Palin quit because ....

Palin quit because ....

  • Total voters
    0
#76
#76
TennTradition said:
It's interesting that the administration predicts those expenses to be that much different than the CBO...is that because they think that they'll significantly decrease those costs through their health information programs in the stimulus package. I doubt they really believe that...I'm just trying to figure out what they are "saying" they believe.....and why the numbers diverge after 2012.
Click to expand...

I do know they have different rules for counting "savings" - Team Obama is using a different estimate for healthcare savings that CBO does not recognize in their projections. This is one of the reasons Team Obama advocated using their own numbers...

Not sure if that accounts for all the difference but it is likely one portion.
 
#78
#78
droski said:
Oh i think he thinks he is doing the greater good. But that doesn't mean he doesn't think the greater good is served by raising taxes and increasing govt.

The rich already pay an overwhelming majority of taxes in this country. and obama isn't just talking about repealing teh bush tax cuts. he's talking about taking them back to pre reagan levels (as suggested by his chief economic advisor on cnbc recently).

As for your final statement i bolded I can't believe you actually believe that. Have you seen the chart of gov't expenditures since obama has taken office? as a % of gdp it's 3X higher than it has EVER BEEN. his deficit equals EVERY presidents deficit COMBINED before him (including bush).
Click to expand...


I hear this statement a lot and I take issue with it because it makes it seem like the wealthiest have this enormous burden placed on them. In fact, the people at the very top pay such a small percentage relative to the amount of wealth that the system provides to them.
 
Last edited:
#79
#79
lawgator1 said:
I hear this statement a lot and I take issue with it because it makes it seem like the wealthiest have this enormous burden placed on them. In fact, the people at the very top pay such a small percentage relative to the amount of wealth that the system provides to them.
Click to expand...

Wow.
 
#80
#80
lawgator1 said:
I hear this statement a lot and I take issue with it because it makes it seem like the wealthiest have this enormous burden placed on them. In fact, the people at the very top pay such a small percentage relative to the amount of wealth that the system provides to them.
Click to expand...

Granted the system is a two way street but your statement reads like these people are given money, so are you for taxing them more and others (who pay little as it is) should pay even less?
 
#81
#81
lawgator1 said:
I hear this statement a lot and I take issue with it because it makes it seem like the wealthiest have this enormous burden placed on them. In fact, the people at the very top pay such a small percentage relative to the amount of wealth that the system provides to them.
Click to expand...

In short those evil people should pay 75% of their income?
 
#82
#82
lawgator1 said:
I hear this statement a lot and I take issue with it because it makes it seem like the wealthiest have this enormous burden placed on them. In fact, the people at the very top pay such a small percentage relative to the amount of wealth that the system provides to them.
Click to expand...

what a crock. for one thing the majority of high earners live in high cost areas. a guy making 50K a year in rural tenn could easily have a much higher quality of life than a guy making 125K in new york. and 35% of your income (which can easily get up to 45% if you include state taxes) is not a "small percentage relative to the amount of wealth that the system provides to them" at least not by my vote. particurally when you have people with cell phones and flat screens in this country not paying taxes.
 
#83
#83
droski said:
what a crock. for one thing the majority of high earners live in high cost areas. a guy making 50K a year in rural tenn could easily have a much higher quality of life than a guy making 125K in new york. and 35% of your income (which can easily get up to 45% if you include state taxes) is not a "small percentage relative to the amount of wealth that the system provides to them" at least not by my vote. particurally when you have people with cell phones and flat screens in this country not paying taxes.
Click to expand...

Don't forget we also give them cars and AAA for a year.
 
#84
#84
lawgator1 said:
I hear this statement a lot and I take issue with it because it makes it seem like the wealthiest have this enormous burden placed on them. In fact, the people at the very top pay such a small percentage relative to the amount of wealth that the system provides to them.
Click to expand...

Could you tell us what the right amount to tax these people is and how you decided that was the correct amount?
 
#85
#85
droski said:
what a crock. for one thing the majority of high earners live in high cost areas. a guy making 50K a year in rural tenn could easily have a much higher quality of life than a guy making 125K in new york. and 35% of your income (which can easily get up to 45% if you include state taxes) is not a "small percentage relative to the amount of wealth that the system provides to them" at least not by my vote. particurally when you have people with cell phones and flat screens in this country not paying taxes.
Click to expand...


