The state of the campaigns

#33
#33
BigPapaVol said:
LG,

I wanna know what Joe Lunchpail thinks. Can you help me out here?
Click to expand...


Joe Lunchpail is pissed off right now at Joe Sixpack because Sixpack borrowed $700 billion from him to go buy lipstick for his pig and instead of paying it back is keeping it in a fund that invests in subprime mortgages and super-colliders.
 
#35
#35
lawgator1 said:
Joe Lunchpail is pissed off right now at Joe Sixpack because Sixpack borrowed $700 billion from him to go buy lipstick for his pig and instead of paying it back is keeping it in a fund that invests in subprime mortgages and super-colliders.
Click to expand...

For the record, it's 850 billion now.
 
#36
#36
lawgator1 said:
Joe Lunchpail is pissed off right now at Joe Sixpack because Sixpack borrowed $700 billion from him to go buy lipstick for his pig and instead of paying it back is keeping it in a fund that invests in subprime mortgages and super-colliders.
Click to expand...
and there you have it. Lunchpail's gonna go back to voting for the guy that promises him the most "stuff."
 
#39
#39
As far as election strategy, McCain has to win Florida to have a chance. Obama surely knows that and will push for Florida hard.
 
#40
#40
lawgator1 said:
And that makes him or this election different exactly how?
Click to expand...

I guess it doesn't but Obama is telling the the less fortunate he cares about them, will give them this and that and because of all the the issues (economy etc) people are eating it up.

Does anyone really think he is going to do a third of what he says?

He is telling people what they want to hear, not what will actually take place.
 
#43
#43
BigPapaVol said:
doesn't at all, but should bother you in that we can take the reigns of this land by promising the most gullible people the most free stuff.
Click to expand...


I don't know which is worse, promising everybody free stuff you can't deliver or threatening people with boogeymen who aren't really there.
 
#44
#44
lawgator1 said:
I don't know which is worse, promising everybody free stuff you can't deliver or threatening people with boogeymen who aren't really there.
Click to expand...
trying to deliver the free stuff is a far worse consequence than preparing for imagined boogeymen.

I assume by boogeymen you're including Obama's Great Depression rhetoric?
 
#45
#45
BigPapaVol said:
trying to deliver the free stuff is a far worse consequence than preparing for imagined boogeymen.

I assume by boogeymen you're including Obama's Great Depression rhetoric?
Click to expand...


Oh sure.

And by promising free stuff you also include McCain's promises of tax relief to certain constituencies?
 
#46
#46
lawgator1 said:
Oh sure.

And by promising free stuff you also include McCain's promises of tax relief to certain constituencies?
Click to expand...
without a doubt included. Tax relief at this juncture, with taxes at a manageable level, is nothing more than welfare.
 
#47
#47
BigPapaVol said:
without a doubt included. Tax relief at this juncture, with taxes at a manageable level, is nothing more than welfare.
Click to expand...


If I had my druthers given the available options, I would prefer we keep current tax rates where they are for middle and lower classes and go back to the pre-cut levels for the top wage or income earners.

I can see cutting the capital gains tax for re-invested dollars. But not for profit-taking (assuming any big traders have paper profits to even take right now).

I do not fully understand the corporate tax rates and why that matters given that it seems like most corporations pass through their income. I've seen a number of folks comment about this on CNBC and the like, as though our rate (significantly higher than many other countries) makes a difference in some companies' decisions as to where to be based, etc. But it sure does seem based on my admittedly limited knowledge that the companies to which this really matters are small in number.

In the end, I would support a candidate who stood up and said no new discretionary spending, we will look for ways to trim whatever we can from mandatory spending, and no tax cuts for anybody and maybe even a few targeted increases, until we get things righted and at least moving in the right direction.
 
#48
#48
lawgator1 said:
If I had my druthers given the available options, I would prefer we keep current tax rates where they are for middle and lower classes and go back to the pre-cut levels for the top wage or income earners.

I can see cutting the capital gains tax for re-invested dollars. But not for profit-taking (assuming any big traders have paper profits to even take right now).

I do not fully understand the corporate tax rates and why that matters given that it seems like most corporations pass through their income. I've seen a number of folks comment about this on CNBC and the like, as though our rate (significantly higher than many other countries) makes a difference in some companies' decisions as to where to be based, etc. But it sure does seem based on my admittedly limited knowledge that the companies to which this really matters are small in number.

In the end, I would support a candidate who stood up and said no new discretionary spending, we will look for ways to trim whatever we can from mandatory spending, and no tax cuts for anybody and maybe even a few targeted increases, until we get things righted and at least moving in the right direction.
Click to expand...
pre-cut levels on the wealthy is disastrous. Would massively impede investment in our future based upon the diminished returns for investors.

I'll assure you that a massive amount of tax revenue is in non pass through C corp style taxes.

Pass through entities like LLCs and S Corps just haven't been around that long.

Tax increases on those who appear to be least impacted would actually have the largest negative impact on governmental receipts.

The misconception that taxing the wealthy hits folks like the Kennedys, Gates, Buffets etc is just wrong. They have already accrued their wealth and aren't being taxed on that portion. Annual earnings is what is taxed, hence high earners in our economy would be those pounded. Guess who the high earners tend to be?
 
#49
#49
I absolutely cannot understand why politicians won't enact the only fair tax solution. A flat tax. No loopholes. No write-offs.

Let's use 8% as hypothetical figure.

You make $10,000., you pay $800.
You make $1,000,000., you pay $80,000.

How hard is that for politicians to comprehend? It is the only fair way for everyone.
 
#50
#50
SavageOrangeJug said:
I absolutely cannot understand why politicians won't enact the only fair tax solution. A flat tax. No loopholes. No write-offs.

Let's use 8% as hypothetical figure.

You make $10,000., you pay $800.
You make $1,000,000., you pay $80,000.

How hard is that for politicians to comprehend? It is the only fair way for everyone.
Click to expand...
don't be silly. davol has some magic math that makes the graduated tax scheme more fair than a flat tax.

Let's be honest. The current tax scheme is nothing more than vote stealing gone awry to the point that the unfairness of it has been washed from the system. Now any hint that our graduated rates unfairly hammer high earners is tantamount to racism or class warfare.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top