Message boards :
Politics :
USA Bankrupt
Message board moderation
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 . . . 31 · Next
Author | Message |
---|---|
Nick Send message Joined: 11 Oct 11 Posts: 4344 Credit: 3,313,107 RAC: 0 |
Here is just one example from last week’s news. Washington Post: The Kite Fliers -------------------- Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes. |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30673 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
On the question of semantics, I find it odd that people are reticent to explain how another is meant to interpret their words, seems to me that this is a recipe for confusion. I don't see it as confusion but the refusal as a way to advance as many straw man arguments as possible, or a way to generate large volumes of hot air and ill will feelings where there was no difference to begin with. Like a Rusty Lintball or a Keith Oldbadman. Speaking of Oldbadman, he used to do the sports segment on the local TV station; he was just at his Peter Principal level reading the scores, so reading political scores is a natural transition for him. |
KWSN - MajorKong Send message Joined: 5 Jan 00 Posts: 2892 Credit: 1,499,890 RAC: 0 |
meaning 1: a person experienced in the art or science of government; especially : one actively engaged in conducting the business of a government ... is the recipient of a political appointment an ex-officio member of the political class? Well, I wouldn't use the term 'political class', but... Yes. The holders of appointed office are just as much politicians as the holders of elective office are. You answered the question yourself when you said 'political appointment'. The president, state governor, city mayor, corporate chairman, whoever... that holds elective office are politicians. They appointment department heads that (usually) share their views... For political reasons... The appointees are politicians too, since they serve a political purpose, not a functional purpose in the organization. https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE #Texit Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016. Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power. |
KWSN - MajorKong Send message Joined: 5 Jan 00 Posts: 2892 Credit: 1,499,890 RAC: 0 |
Are we trying to come to a mutual agreement on the definition of "politician" here or are we discussing why the US is going bankrupt? That one is easy to answer. Government spending is too high. Government taxation is too high. Budget deficits exist. Question is answered. https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE #Texit Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016. Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power. |
skildude Send message Joined: 4 Oct 00 Posts: 9541 Credit: 50,759,529 RAC: 60 |
Are we trying to come to a mutual agreement on the definition of "politician" here or are we discussing why the US is going bankrupt? Wrong Taxation is and has been far to low. We have been at war for damn near 10 years but have yet to have 1 tax increase to actually pay for either one. I'll repeat a Democratic whipping point. Wars are paid for by taxes not but handing out huge tax breaks to the wealthy. Let's all agree that maybe somewhere a welfare mom is getting over on about $10-$20K a year. Let's now focus on Billionaires are paying taxes at or lower than what I now pay. It's simply nonsense. Right wingnuts insist that tax breaks to the wealthy creates jobs. Reagan tried it and found he had to raise taxes 17 times to make up for the deficits he ran. The Bush handouts to the wealthy have been going on for nearly 10 years and we are still not seeing that job growth. Should we wait another 10? is that the break even point on these handouts? Please let us in on this super secret job creation that occurs when wealthy people have more money. From what I've seen its smoke and mirrors. It takes a few peons like you to spout the tired party line to give it a shadow of legitimacy. Sadly, the difference between me and you is you still believe you're getting a tax break and are being ripped off and are unable to do anything about it. I know I'm being ripped off. In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face. Diogenes Of Sinope |
BarryAZ Send message Joined: 1 Apr 01 Posts: 2580 Credit: 16,982,517 RAC: 0 |
Half right anyway -- government spending does need to be reined in. Entitlements for the wealthy need to be reined in as well. Heck, I think turfing the Bushcuts entirely might not be that bad an idea -- and given the way the TeaPublicans are playing in Congress, I hope that we see enough return-fire hardball from the Democrats over the coming year to use that option.
|
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30673 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
Are we trying to come to a mutual agreement on the definition of "politician" here or are we discussing why the US is going bankrupt? No, we are discussing is the USA at present bankrupt. There is a side discussion going on about persons who only are able to spout talking points but don't even believe the talking points they spout as they are unable to form a coherent argument and must resort to trickery in their replies. Is the national debit so large and the political gamesmanship so much that it is impossible to prevent collapse? |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30673 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
Let's now focus on Billionaires are paying taxes at or lower than what I now pay. So I'm your billionaire. I decide to retire. My income drops to ZERO. How much income tax do I have to pay on my poverty level income? Hey, how about I do one lecture for the year and take a $5,000 speakers fee. Guess what ... I now qualify for Earned Income Tax Credit - welfare! Isn't Amerika Great! They don't have a tax on wealth, just a tax on income! Get a basic fact burned into your brain, income tax is on income, not on wealth. If you think there should be an ad valorem tax, then argue for it. That one is easy to answer. Government spending is too high. Government taxation is too high. Budget deficits exist. Got some bad math there. You seem to have 1 + 1 = 0. You should realize that is 1 - 1 = 0. Solve for tax and you get Budget deficits + spending = amount tax revenue needs go up. It's better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. |
skildude Send message Joined: 4 Oct 00 Posts: 9541 Credit: 50,759,529 RAC: 60 |
[quote]Let's now focus on Billionaires are paying taxes at or lower than what I now pay. So I'm your billionaire. I decide to retire. My income drops to ZERO. clearly you are the fool that continues to spew the ignorance that your corporate overlords insist is the true even when reality is staring you in the face you still see the matrix neo In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face. Diogenes Of Sinope |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30673 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
[quote]Let's now focus on Billionaires are paying taxes at or lower than what I now pay. I'm so sorry you don't understand the difference between income and an asset. As long as you don't you won't be able to offer any real debate. |
BarryAZ Send message Joined: 1 Apr 01 Posts: 2580 Credit: 16,982,517 RAC: 0 |
But Gary (and I know you know this), if you are a retired billionaire, your assets will include a LOT of liquid assets including income generating assets (dividends, interest, bond yields and the like). I'd suggest you are being a bit disingenuous here with that 'billionaire - income drops to zero' line.
