(Lake Sinclair Specific)
159 messages
Updated 10/7/2021 12:53:01 PM
Lakes Online Forum
83,606 messages
Updated 4/30/2024 9:09:31 AM
Lakes Online Forum
5,193 messages
Updated 4/3/2024 3:47:36 AM
(Lake Sinclair Specific)
2 messages
Updated 7/11/2016 10:27:09 AM
Lakes Online Forum
4,169 messages
Updated 4/15/2024 11:05:05 PM
Lakes Online Forum
4,260 messages
Updated 3/24/2024 9:24:45 AM
Lakes Online Forum
2,976 messages
Updated 3/20/2024 11:53:43 PM
Lakes Online Forum
98 messages
Updated 4/15/2024 1:00:58 AM
|
|
|
| Name: |
GoneFishin
- 
|
|
| Subject: |
RIGHT To Cave In
|
|
Date:
|
12/5/2010 1:50:19 PM
|
Inorder to prevent a tax increase for those earning over $1 milloin per year, the RIGHT appears to have decided to extend unemployment for another year. What am I missing here? I thought the RIGHT says the American people spoke and said no more deficit, no more spending, and then they cave in. Sounds like Bush talk. Either you believe in cutting spending or you don't. Don't give me this "Except" stuff. You guys must be so proud of this new approach to spending. Wonder what Palin will say about this!!!!!!
|
| Name: |
water_watcher
-
|
|
| Subject: |
There you go again
|
|
Date:
|
12/5/2010 3:30:27 PM
|
First they are not tax cuts ... it is extending the "same tax rates" that everyone has benefited from over the last 10 years.
Second ... these are the rates that nearly all democrats did not want for anyone 10 years agao ...
Third ... you are refering to those making over $200K ($250 if married), not $1 million, even though when the spin artist dems talk they always say over $1 million. $200K is hardly rich, maybe upper middle class, but not rich. And why are they not entitled to the same rate that has been in effect for 10 years like everyone else.
Come on Jellyfish ... why are then not entitled to the same rate? Why should theirs be raised and everyone else keep the same rate. I would love to hear your answer. They already pay a higher percentage of their income and are typically the individuals that own small businesses and create jobs .... so why should their taxes go up and everyone elses stay the same?
I'll bet it is silence again from you. All you know how to do is shoot your mouth but can't back up a thing, and never have an original thought.
|
| Name: |
GoneFishin
-
|
|
| Subject: |
There you go again
|
|
Date:
|
12/5/2010 3:52:25 PM
|
If you read the news and not just my posts, you would see that there was a vote Sat to increase the rate over $1,000,000 in lieu of $250,000. After all, as you believe, 97% of all taxes are paid by those earning $250,000 or more. But, when asked to cite your source you ran and hid explaining oh I made a mistake. No, it was not a mistake...you just got caught. Now, tell us something of value that we can believe.
|
| Name: |
GoneFishin
-
|
|
| Subject: |
There you go again
|
|
Date:
|
12/5/2010 3:54:11 PM
|
I will agree that $250,000 is not rich but upper middle class. But, will you agree that $1,000,000 in annual income is rather rich?
|
| Name: |
water_watcher
-
|
|
| Subject: |
There you go again
|
|
Date:
|
12/5/2010 4:27:10 PM
|
It is richer than $200K ... but not rich. It is all relative ...
But AGAIN ... why should their taxes go up and everyone else stay the same? Why do you think it is a good thing to penalize their success. They pay a higher percentage and more dollars already ... why is it that you feel they do not pay enough and should be penalized for their hard work and success.
Is it just class envy? If you believe the government needs more money, why don't you send them more? They will take it and I am sure they know how to spend it and put it to better than you do.
Give me a break ... put your money where your mouth is ... why is it people like you feel everyone should do more, but you don't yourself.
