Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 70
  1. #21  
    Zoomie djones520's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    10,073
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    If they just let the country default, none of this would have happened.
    If they had done their jobs in the first place, none of this would have happened.

    Stop playing the fool Wei, I know your smarter then that.
    In most sports, cold-cocking an opposing player repeatedly in the face with a series of gigantic Slovakian uppercuts would get you a multi-game suspension without pay.

    In hockey, it means you have to sit in the penalty box for five minutes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #22  
    PORCUS MAXIMUS Rockntractor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    oklahoma
    Posts
    42,057
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    If they just let the country default, none of this would have happened.
    How would they have let the country default?
    Our creditors get paid off the top.
    The difference between pigs and people is that when they tell you you're cured it isn't a good thing.
    http://i.imgur.com/FHvkMSE.jpg
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #23  
    Our widdle friend. Wei Wu Wei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,414
    So, let's be honest for a moment, given all of this debt ceiling insanity and credit rating stuff and all this hoopla, would it really be the worst idea in the world to raise taxes on the very very top wealthy people?

    I'm not talking about small business owners, forget all that rhetoric for a moment, for the sake of discussion, let's just say the top 1-5%, would raising taxes on these people end the world?

    I'm not going to claim that raising taxes alone would solve all of our problems or anything like that, but come on, it would help bring in a little more revenue.

    Can anyone here see any leeway or must you march lock-step with the republican line?
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #24  
    Zoomie djones520's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    10,073
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    So, let's be honest for a moment, given all of this debt ceiling insanity and credit rating stuff and all this hoopla, would it really be the worst idea in the world to raise taxes on the very very top wealthy people?

    I'm not talking about small business owners, forget all that rhetoric for a moment, for the sake of discussion, let's just say the top 1-5%, would raising taxes on these people end the world?

    I'm not going to claim that raising taxes alone would solve all of our problems or anything like that, but come on, it would help bring in a little more revenue.

    Can anyone here see any leeway or must you march lock-step with the republican line?
    Let me offer you a counter question.

    Would it really be the worst idea in the world to cut wasteful spending like the story I just linked?

    Why not cut out our own fat before trying to attack private citizens?
    In most sports, cold-cocking an opposing player repeatedly in the face with a series of gigantic Slovakian uppercuts would get you a multi-game suspension without pay.

    In hockey, it means you have to sit in the penalty box for five minutes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #25  
    Our widdle friend. Wei Wu Wei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,414
    Quote Originally Posted by djones520 View Post
    Let me offer you a counter question.

    Would it really be the worst idea in the world to cut wasteful spending like the story I just linked?

    Why not cut out our own fat before trying to attack private citizens?
    I've never claimed cutting wasteful spending was a bad idea. Some spending cuts are harder than others, but I agree that spending cuts are absolutely needed. I have my preferences, but I can be reasonable without being a walking talking party-bot.

    Now, can anyone say that raising taxes on the wealthy elites is possible?

    Taxes have been as high as 90% for the very wealthy, during the same period that the US saw the largest increase in the middle class EVER. Today, we're at near-historic low tax rates.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #26  
    Zoomie djones520's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    10,073
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    I've never claimed cutting wasteful spending was a bad idea. Some spending cuts are harder than others, but I agree that spending cuts are absolutely needed. I have my preferences, but I can be reasonable without being a walking talking party-bot.

    Now, can anyone say that raising taxes on the wealthy elites is possible?

    Taxes have been as high as 90% for the very wealthy, during the same period that the US saw the largest increase in the middle class EVER. Today, we're at near-historic low tax rates.
    But why should the immediate response be tax tax tax?

    Why not go for the wasteful spending first, and then see where we stand? I'd like to see you present that for a change.
    In most sports, cold-cocking an opposing player repeatedly in the face with a series of gigantic Slovakian uppercuts would get you a multi-game suspension without pay.

    In hockey, it means you have to sit in the penalty box for five minutes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #27  
    Our widdle friend. Wei Wu Wei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,414
    Quote Originally Posted by djones520 View Post
    But why should the immediate response be tax tax tax?

    Why not go for the wasteful spending first, and then see where we stand? I'd like to see you present that for a change.
    You're dancing all over it.

    Why not both?

    I agree spending should be cut but we're only looking at the spending side and not the revenue side. I understand that working class people and small business owners need low tax rates during a slow economy, but the super wealthy are doing better than they have in many decades.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #28  
    Zoomie djones520's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    10,073
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    You're dancing all over it.

    Why not both?

    I agree spending should be cut but we're only looking at the spending side and not the revenue side. I understand that working class people and small business owners need low tax rates during a slow economy, but the super wealthy are doing better than they have in many decades.
    Why not both? Because the government owes it to the citizens to ensure that they can keep tax rates as low as possible. If it's possible to get a balanced budget without raising taxes, then that should be the plan.

    Why is that so hard for you to grasp?
    In most sports, cold-cocking an opposing player repeatedly in the face with a series of gigantic Slovakian uppercuts would get you a multi-game suspension without pay.

    In hockey, it means you have to sit in the penalty box for five minutes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #29  
    Our widdle friend. Wei Wu Wei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,414
    It's impossible, it's like a vampire walking into the sunlight. People who just swallow what the republicans put out there, day after day, month after month, become trained. It's a pavolian response at this point. It seems many people are simply incapable of wrapping their minds around something if the right-wing media machine has drilled it into them so consistently.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #30  
    Zoomie djones520's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    10,073
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    It's impossible, it's like a vampire walking into the sunlight. People who just swallow what the republicans put out there, day after day, month after month, become trained. It's a pavolian response at this point. It seems many people are simply incapable of wrapping their minds around something if the right-wing media machine has drilled it into them so consistently.
    Bullshit it's impossible.

    The same time your pointing at the greatest expansion of the middle class ever, the government wasn't giving out half the shit it does today.

    It's because people have gotten spoon fed on free candy for so long they can't picture life without it anymore. Your talking about becoming trained, that is the whole damn problem. It's people being trained their whole lives to believe the government is responsible for their lives.
    In most sports, cold-cocking an opposing player repeatedly in the face with a series of gigantic Slovakian uppercuts would get you a multi-game suspension without pay.

    In hockey, it means you have to sit in the penalty box for five minutes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •