Who took our country away from us?

[Imawhosure]

why don't you answer my question Whosure?

Do you support the farm subsidies?

 

Planet, post 152, I did.

[Imawhosure]

15% tax rate on eligible dividends and capital gains.

 

Top marginal income tax rate: 35%

 

So, a secretary's income is taxed at a higher rate than his/her bosses' unearned income. Sounds fair to me, if you are a conservative!!!!

 

Oh nooooooooooooooooo, Mountain makes BIG boo-boo.

 

How?

 

Let me follow Mountain liberal logic--------------------->According to Mountain speak.........by his own link I might add..............corporations pay LESS taxes by dispersing the income.

 

Who do they disperse it too?

 

Sharholders, lolol.

 

What is that exactly?

 

Capital gains.

 

And what is MOUNTAINS own words say capital gains tax rate is?

 

TELL EM AGAIN MOUNTAIN, hehehehehehehehehehehehehehehe.

 

Sooooooooooooo, the dispersion of the monies in question actually raise MORE taxes for the coffures, if we believe MOUNTAINS OWN link that corporations pay only 3. something percent.

 

Let me see, hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. 3. something, as opposed to 15%. Very interesting, isn't it.

 

And now for the assertion that MOUNTAIN has put forward about a secretary paying more of her income, then the guy sitting on his rearend while raking in the dough for his investments.

 

1. At what taxable income level Mr Mountain, do you pass 15%?

 

2. What if that secretary has a child or two.....or maybe 3?????? For the sake of debate, let us assume she/he makes 32,500 bucks a year.(boy, you stepped in doo this time)

 

3. You work, you get paid, you pay taxes. But if you invest, you take risk. You are not promised a return unless it is backed by the government. Is that not correct? So then------------->how much risk do you suppose someone should take on? Let me see, hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. I invest 10,000, in a year I get 10%..............but I coulda lost 10% too. So I made the 10% by putting my money at risk, and the government takes 15%. OK, sounds so-so.

 

But suppose the government takes more, you put a number on it. At what point does anyone say the risk is not worth the reward? Unless of course the government is going to bail me out like they want to do for the house flippers and banks that promoted it, then maybe I will reconsider.

 

Capital formation and business creates jobs. Maybe you don't need one of those, but I know a whole bunch of people on here that would like to have them available........just in case. Go ahead, tell them to screw themselves, I dare ya.

 

Tell them your utopia is more important, just like paying for carbon credits is because of your ideas. Tell them, go ahead, explain it to the people.

 

You are a sham with no substance. You try and deflect the real issue by pointing out misspelled words, or incorrect grammer, or even someone being off by 1 out of thousands, but you never really defend your position.

 

Why?

 

Because it is INDEFENSIBLE. Trim is correct, your way closely resembles those actions from the other side in the cold war. We paid billions, if not trillions to make them go away. I will be damned if after paying all that cash we allow a guy/gal like you to install the same ideas from the inside out.

 

You can continue on, but we will be here to rebutt your idiocy. We will show parallel with your ideas, and those of the (gasp) communists. That is not just a word, it is a description of what you want done. Not in my lifetime my man, not in my lifetime.

[mountaineerwv]

Oh nooooooooooooooooo, Mountain makes BIG boo-boo.

 

How?

 

Let me follow Mountain liberal logic--------------------->According to Mountain speak.........by his own link I might add..............corporations pay LESS taxes by dispersing the income.

 

Who do they disperse it too?

 

Sharholders, lolol.

 

What is that exactly?

 

Capital gains.

 

And what is MOUNTAINS own words say capital gains tax rate is?

 

TELL EM AGAIN MOUNTAIN, hehehehehehehehehehehehehehehe.

 

Sooooooooooooo, the dispersion of the monies in question actually raise MORE taxes for the coffures, if we believe MOUNTAINS OWN link that corporations pay only 3. something percent.

 

Let me see, hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. 3. something, as opposed to 15%. Very interesting, isn't it.

 

And now for the assertion that MOUNTAIN has put forward about a secretary paying more of her income, then the guy sitting on his rearend while raking in the dough for his investments.

 

1. At what taxable income level Mr Mountain, do you pass 15%?

 

2. What if that secretary has a child or two.....or maybe 3?????? For the sake of debate, let us assume she/he makes 32,500 bucks a year.(boy, you stepped in doo this time)

 

3. You work, you get paid, you pay taxes. But if you invest, you take risk. You are not promised a return unless it is backed by the government. Is that not correct? So then------------->how much risk do you suppose someone should take on? Let me see, hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. I invest 10,000, in a year I get 10%..............but I coulda lost 10% too. So I made the 10% by putting my money at risk, and the government takes 15%. OK, sounds so-so.

