One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Posts for: Kirk
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 60 next>>
Sep 26, 2014 18:05:18   #
lpnmajor wrote:
Ain't that the t***h! Still, the 70% of taxes paid by the 1%'ers, is misleading, intentionally so I might add, as it is not based on the overall numbers of tax payers, but only on the amount of taxes paid, separated by income.

Here's an example: If 9 people pay $100,000 in taxes and 1 person pays $1,000,000, it would appear that the (1) person has paid 50% of the money, but in reality, they've only paid 10%. It's called "spin".

If every person pays 10% of their total earnings in tax and 300,000,000 people make $1000, that's $30,000,000,000. If 100,000 people make $100,000, that's $10,000,000,000. That shows that .03% paid 25% if the money, yet, those .03%'ers earned 100 times the money of the rest, each. Perspective, that's what we need.
Ain't that the t***h! Still, the 70% of taxes paid... (show quote)


I think I get your point, but that's exactly the logic being used by the democrat party today. If we all pay a flat tax then we are all paying the same and therefore no one should expect favors. The more we demand from the 1% the more they will demand in return one way or the other. If we are all considered equal, then we should all pay an equal amount. So a tax should be level for all. So if it's 20% all should pay 20% including the 1%. Nothing more, nothing less. And loopholes should be abolished. Keep it simple.
Go to
Sep 26, 2014 17:50:12   #
lpnmajor wrote:
Ain't that the t***h! Still, the 70% of taxes paid by the 1%'ers, is misleading, intentionally so I might add, as it is not based on the overall numbers of tax payers, but only on the amount of taxes paid, separated by income.

Here's an example: If 9 people pay $100,000 in taxes and 1 person pays $1,000,000, it would appear that the (1) person has paid 50% of the money, but in reality, they've only paid 10%. It's called "spin".

If every person pays 10% of their total earnings in tax and 300,000,000 people make $1000, that's $30,000,000,000. If 100,000 people make $100,000, that's $10,000,000,000. That shows that .03% paid 25% if the money, yet, those .03%'ers earned 100 times the money of the rest, each. Perspective, that's what we need.
Ain't that the t***h! Still, the 70% of taxes paid... (show quote)


Here's an example: If 9 people pay $100,000 in taxes and 1 person pays $1,000,000, it would appear that the (1) person has paid 50% of the money, but in reality, they've only paid 10%. It's called "spin". Please explain. I don't see how you come up with 10%. If 9 people paid 100,000 amounting to 900,000 and 1 person pays 1,000,000 totalling to 1,900,000. then the person who paid the 1,000,000. paid 53% of the 1,900,000.
Go to
Sep 26, 2014 15:00:48   #
KHH1 wrote:
**Took two terms to f-k up the country...takes two to repair it...the laws of physics...equal and opposite reactions.......

Except that things are far worse now. So where's the correction?
Go to
Sep 26, 2014 14:01:24   #
lpnmajor wrote:
Oh I know. I was just waiting for the USSC to make it legal, otherwise I just sounded like sour grapes. Now that it is out of the closet, we can take advantage of it. I'm just tired of paying people that don't work for me. I'm sure I'll have to sue, because those i***ts won't give up their second paychecks without a fight, but that's ok - I've got nothing else to do.


I've heard that the 1% pays like 70% of the tax revenue in America. That's the problem with the attitude of forcing the 1% to pay even more. Of course they would want something in return. Of course they would expect to manipulate the system. That is why we need tax reform that levels the playing field.
Go to
Sep 26, 2014 13:57:19   #
son of witless wrote:
Do the politicians work for the big unions?


Of course they do! They work for whoever has the most money. And unions are right up there with the Koch's and the Soros's.
Go to
Sep 26, 2014 13:54:09   #
PeterS wrote:
Oh, it’s not hard to understand at all: the increase in greenhouse gases cause the ambient temperature to increase which cause unpredictable whether patterns which produces the loss of land ice with the erosion of costal lands, longer droughts, monsoon rains, colder winters, hotter summers, etc, etc...

I would worry except in the last stockholders meeting of Koch Industries the Koch brothers themselves warned us of the impending deep freeze by the end of the century so we need to increase drastically our use of f****l f**ls--it’s the only way to save the planet. I know this is true because they were wearing white smocks like scientists ware and they had charts and everything--scared the crap right out of me! Right now I am buring a pile of coal in my backyard out of one of their mines trying to do my part to save the planet. You can too--PM me if you want to know where to buy it...
Oh, it’s not hard to understand at all: the increa... (show quote)


Climate has been unpredictable since the beginning of time. We have had famins, droughts even in Biblical times. Hell we had an ice age once. We need to get real with this debate. Of course we need to protect our environment! But first we need to protect the sovereignty of our nation and our constitution. The consern or debate is not weather we protect our environment or not, it's about the choices we make as a nation. Also what we do to help our economy. We have been gradually making progress over the years. Our cars burn much cleaner now than in the past. Electric cars are great but need much improvement and be affordable. But how do we fuel jets? You know that huge thing flying in the sky that Obama and Gore and Dicaprio fly around in while trying to save the planet. What conserns me the most is when I hear we are encouraging the UN to help decide policy here in America.
Go to
Sep 26, 2014 13:37:41   #
PeterS wrote:
Extremist? No, just trying to save the world before it freezes--and increase the worth of my stock in Koch industries while I am at it...


