finally say
That this has all been wonderful, but now I'm on my way


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 189 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 42 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group