OT - a rational, fair republican voice?

http://boss.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/0...eria/?src=dayp

On 2010-09-29 18:24:23 -0400, jeff said:

http://boss.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/0...eria/?src=dayp

How

about a rational, fair Democrat's voice?

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39517

It works. Obamaism doesn't.

Dave

On 9/29/2010 7:44 PM, D. LaCourse wrote:
On 2010-09-29 18:24:23 -0400, jeff said:

http://boss.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/0...eria/?src=dayp


How

about a rational, fair Democrat's voice?

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39517

It works. Obamaism doesn't.

Dave



dave...do you remember the tax rate during that period?

wtf is "Obamaism"?

jeff

On 2010-09-30 07:30:04 -0400, jeff said:

On 9/29/2010 7:44 PM, D. LaCourse wrote:
On 2010-09-29 18:24:23 -0400, jeff said:

http://boss.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/0...eria/?src=dayp


How

about

a rational, fair Democrat's voice?

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39517

It works. Obamaism doesn't.

Dave



dave...do you remember the tax rate during that period?

I remember being VERY poor as a First Class Petty Officer in the Navy.
I remember that JFK gave me a wonderful gift by lowering my taxes
*drastically*, and improving the military.

wtf is "Obamaism"?

Call it Obamanomics. It sure as hell doesn't work. Our country is
losing its greatness and becoming a 3rd world nation. If we continue
on this path, there WILL be a revolution. Count on it. People are
****ed, even the poor ones. My grandchildren (the three grown and
working ones) are very angry at what WE have done to their future. They
realize that we have a president that is good at three things:
Campaigning, spending, and blaming.

Dave

Democrat strategy:

1. Spend all the money
2. Blame Bush
3. Take a vacation





wtf is "Obamaism"?

Call it Obamanomics. *It sure as hell doesn't work. *Our country is
losing its greatness and becoming a 3rd world nation. *If we continue
on this path, there WILL be a revolution. *Count on it. *People are
****ed, even the poor ones. *My grandchildren (the three grown and
working ones) are very angry at what WE have done to their future. They
realize that we have a president that is good at three things: *
Campaigning, spending, and blaming.

Dave

On 9/30/2010 8:25 AM, D. LaCourse wrote:
On 2010-09-30 07:30:04 -0400, jeff said:

On 9/29/2010 7:44 PM, D. LaCourse wrote:
On 2010-09-29 18:24:23 -0400, jeff said:

http://boss.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/0...eria/?src=dayp



How

about

a rational, fair Democrat's voice?

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39517

It works. Obamaism doesn't.

Dave



dave...do you remember the tax rate during that period?

I remember being VERY poor as a First Class Petty Officer in the Navy. I
remember that JFK gave me a wonderful gift by lowering my taxes
*drastically*, and improving the military.

you might go back and review the tax rates...context can be important.


wtf is "Obamaism"?

Call it Obamanomics. It sure as hell doesn't work. Our country is losing
its greatness and becoming a 3rd world nation. If we continue on this
path, there WILL be a revolution. Count on it. People are ****ed, even
the poor ones. My grandchildren (the three grown and working ones) are
very angry at what WE have done to their future. They realize that we
have a president that is good at three things: Campaigning, spending,
and blaming.

Dave

hmmm...funny how you were so reserved and accepting during bush years.
the anger is misplaced.

you really need to broaden your information sources and seek a more
balanced pool of data providers. federer?? ...c'mon. there is plenty
to constructively criticize in a reasoned, fair, and balanced
manner...as there always has been.

the process of reasoning really ought to involve more than just finding
those who say what you already believe or want to believe...

jeff

jeff

On 2010-09-30 09:34:41 -0400, jeff said:

you really need to broaden your information sources and seek a more
balanced pool of data providers. federer??

You're killing the messenger, Jeff. Federer has just quoted JFK,
nothing more. There is no Federer opinion or words, just what JFK has
said about taxes. I googled jfk and taxes, and the link I quoted was
the first to pop up. And it is true. If we tax those over $250k even
more, Congress will simply waste it

We *can not* spend our way into prosperity. Taxing those that are the
entrepreneurs of our economy is not the way to go. Taxing those that
make more than $250k is down right stupid - especially so for those
that live in high expense communities like NYC. That 250K doesn't go
very far, and to tax these people leaves less for them to spend/invest.

I would not mind if the both Houses were Dems. Just get rid of Nancy
Pelosi and Harry Reed. They are horrible leaders who have become
accustomed to power, forgetting WHY they are in Congress.

Rainy morning here in the mountains. Fun watching the clouds and rain
come over the ridges from the west.