Oh you mean overheating right? And you might want to consider investing into some other wealthy enterprise like Soros's or one of the many that supports the left so you won't be targeted by the IRS.
Go to
Sep 26, 2014 13:28:56   #
robert66 wrote:
Encouraging i*****l i*********n is definitely a bad idea if you are union. Even though I am pro union I have worked non union almost entirely. Guys that I know who have had union careers did very well. They are tradesman and highly sk**led. I've done well not working union also but I knew that without their existence I would have been paid less. No matter the complaints or gripes about union organization a guy is much better off with group representation than without it. I hope for the sake of our young people they learn about the history of union representation in this country. Those who fail to remember the past are condemned to repeat it. Of course I didn't make that up but I like it. You know, some of these politicians are real pieces of work. I'm still surprised at times how they get support from their v**ers after some of the crap they do.
Encouraging i*****l i*********n is definitely a ba... (show quote)


Robert we agree on most, but I don't give as much credit to unions as you do. I really believe the free market is the answer. Unions interrupt that and I believe they hurt the overall economy more than help.
Go to
Sep 26, 2014 13:23:20   #
grace scott wrote:
How? He invaded Iraq, and got rid of a cruel, ruthless dictator. The other nations in the Middle East were afraid of his nonexistent weapons of mass destruction and treaded carefully. With him gone, all heck broke out.


Well that's hinesite putting it in a little box of simple perspective. You and I know it's a lot more complicated than that. But your hatred for Bush is noted. It's ok to h**e Bush, but hands off Obama right?
Go to
Sep 26, 2014 13:18:16   #
MarvinSussman wrote:
For you, a Muslim is a Muslim. For a Muslim, a Muslim is either a Sunni or a Shiite. And they have been fighting each other for over a thousand years. And we can't change that.

We should not be picking sides, except to help the losing side. The trick is to know which side is losing. Bush picked the wrong side. Obama is correcting the mistake.

Let someone smarter than you handle this.


OK here we go again. Obama is correcting what Bush has done. What a grand excuse. But poor Barack is going to spend his entire two term presidency on TRYING to correct what the previous pres did.
Go to
Sep 26, 2014 13:05:32   #
Wayne1r wrote:
It's simple. The Democrats have gone way too far and give anyone anything and the Republicans want things the way they used to be when the majority of people were white. Neither of them will ever get what they want again.


So what are you saying, if your not white you need welfare?
Go to
Sep 25, 2014 21:30:05   #
Brian Devon wrote:
************

Yeah, a lot of these old anti-union geezers get their daily anti-labor venom fix from white wing h**e radio. It makes them even more bitter and anti-social.

Unions were heavily responsible for making a strong middle class. We need them back, along with progressive leaders who will repeal the NAFTA legislation pushed through by both Democrats and Republicans.

I have it on good advice, that a special place in hell, is reserved for the man most responsible for destroying strong unions and the middle class---Mr. NAFTA-KING OF OUTSOURCING, himself---Bill Clinton.
************ br br Yeah, a lot of these old anti-... (show quote)


Wrong. Unions were not responsible, private enterprise was. Capitalism was. The unions didn't create Ford, GM, General Electric etc. etc. They just exploited it.
Go to
Sep 25, 2014 21:24:36   #
karpenter wrote:
I Saw That Chart Earlier Today
There's A Former Police Detective With 20yrs Experience
That's Been Trying To Investigate Sandy Hook For A While Now
He Has A Page Long List Of Reasons That He Says
'Don't Add Up...'

Wild Conspiracy Theories Just Don't Seem Far Fetched Anymore

Tower 7 DID Fall In All On It's Lonesome
Accidentally Caught On A Live News Broadcast

And There IS A Guy
We Think His Name Might Be Barack H. Obama
That Somehow Got Elected President...

Hmm.....
I Saw That Chart Earlier Today br There's A Former... (show quote)


Oh cmon, that's like saying 911 was a conspiracy and George Bush planned it. Lets not lower ourselves.
Go to
Sep 25, 2014 21:20:05   #
RETW wrote:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


" Let the smart people handle this. "


You did say this did you not?
" You stick with your generals I will stick with the professors. "

Say, that might not be a bad idea. We could send a few at a time. And While Isis is busy cutting off there heads. We could, in a few weeks send a few more over. That way, we could k**l two birds with one stone so to speak. Isis would be so tired of cutting off the heads of these nut job professors we have that are screwing up our education system. They would not want to do it any more. And we would be free of the nut job professors. Good idea.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx... (show quote)


:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
Go to
Sep 25, 2014 21:18:45   #
lpnmajor wrote:
It is obvious that citizens united and it's related rulings, are not going to be overturned anytime soon, if ever. So we may as well accept that it's here to stay and do something with it. This does present a good opportunity for the American people.

Firstly, we must accept that politicians no longer work for us, but work for their corporate sponsors. That being the case, we are no longer legally or ethically obligated to pay them. We may stop making payroll for them, or benefits, including travel, insurance and retirement. Double dipping would stop. We would save 10's of millions of dollars every month.

Secondly, as the politicians new pay source is now income, it is taxable and must be claimed as such. That will gain new tax revenue for the American people as well as recovering a small portion these employees helped their employers steal from us. It will also force these corporate employers to pay the employee taxes on these politicians, further bolstering our Social Security and Medicare reserves.

Lastly, accepting all the above will help overcome the frustration, disappointment and rage, that has resulted from learning that we no longer have elected employees. We can overcome this disaster, but only if we accept things the way they are - and adapt.
It is obvious that citizens united and it's relate... (show quote)


The politicians quit working for us a long time ago. Where have you been?
Go to
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 60 next>>
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.