 

But suppose the government takes more, you put a number on it. At what point does anyone say the risk is not worth the reward? Unless of course the government is going to bail me out like they want to do for the house flippers and banks that promoted it, then maybe I will reconsider.

 

Capital formation and business creates jobs. Maybe you don't need one of those, but I know a whole bunch of people on here that would like to have them available........just in case. Go ahead, tell them to screw themselves, I dare ya.

 

Tell them your utopia is more important, just like paying for carbon credits is because of your ideas. Tell them, go ahead, explain it to the people.

 

You are a sham with no substance. You try and deflect the real issue by pointing out misspelled words, or incorrect grammer, or even someone being off by 1 out of thousands, but you never really defend your position.

 

Why?

 

Because it is INDEFENSIBLE. Trim is correct, your way closely resembles those actions from the other side in the cold war. We paid billions, if not trillions to make them go away. I will be damned if after paying all that cash we allow a guy/gal like you to install the same ideas from the inside out.

 

You can continue on, but we will be here to rebutt your idiocy. We will show parallel with your ideas, and those of the (gasp) communists. That is not just a word, it is a description of what you want done. Not in my lifetime my man, not in my lifetime.

 

You're pathetic. Utterly pathetic. I have never read just bloviating BS. Tell me, what book(s) have you written on the subject? My quess - 0, since you have nothing but blathering lunacy.

 

This is why most people would have given up on you a long time ago, but I made the mistake thinking I was debating with someone who had a modicum of knowledge. My mistake.

[Imawhosure]

REALLY?

 

You mean that my assertion that 15% of capital gains by people is more than 3. something % of corporate is wrong.

 

What new math are you using? I want to use it on my natural gas bill. I will use you for a refernce, hehehehehehehehehehe.

 

You are pathetic you know, but I enjoy exposing you. Your one line responses show a person frustrated. Please don't be that way. You see, just cuse I lerned mie rithmatic I am not stigee and wil shaur it wit yu!!!!!!

[Imawhosure]

Hey Jethro d Bodeine, (AKA MOUNTAIN) I am a sixth grad grduat. Efen I no that 15 purcent is more than 3 ponte somthin!!!!!!

[Imawhosure]

Hey, don't go away angry!!!!!!! (Mountain has again left the building) Please post more of your stupidity so as I can make a fool out of you. I like it, I like it!!!!!!

[Imawhosure]

You're pathetic. Utterly pathetic. I have never read just bloviating BS. Tell me, what book(s) have you written on the subject? My quess - 0, since you have nothing but blathering lunacy.

 

This is why most people would have given up on you a long time ago, but I made the mistake thinking I was debating with someone who had a modicum of knowledge. My mistake.

 

 

Modicum??????? Big words for such a small mind.

 

Bloviating BS?????? Yep, typical answer for someone who has been shown to be incompetent. It's ok though, I understand; and by the blithering sophmoric response, I also know that even your feeble mind understands------->you are LOSING!!!

[Imawhosure]

This guy is not even worth my time. (eventhough I am enjoying it) Methos and friends have much more to offer, and are much harder to defeat in the realm of ideas.

 

This clown has been transformed into a blithering idiot without much effort.

 

I shall now take my leave and allow the rest of you to feast on his carcass.

 

He obviously doesn't like me, so maybe he will get along better with Trim or RC38. I don't want this person jumping off a bridge or anything drastic, as I am not that kind of person. I am not like him and am willing to live, and let live.

 

So them Mountain type of guy, get your confidence back. I warn you that my 22 year old son could out debate you, but that is a different story for a different thread. I wish you well, and hope that you get everything coming to you in life.

 

Bye-Bye, hehehehehehehehehehehehe!

[methos]

Oh nooooooooooooooooo, Mountain makes BIG boo-boo.

 

How?

 

Let me follow Mountain liberal logic--------------------->According to Mountain speak.........by his own link I might add..............corporations pay LESS taxes by dispersing the income.

 

Who do they disperse it too?

 

 

Because it is INDEFENSIBLE. Trim is correct, your way closely resembles those actions from the other side in the cold war. We paid billions, if not trillions to make them go away. I will be damned if after paying all that cash we allow a guy/gal like you to install the same ideas from the inside out.