You spinless loser.
|
| Name: |
4691
-
|
|
| Subject: |
There you go again
|
|
Date:
|
12/5/2010 5:22:47 PM
|
Now I'm with GoneFishin in part on this one, but for a different reason I suspect. The current tax rates should stay the same for everybody. On the other hand, I don't understand tacking on a lot more stimulus spending in order to pass the extension. If the Republicans are truly going to be fiscally conservative (for a change) they must make a stand at some point. Compromising for increased spending to maintain the tax rates is not a win. The liberals are not concerned about the budget or the debt.
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
RIGHT To Cave In
|
|
Date:
|
12/5/2010 5:30:06 PM
|
Geez GF, so much for wanting bipartisanship..... But here's a news flash for you genius, Demoncrats still control the House, Senate and the White House and after January 1st will still control 2 of 3 branches. Its actually amazing to me that Dem's are so weak they have to negotiate with the GOP before they even take control of only one branch of government. If I were you I would be wondering what is happening to the looney left that they still have control of the entire government and yet they have to give up on the tax increases just to get an extension of unemployment benefits. But as usual for you, the world is upside down and a humilitating rejection and weak kneed wimpiness on the part of the Dems is cause for you to celebrate and criticize the GOP who has zero control of government but is apparently still able to set the agenda.
Like shooting fish in a barrell with you GF. You probably need to think things through before you post.
|
| Name: |
GoneFishin
-
|
|
| Subject: |
RIGHT To Cave In
|
|
Date:
|
12/5/2010 9:54:24 PM
|
Martini, answer one simple question. Why were you so elated when Brown was elected to the Senate from MA??????? Let me try and answer it for you. The Democrats no longer had 60 votes. So, you are playing the Palin game of making no sense. Without Republican support any tax bill proposed will not pass. You know that as you have stated it repeatedly.
Now answer why are the Republicans willing to extend unemployment insurance for those who rather than work sit home and collect extended vacation pay??? Why are they willing to cave in to protect the tax rates for the rich by giving another year or two of vacation pay just because they can't find a job. Don't you agree they should let them starve or learn to hunt???????
|
| Name: |
GoneFishin
-
|
|
| Subject: |
From Spineless Loser to Self Annointed Genius
|
|
Date:
|
12/5/2010 11:36:35 PM
|
Now, $1 million per year is not rich just relative. You are full of rhetoric as you are about the only person on this forum who feels $1 million per year is just relative and not rich. As to paying more in taxes, those earning $1.8 million or more per year pay an average of 22.7% of their income to the IRS based on the latest numbers available (2008). Now, that is an far cry from the maximum tax rate of 35%.
|
| Name: |
water_watcher
-
|
|
| Subject: |
From Spineless Loser to Self Annointed Genius
|
|
Date:
|
12/6/2010 5:51:07 AM
|
So what !!! They earned it ... why do YOU think the government should penalize their success and take more? If you feel the government needs more money, they send it to them. Why is it that losers like you only want others that have worked hard and achieved success to be penalized with higher taxes.
They create jobs for losers like you and spend a lot more that keeps the economy going and many others employed. They invest that allows others to borrow to start or grow businesses that employ others.
As for being relative ... individuals and families adjust their life style based on their success. Yes there is a point that they have accumulated so much it does not matter ... but I still do not understand why you feel that success should be penalized and the government take even more. It is NOT the governments money ... what don't you get !!!!
And while I am not going to waste my time checking your facts ... no one pays the marginal rate ... yes the tax structure allows deductions that are intended to help certain industry segments like donations and contributions to the needy, churches, the arts and other not for profit organizations ... also housing and investments. Yes, people do take advantage of them and are rewarded through tax credits.
Don't forget those greedy successful people also DO NOT get tuition credits, grants for education, their itemized deductions and exemptions phased out due to their success.
Jellyfish ... it is not the governments money and it is not right to penalize successful people because the government spends too much and is too big.