People over $250,000 is I believe what Obama's plan contemplates.


volinbham said:
Could you tell us what the right amount to tax these people is and how you decided that was the correct amount?
Click to expand...


Silly question. I have no idea what the numbers are. I just know that as long as you are going to have a progressive taxation system, by definition someone will be paying more (as a percentage of income) than others.

But riddle me this: Should my receptionist/bookkeeper, who is the bread winner for a family of 5 and who makes $45,000 a year, be taxed at a higher rate than she is before someone who makes $50 million a year? Assuming we needed $10,000 from one of them to pay for governmental services, education, Medicare, and what not, who do you propose we have pay that?
 
#86
#86
lawgator1 said:
But riddle me this: Should my receptionist/bookkeeper, who is the bread winner for a family of 5 and who makes $45,000 a year, be taxed at a higher rate than she is before someone who makes $50 million a year? Assuming we needed $10,000 from one of them to pay for governmental services, education, Medicare, and what not, who do you propose we have pay that?
Click to expand...

Warren Buffet posed this same question. He wanted somebody to explain the fairness of his secretary getting paid $60,000/year being taxed at a higher rate than he was, being one of the richest men in the world.

I am not making a judgement here, just reciting what Warren Buffet thinks (or did think at one time).
 
#87
#87
No Way she runs for POTUS, this puts the nail in that coffin

She realized she had maxed out on her political career and wanted to max out $$ to make

She will make her rounds on the speech tours, write a few books, and then land some cushy job as a lobbyist
 
#88
#88
VolsNSkinsFan said:
No Way she runs for POTUS, this puts the nail in that coffin

She realized she had maxed out on her political career and wanted to max out $$ to make

She will make her rounds on the speech tours, write a few books, and then land some cushy job as a lobbyist
Click to expand...

That's what I think too. Based on the cash she'll make, can't blame her. They're talking 5 or 6 figures for a speech, a million dollar book deal, and maybe a talk show.

Not so sure her political career is done, though.
 
#89
#89
The Dude said:
That's what I think too. Based on the cash she'll make, can't blame her. They're talking 5 or 6 figures for a speech, a million dollar book deal, and maybe a talk show.

Not so sure her political career is done, though.
Click to expand...


Meh, only people who would hire her to speak are churches and they don't have six figures to pay her. If she wrote a book -- and I mean actually wrote something -- it would be basically weekly reader quality. A talk show? Not if it involved making any sense.

Her best bet to make any money can be summed up in one word: porn.
 
#90
#90
lawgator1 said:
I hear this statement a lot and I take issue with it because it makes it seem like the wealthiest have this enormous burden placed on them. In fact, the people at the very top pay such a small percentage relative to the amount of wealth that the system provides to them.
Click to expand...
Complete disaster of a comment from an American. Embarrassing at best.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#91
#91
rjd970 said:
Warren Buffet posed this same question. He wanted somebody to explain the fairness of his secretary getting paid $60,000/year being taxed at a higher rate than he was, being one of the richest men in the world.

I am not making a judgement here, just reciting what Warren Buffet thinks (or did think at one time).
Click to expand...
Warren was simply playing politics and neglected to discuss the tax attorneys and accountants hired to minimize his bill and buy large swaths of tax credits. It's in essence a bold faced lie.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#92
#92
BigPapaVol said:
Warren was simply playing politics and neglected to discuss the tax attorneys and accountants hired to minimize his bill and buy large swaths of tax credits. It's in essence a bold faced lie.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...


Depends in part on whether you buy into the notion that the 40,000th dollar is as valuable to the secretary as the 56,785,000th is to him. And vice versa.
 
#93
#93
lawgator1 said:
Depends in part on whether you buy into the notion that the 40,000th dollar is as valuable to the secretary as the 56,785,000th is to him. And vice versa.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. The debate isn't about relative worth of money to individuals. It was framed that way to pass off our garbage system, which has only gotten better over the past 30 years.

Pretending that his risk based return is somehow less valuable to him than her riskless return is absolute senselessness, especially in our capitalist nation. I understand our progressive system, but it's absolute bull caca to pretend it's somehow equitable.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#94
#94
lawgator1 said:
Meh, only people who would hire her to speak are churches and they don't have six figures to pay her. If she wrote a book -- and I mean actually wrote something -- it would be basically weekly reader quality. A talk show? Not if it involved making any sense.