 

You can continue on, but we will be here to rebutt your idiocy. We will show parallel with your ideas, and those of the (gasp) communists. That is not just a word, it is a description of what you want done. Not in my lifetime my man, not in my lifetime.

 

 

Supply-Side Economics is a complete disaster. It's an abortion, it's not opinion, but there have been numerous studies done to show that INVESTMENT actually declined in the Reagan years. That was the intent right, lower taxes on the wealthy, which they would then take that money and create jobs. Inevitably, more wealth for all.

 

Guess what, IT NEVER HAPPENED. Again, investment declined. The figures vary, but it was somewhere between no gain and a loss of one percent. The only thing that blossomed was the National Debt. Reagan tripled it before he left office. At least Reagan reversed course and raised taxes in the hopes of slowing the rise in debt.

 

So, vast forward a few years and Bush takes this failed policy, which everyone says was a failure. Of course he does not call it Supply Side economics because we now know the only thing these type of cuts fuel is not supply but our debt, but nonetheless, he proceeds, and of course what happens; he doubles the debt!

 

Instead of paying 160 billion dollars a year in interest toward the debt, we now pay almost half a trillion. HELLO! Pray tell me how that benefits anyone, rich or poor? Most think of the debt being the government’s problem, but who is the government?

 

I have tried to find some logic in it. I thought in the beginning it was simply a ploy to get elected. Then, I thought he would reverse course after the economy picked up steam. After all, running the debt up is akin to getting your kids credit cards and then you as a parent maxing them out, and upon their graduation, handing them the bill. If that does nothing for you, there is much ado about the costs of the war (12 billion monthly), as there should be, but what about the costs of interest payments on the debt which is over THIRTY BILLION dollars each month. With just one month’s payments, we could go along ways in innovating change in the automotive industry.

[fmccap]

If that does nothing for you, there is much ado about the costs of the war (12 billion monthly), as there should be, but what about the costs of interest payments on the debt which is over THIRTY BILLION dollars each month. With just one month’s payments, we could go along ways in innovating change in the automotive industry.

Meth could I just ask you a question????? Why is it always don't cut taxes or divert money from some program somewhere else????? Why can't it be cut things and give it back to us???? You did say "but who is the government? ". After all the governments(WE THE PEOPLE"S) job

is to protect our rights and defend our country from invasion according to the Constitution, right?????????????

[mountaineerwv]

Mr. Trimdingman,

 

You never answered one of my many questions:

 

"When will we know that we have WON in Iraq? I hear conservatives talk about wining. What does it mean?"

 

For extra credit: "It has now been 5 years. How much longer? 100 years?"

 

And, I want your answer, not one of your conservative brethren.

[methos]

Meth could I just ask you a question????? Why is it always don't cut taxes or divert money from some program somewhere else????? Why can't it be cut things and give it back to us???? You did say "but who is the government? ". After all the governments(WE THE PEOPLE"S) job

is to protect our rights and defend our country from invasion according to the Constitution, right?????????????

 

Don't get me wrong, who really likes taxes - nobody. Do I think that it would be better to cut waste versus raising taxes - of course I do. But, let's be realistic, politicians do not like to cut. In fact, it's almost impossible for them to hold the line let alone actually make cuts. The only area that offers some real opportunities for huge savings is defense, but most people in this country have been brainwashed to the point of paranoia in our need to outspend the entire world on defense. In other words, making huge cuts here would not be easy, if even possible.

 

I guess that's why our situation is so dire. They got us into quite the hole, Consider the boom years of Reagan and Clinton. Under Reagan the National Debt tripled and under Clinton, even though he balanced the budget (quite a feat) in the end, the National Debt was still higher that when he took office. My point is, lowering the debt is not going to be easy. It's going to take remarkable courage. Frankly, I don't see it happening until some sort of economic calamity. I know that sounds rather pessimistic, but I think realistic.

 

As Tip O’Neil once said "All politics is local", and what seems like pork or earmarks for the country as a whole is the mechanism for which these folks get reelected, and changing that is like asking someone to put their job in jeopardy. I am not saying it's right, I am just saying that is the way it is, and until more people get involved in the process that is the way it will remain.

 

EDIT: In addition, the debt is increasing at over a trillion dollars each year. Our budget is three trillion, with over a trillion borrowed, so that leaves two trillion, right? We spend almost a trillion a year on defense and another half trillion on interest on the debt. Do the math, what other alternatives are there? None. I mean it's not just a question of paying the debt off, but just stemming the tide of red ink is going to take great effort, let alone trying to pay it off!