As for unemployment ... I feel for people out of work this long because of Obama and the democrats failed policies. If they were not so irogant and focused on the wrong things, we would not be in this situation for so long (that they created in the first place) and they probably would not have been wiped out in the house this past election. But there does need to be an end to extending unemployment. It is hard, but it also penalizes small businesses the hardest (most large businesses self fund unemployment and pay no unemployment taxes) which creates more unemployment. So when does it stop ... the government only takes, they do not produce. And while many people want a good job, their are jobs out there, but not at the level they want. So does that mean we keep taking more from businesses and taxing more so they can wait until that higher paying job comes along?
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
RIGHT To Cave In
|
|
Date:
|
12/6/2010 8:58:49 AM
|
Answer to question 1: I was happy for three reasons: 1) because of the incredible symbolism of a Republican taking over Teddy Kennedy's seat in a very liberal state; 2) because he would force Demoncrats to resort to shenanigans to pass Obamacare, which they did and for which they had their butts kicked in 2010 and will again in 2012; and 3) presumably he would vote with the GOP for Senate Majority Leader getting us one seat closer to putting some adults in charge. Everyone with half a brain can look at the state of Taxachusetts and see that Scott Brown was not going to be a solid, consistent conservative vote and had the potential to be a RINO (the book is still out on this one by the way).
So what you are implying is that because the GOP, if the RINO's don't vote with Dems whch they often do, have more power simply because they can prevent cloture?!?!? Gee, even Algore or Joe Biteme couldn't dream that one up. Does it give them leverage in legislative debates to influence the outcome? Absolutely. Does it constitute more control than having 50 seats? Uh, if you think so you need to pull out your high school civics book and do some studying.
As for why the GOP would negotiate with Dems that control all branches of government it is obvious. They have to in order to try to prevent a disastrous tax increase when the economy is reeling. You may want to call it caving but only in your warped world would the minority party in both legislative branches and out of the White House getting something the Messiah and leftists in Congress absolutely promised would never happen (continuing the current tax rates for all Americans that pay federal taxes, including those evil rich folks) fall into that category. I have no problem extending unemployment benefits as long as they cut somewhere else to pay for it, which by the way is what they are requesting. Now that sounds not only compassionate toward these poor unemployed people and fiscally responsible. The question is whether Obama/Reid/Pelosi will act fiscally responsible but I doubt it since they never have in the past. Fortunately there are a number of Dem Senators scared out of their wits about 2012 and so they are going to abandon the leftist troika and vote with the GOP. GF, I sometimes worry about you.....
And by the way, Palin makes way more sense than 95% of what you post here so I don't take it as a criticism when you compare me to her. :-)
|
| Name: |
4691
-
|
|
| Subject: |
RIGHT To Cave In
|
|
Date:
|
12/6/2010 11:09:36 AM
|
GoneFishin – In fact, on TLC last night Sarah Palin gave a lesson on hunting Caribou in order to fill one’s freezer for the winter.
|
| Name: |
rude evin
-
|
|
| Subject: |
What a hoot...............
|
|
Date:
|
12/6/2010 3:19:15 PM
|
John "gonefishing" Kerry was for bipartisanship and compromise before he was against it.........!
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
What a hoot...............
|
|
Date:
|
12/6/2010 3:32:27 PM
|
You see with the left their definition of bipartisanship is for the GOP to bend over, grab their ankles and take it like a girly man. He wants them to forget that they don't even control anything yet and refuse to bargain. Then he can turn around and blame the GOP as the do-nothing party. Drives him crazy that we can get so much from the addle-brained Dems and we don't even control anything yet. It would be like me in a boxing match with Mike Tyson (in his prime) and he agrees to a tie before the fight even starts. GF would call me a loser for caving in...... and yet I get half the purse and don't get a mark on me. I'll take that outcome any day.
I guess any port in a storm when you are drifting aimlessly........
|
|
|
New Post
Search
Off-Topic Forum
Reply
»
Georgia Lakes
»
Lake Sinclair
Login
|
Home