Her best bet to make any money can be summed up in one word: porn.
Click to expand...

Ah yea,

I am sure an Oil company could use a good looking oilwoman with connections

or

someone with a microphone and a check will sign her to talk.

or

Lobbyist


I have never understood the outright hatred that people have for that woman
 
#95
#95
BigPapaVol said:
No it doesn't. The debate isn't about relative worth of money to individuals. It was framed that way to pass off our garbage system, which has only gotten better over the past 30 years.

Pretending that his risk based return is somehow less valuable to him than her riskless return is absolute senselessness, especially in our capitalist nation. I understand our progressive system, but it's absolute bull caca to pretend it's somehow equitable.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...


Who ever said that it was supposed to be "equitable"? And what is supposed to be "equal"? Does everyone in your mind pay the exact same amount, regardless of income? Does everyone pay the exact same rate on whatever income they have?
 
#96
#96
lawgator1 said:
Silly question. I have no idea what the numbers are. I just know that as long as you are going to have a progressive taxation system, by definition someone will be paying more (as a percentage of income) than others.

Just because you don't understand the question doesn't make it silly. Tax rates are a method to hit a certain level of revenue. You say the rich should pay more - based on what? We have deficit? To follow that logic, if the government spends more, the appropriate tax rate for the rich should go up.

We already have a quite progressive tax system. There is no way you can show that is not progressive. The burning question is how progressive you want it to be and you deem that to be a silly question.


But riddle me this: Should my receptionist/bookkeeper, who is the bread winner for a family of 5 and who makes $45,000 a year, be taxed at a higher rate than she is before someone who makes $50 million a year? Assuming we needed $10,000 from one of them to pay for governmental services, education, Medicare, and what not, who do you propose we have pay that?
Click to expand...

How is she taxed at a higher rate? If that's the sole income for the family, her effective rate is ZERO. If married, I bet her effective rate is still much lower than the tax rate of the 50 million earner. You are confusing tax rates and total absolute dollars left after paying taxes.
 
#97
#97
lawgator1 said:
Who ever said that it was supposed to be "equitable"? And what is supposed to be "equal"? Does everyone in your mind pay the exact same amount, regardless of income? Does everyone pay the exact same rate on whatever income they have?
Click to expand...

Don't be a dolt. Everyone should pay a flat tax or consumption tax. Our progressive system is absolute trash.

Equitable is the argument Obama has used to hammer the wealthy, so it's him talking about it. In fact, I believe that idiot was the first to broadly use the term Economic Justice. That said, he's also the first idiot to be serious in using bottom up economics.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#99
#99
lawgator1 said:
Meh, only people who would hire her to speak are churches and they don't have six figures to pay her. If she wrote a book -- and I mean actually wrote something -- it would be basically weekly reader quality. A talk show? Not if it involved making any sense.

Her best bet to make any money can be summed up in one word: porn.
Click to expand...


i honestly hope u are trying to be funny here, because the whole statement is ridiculous. she's def not as dumb as you make her out to be. joe biden who sticks his foot in his mouth all the time isnt stupid overall. i don't agree w/ his politics, but he's not as stupid as he sounds. neither is palin, ur obsession w/ her is like the ones who call obama "hussein"
 
#100
#100
Vol Mania 21 said:
i honestly hope u are trying to be funny here, because the whole statement is ridiculous. she's def not as dumb as you make her out to be. joe biden who sticks his foot in his mouth all the time isnt stupid overall. i don't agree w/ his politics, but he's not as stupid as he sounds. neither is palin, ur obsession w/ her is like the ones who call obama "hussein"
Click to expand...


I said yesterday that Biden's eccentricities were beginning to irk me.

And if Palin is intelligent, I just haven't seen any evidence of it. Seriously. She just comes across as incredibly ignorant and poorly spoken, she's annoying, and for the life of me I cannot figure out how anyone can envision her as having the gravitas to be president. If she is overwhelmed by the Alaskan governorship and the controversy it causes, can you imagine what would happen to her in the crucible of the WH? She'd implode.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top