Edited March 16, 2008 by methos

[Trimdingman]

So a young man or woman who just sits back and collects their dividends and income from their unearned trust funds should not be taxed? And, if it is, at a lower rate than their gardner, or their chauffeur or their maid or their nanny?

 

Comparing unearned income to gambling winnings is a bit of a stretch don't you think?

 

Just curious, how did you develop these theories? Have you read something? Have you heard somebody? What or who planted these ideas?

 

These ideas are my own. I started out living at a level which would to-day be compared to third world poverty. I had an outdoor toilet, and no central heating. At night, if it was 20 below outside, it was 20 below inside. When I was living it, I didn't consider it to be so bad. It wasn't. Over the next 60 years, I moved up and down, until I find myself to-day at upper middle class. People who have never experienced poverty believe that it is much worse than it actually is. The stigma that do-gooders attach to poor people harms them more than their actual condition. I admire the man who lives on the street in a sleeping bag. He feels proud of himself, also. Anybody who has the ingenuity to survive on the Canadian street in the winter would be capable of accomplishing almost anything. They look down on you just like you look down on them. They know that they are better than you because you would not be capable of doing what they do. They take your money because they have conned you for it. They have given you a false boost in your self-esteem. You now consider yourself better than somebody.

 

Taxes are way too high. If we could get rid of a lot of useless government programs, everybody would have more prosperity and more leisure time. High taxation is the reason that many people have decided to take to the street because the money they make on the street is tax free. Also, high taxation stifles spending, which stifles job creation, which drives more people to the street. If people would just worry about their own problems, and let other people worry about theirs, and just mind their own business, everything would work out. There are much more serious issues in a person's life than lack of money. Government is all about money. There is too much government. We need to start dis-mantling government before we have no freedom left.

Edited March 16, 2008 by Trimdingman

[fmccap]

Frankly, I don't see it happening until some sort of economic calamity. I know that sounds rather pessimistic, but I think realistic.

 

and until more people get involved in the process that is the way it will remain.

 

EDIT: In addition, the debt is increasing at over a trillion dollars each year. Our budget is three trillion, with over a trillion borrowed, so that leaves two trillion, right? We spend almost a trillion a year on defense and another half trillion on interest on the debt. Do the math, what other alternatives are there? None. I mean it's not just a question of paying the debt off, but just stemming the tide of red ink is going to take great effort, let alone trying to pay it off!

1. Good, bad or worse it's the truth and I don't care what it is just give it to us. It is pessimistic but even with all the FED and Government intervention for the last 6+ months all we are still getting as far as truth is bad news and as you see is becoming reality. Hopefully this will wake some people up.

 

2. As you and I and others argue on this forum we may not always agree but at least we are involved unlike a high percentage of Americans. I think even if more of us argued like we do it would change things because both sides would know they are being held more accountable and it would be shape up or ship out.

 

3. I know you won't agree but that great effort seems to be an easy effort if people would wake up and tell the government to get out of there lives and do what they are supposed to do.

[Trimdingman]

Mr. Trimdingman,

 

You never answered one of my many questions:

 

"When will we know that we have WON in Iraq? I hear conservatives talk about wining. What does it mean?"

 

For extra credit: "It has now been 5 years. How much longer? 100 years?"

 

And, I want your answer, not one of your conservative brethren.

 

How long were we in Germany mopping up after 1945? Saddam is gone. The Iraq portion of the War on Terror has been won. Maybe we will be at war to some degree from now on. If you are thinking about pulling out of the Middle East, I don't believe that I will see it in my lifetime. We are there for good. This war could spread and become World War III. Our money is in the pot, and we have the winning hand. It is up to the enemy to either call or fold....or raise.

[Savetheplanet]

The Iraq portion of the War on Terror has been won.

 

 

You are in a complete fantasy!

[mountaineerwv]

How long were we in Germany mopping up after 1945? Saddam is gone. The Iraq portion of the War on Terror has been won. Maybe we will be at war to some degree from now on. If you are thinking about pulling out of the Middle East, I don't believe that I will see it in my lifetime. We are there for good. This war could spread and become World War III. Our money is in the pot, and we have the winning hand. It is up to the enemy to either call or fold....or raise.

 

So, you are saying that we have won in Iraq? So, when can we start to pull the troops out?

 

We will have a military presence in the Middle East for decades? That sure will make the locals love us even more.

 

Who is the enemy? It sure wasn't Iraq. Was it the Sunnis that we are now paying $10 a day? I assumed the enemy was Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. So, why haven't we gone after Al Qaeda and Osama in Afghanistan instead of this misguided war in Iraq?