|
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30673 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Annuity Swiss annuities are not subject to US Internal Revenue Service tax reporting requirements Not to mention a eccentric one putting everything into gold and silver bars to hedge against the coming bankruptcy of the USA. But you are right, he will still get his social security check, and that is taxable income. But Gary (and I know you know this), if you are a retired billionaire, your assets will include a LOT of liquid assets including income generating assets (dividends, interest, bond yields and the like). |
BarryAZ Send message Joined: 1 Apr 01 Posts: 2580 Credit: 16,982,517 RAC: 0 |
OK -- fair point, and one which demonstrates a method for retired millionaires and billionaires to facilitate the bankrupting of the US. Swiss annuities are not subject to US Internal Revenue Service tax reporting requirements |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30673 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
OK -- fair point, and one which demonstrates a method for retired millionaires and billionaires to facilitate the bankrupting of the US. You did notice that it isn't just for the rich, any life insurance annuity is convertible, even a tiny one. Swiss annuities are not subject to the one percent excise tax commonly imposed on purchases of foreign life insurance or annuity policies due to the double tax treaty signed by the U.S. and Switzerland in 1998. A big thank you to the President in 1998. Who was that again? |
BarryAZ Send message Joined: 1 Apr 01 Posts: 2580 Credit: 16,982,517 RAC: 0 |
Again, fair point, I'd note that while TeaPublicans readily lambast Democrats for socialist tax policies, in fact over the past 30 years (or more), the tax policies enacted by Democrats have been far closer to classic Republican tax policies than socialist. Most of my conversations regarding politics with people from other developed countries (Europe, NZ, Australia) find that our two parties (and not only in terms of tax policies) would equate to center/right (Democrats), and right wing (TeaPublicans). That is one of the reasons we have the deficits we do. The Democrats, when in power (and these days that would include 60 Senate seats), dare not deal with true revenue increases as they know that the American polity simply doesn't buy into the Heinlein acronym of TINSTAAFL. And so to the extent bills get passed, we see increased entitlements and decreased taxes -- and that has mostly happened with either party (the cut tax and spend a lot tendency was expressed fully in 2001 to 2009 as well -- remind me, who was the president then?). As I noted before -- current Federal tax burden (including, I believe Social Security) is at the lowest levels since 1950. That is certainly no way to balance a budget. I get truly exercised when I hear (or here read) folks lamenting how 'punitive' taxes are in the US. I guess I'd note, that for the poor and middle class, subject to the Social Security piece of taxes from dollar one, it might well seem that we are subject to a high tax burden. For those who complain about that, I'd give them the Romney answer -- make more money, your tax burden will be reduced and if you don't make more money, it is your fault.
|
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30673 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
As I noted before -- current Federal tax burden (including, I believe Social Security) is at the lowest levels since 1950. Remind me who is president when the last Social Security tax cut was enacted? All the rest is simply we haven't met the assumptions on tax revenue because when the OMB and CBO made the assumptions they didn't know that we were going to have a depression. |
Nick Send message Joined: 11 Oct 11 Posts: 4344 Credit: 3,313,107 RAC: 0 |
All the rest is simply we haven't met the assumptions on tax revenue because when the OMB and CBO made the assumptions they didn't know that we were going to have a depression. No, and they don't realise too that there's still about another 4 years of this depression still to run. The Kite Fliers -------------------- Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes. |
BarryAZ Send message Joined: 1 Apr 01 Posts: 2580 Credit: 16,982,517 RAC: 0 |
Agreed, but then again, if we weren't in a depression (or at least a deep *employment* recession), we'd not be as seriously in debt as we are. We'd have a lot more revenues, we'd not have allocated a trillion dollars plus for 'stimulus' and we'd not be having this discussion. <smile>. Tell me again, who was president when this depression/recession was launched?
|
©2024 University of California
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.