Dave

well, I've waded through all this, and coincidentally read a very
interesting take on matters today. It discussed the 'golden era' that
many of the Tea Party types seem to look back upon, the 1950's. You
know, capitalism worked well, jobs were created, folks were moving
forward reasonably. You know how the tax code worked, back then?
Anything in income over $500,000(in today's money, about $4,000,000) got
taxed at the top federal rate. That rate? 91%. That's right, 91%.
If we had something along those lines in effect right now, taxing all
income over $4,000,000 at 91%, roughly $400 billion annually would go
into the budget. And the number affected? Roughly 0.04% of the entire
population. It wouldn't impact small businesses, it wouldn't cause the
government to have to gauge middle class earners with an AMT, none of
that. I have to admit that I've always been intrigued by Andrew
Carnegie's idea of a 90% inheritance tax, but the 1950's tax code works
just fine the way I see it, as well.
Tom

On 2010-09-30 18:59:40 -0400, Tom Littleton said:

well, I've waded through all this, and coincidentally read a very
interesting take on matters today. It discussed the 'golden era' that
many of the Tea Party types seem to look back upon, the 1950's. You
know, capitalism worked well, jobs were created, folks were moving
forward reasonably. You know how the tax code worked, back then?
Anything in income over $500,000(in today's money, about $4,000,000)
got taxed at the top federal rate. That rate? 91%. That's right, 91%.
If we had something along those lines in effect right now, taxing all
income over $4,000,000 at 91%, roughly $400 billion annually would go
into the budget. And the number affected? Roughly 0.04% of the entire
population. It wouldn't impact small businesses, it wouldn't cause the
government to have to gauge middle class earners with an AMT, none of
that. I have to admit that I've always been intrigued by Andrew
Carnegie's idea of a 90% inheritance tax, but the 1950's tax code works
just fine the way I see it, as well.
Tom

Tom, raising *anyone's* taxes during a recession is a very foolish
thing to do. It won't bring in that much revenue, probably make fed
revenue income go down. Tax cuts for *everyone* is necessary. But
your Muslim Hero doesn't want that; he wants to tax the "rich". He has
continueously talked about redistributing the wealth. Tax increases is
not the way to do it, nor can we spend our way into prosperity. Two
hundred fifty thousand/year is not rich is many areas of this country.

Dave

On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 19:49:49 -0400, D. LaCourse wrote:

On 2010-09-30 18:59:40 -0400, Tom Littleton said:

well, I've waded through all this, and coincidentally read a very
interesting take on matters today. It discussed the 'golden era' that
many of the Tea Party types seem to look back upon, the 1950's. You
know, capitalism worked well, jobs were created, folks were moving
forward reasonably. You know how the tax code worked, back then?
Anything in income over $500,000(in today's money, about $4,000,000)
got taxed at the top federal rate. That rate? 91%. That's right, 91%.
If we had something along those lines in effect right now, taxing all
income over $4,000,000 at 91%, roughly $400 billion annually would go
into the budget. And the number affected? Roughly 0.04% of the entire
population. It wouldn't impact small businesses, it wouldn't cause the
government to have to gauge middle class earners with an AMT, none of
that. I have to admit that I've always been intrigued by Andrew
Carnegie's idea of a 90% inheritance tax, but the 1950's tax code works
just fine the way I see it, as well.
Tom

Tom, raising *anyone's* taxes during a recession is a very foolish
thing to do. It won't bring in that much revenue, probably make fed
revenue income go down. Tax cuts for *everyone* is necessary.

Um, well, no, it is not "necessary" - first, many do not, and will not, pay any
taxes (and some will still get "credit(s)" on top of that, IIRC), so one cannot
"cut" taxes that aren't paid. Second, at some level, folks could pay the extra
5% and really not notice it, insofar as "lifestyle" is concerned. To use the
extreme example, Gates and Buffett - if they were suddenly taxed 5% _of their
net worth_, rather than "taxable income," they'd still see no change in their
lifestyle (hell, they both see such swings in their net worth regularly).

But
your Muslim Hero doesn't want that; he wants to tax the "rich". He has
continueously talked about redistributing the wealth. Tax increases is
not the way to do it, nor can we spend our way into prosperity. Two
hundred fifty thousand/year is not rich is many areas of this country.

250K a year is not "rich" anywhere on the planet, but that's not, pardon the
pun, material. OTOH, it is pretty darned comfortable just about anywhere, and
in many areas, when compared to the lowest earners, it is income beyond
comprehension. But so what? Taxation should be fair to all, and _no one_
should be able to avoid _income_ tax (by necessity, one must have income to be
taxed on it, so those that honestly cannot work would owe no tax).

HTH,
R

Dave