[Trimdingman]

So, you are saying that we have won in Iraq? So, when can we start to pull the troops out?

 

We will have a military presence in the Middle East for decades? That sure will make the locals love us even more.

 

Who is the enemy? It sure wasn't Iraq. Was it the Sunnis that we are now paying $10 a day? I assumed the enemy was Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. So, why haven't we gone after Al Qaeda and Osama in Afghanistan instead of this misguided war in Iraq?

 

You don't pull out and surrender if you win. You do that if you lose. We still have troops in Germany over 60 years later. Iraq is now a satellite of the US. It is in a strategic location and it has lots of oil. You want to just give it back to the terrorists? You can't even appreciate the importance of this conquest. If it costs 1000 casualties a year, it is worth it. How many American lives have been saved in the last 6 1/2 years from terrorist attacks that did not happen but would have if we had not acted? Liberals are against the war because they are against freedom. The people of Iraq want the US to stay. The Liberal media trys to paint a different picture, but they could not hide all the purple fingers.

[mountaineerwv]

You don't pull out and surrender if you win. You do that if you lose. We still have troops in Germany over 60 years later. Iraq is now a satellite of the US. It is in a strategic location and it has lots of oil. You want to just give it back to the terrorists? You can't even appreciate the importance of this conquest. If it costs 1000 casualties a year, it is worth it. How many American lives have been saved in the last 6 1/2 years from terrorist attacks that did not happen but would have if we had not acted? Liberals are against the war because they are against freedom. The people of Iraq want the US to stay. The Liberal media trys to paint a different picture, but they could not hide all the purple fingers.

 

Do you know how stupid this all sounds? If we won, you do not surrender. You surrender when you lose.

 

A satellite of the US? That is complete lunacy. And you wonder why after 8 years of this stuff we as a nation are so despised.

"It if costs 1000 casualties a year, it is worth it." So, who in your family is sacrificing?

 

I want to give Iraq back to the Iraqis and their elected government and get the hell out of a sovereign country.

 

You and IMAWHORE are not worth anymore discussion as you both are complete, raving right-wing nuts.

[Furious1Auto]

Still the usual suspects on this thread. Do you guys think anyone reads or even checks this thread besides me? Mountaineer your an idiot!

[mountaineerwv]

Still the usual suspects on this thread. Do you guys think anyone reads or even checks this thread besides me? Mountaineer your an idiot!

 

No, it should be "Mountaineer, you're an idiot".

[Trimdingman]

Do you know how stupid this all sounds? If we won, you do not surrender. You surrender when you lose.

 

A satellite of the US? That is complete lunacy. And you wonder why after 8 years of this stuff we as a nation are so despised.

"It if costs 1000 casualties a year, it is worth it." So, who in your family is sacrificing?

 

I want to give Iraq back to the Iraqis and their elected government and get the hell out of a sovereign country.

 

You and IMAWHORE are not worth anymore discussion as you both are complete, raving right-wing nuts.

 

 

Canada is involved in the war as an ally. Our effort is concentrated in Afghanistan. For political reasons, we are not officially in Iraq. Our Prime Minister at the time of 9/11 was Jean Chretien, a Liberal. His daughter's husband is the son of a big French oil tycoon who has vast oil holdings in Iraq. That could have had some influence on the PMs decision to keep Canadian troops out of Iraq. I am sure that our current and former PMs would like to send them in, but it would be political suicide, you see. We just suffered our 81st death in the war. It was a terrorist bomb. We are following your lead, as friends and allies. We believe in the cause. From my vantage point, you are the one who is going around raving. I hope that I didn't make any errors in spelling or punctuation. That would make everything that I have written wrong according to your way of thinking.

 

If you had your way, we would not be there, and there would have been no "elected government". If we leave, the terrorists will take the country back and kill the elected government. Then they will use the oil money to strike the US. They want to see a Democrat elected in November. They know that Democrats are soft Liberals. The Democrats would not interfere with their efforts to build a rival superpower. Liberals do not care about future generations.

[Furious1Auto]

No, it should be "Mountaineer, you're an idiot".

I spell the most important work correctly! "Idiot" Only you would point out grammarical mistakes!

Edited March 17, 2008 by Furious1Auto

[Imawhosure]

You and IMAWHORE are not worth anymore discussion as you both are complete, raving right-wing nuts.

 

I resent that, lolol. Besides, IAMAPROSTITUTE sounds better Mr Puddy!!!!!!!!