# $28,000 plate fund raiser



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

$28,000 plate fund raiser for Obama. I wonder how many poor people ate there to help Obama win? What do the poor earn in a year - $25,000 or less? If these rich paid out to their lowest paid employes $28,000 in bounes they would do more for the poor than what social programs will do. But, I guess it is better to beg for bigger tax cuts for pay back. All these wealthy people will get a $28,000 tax cut while they claim to be for the poor, instead of paying the tax to help the poor, or just pay a charity.

It sure is amazing how the main stream media and the left have convinced the general public that the Democrat party is for the poor and middle class. I wonder how many middle class went to this fund raiser- none?


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

At that price I hope I could get an extra dessert... 

And maybe a torpedo sandwich to go...


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

Yet there are people who post on this site who buy platinum Rolex watches for a great deal more than $28,000. There are people on this site who gladly pay ...what?...$1,200 or more on a pair of shoes and more than $6,000 for a suit. It is their money, if they want to contribute to a political campaign, buy themselves an ostentatious watch, or wear exceedingly expensive shoes, that is their business. If they want to support the poor, bravo, but that is again, their business.

You, on the other hand, Wa, should be more consistent in your moral outrage. Was it outrageous for George W. Bush's so called Rangers to bundle literally hundreds of thousands of dollars each for the republic party candidates? You seem intent, Wa, on bashing members of the Democratic party and ignoring the equal outrages by republics. Shame on you!

Buzz


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

Where and how much money people choose to give to a candidate or a charity their business IMO. I had to chuckle when I heard Obama was jetting off to LA for a Barbara Streisand $9 million fundraiser. So typical. It reminded me of the Clintons! 

Limousine Liberals in the Democratic Party cozying up to Hollywood is their stock and trade anymore, so no one should be too surprised. McCain is in no place to judge, though...he just raised $5 million at an exclusive fundraiser in Florida. IMO, neither party seems very sincere when they say they associate with the struggles so-called common man. 

As I read a few days ago in an editorial, this race is not so much about if we're going to elect an elite...it's which elite we're going to elect.

P.S. I am still pi**ed off at Barbara Streisand for lying to the American public and sticking around to annoy people after GWB got elected. She threatened to leave the US eight years ago and I am still waiting for her to make good on her promise.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Who's going to pay $28,000 dollars for a dinner plane,I could buy a house with that much money.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

TMMKC said:


> *Limousine Liberals in the Democratic Party cozying up to Hollywood i*s their stock and trade anymore, so no one should be too surprised. McCain is in no place to judge, though...he just raised $5 million at an exclusive fundraiser in Florida. IMO, neither party seems very sincere when they say they associate with the struggles so-called common man.


Almost as _unctuous_ as the Republican oil billionaires buying off dubbaya and Cheney. :icon_smile_big:

Buzz


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

What possible difference could it make that there were no poor or middle class people there? They campaign needs more money than poor and middle class people can afford to pay. The people who attended this event are not going to get tax cuts in return for their contributions. Obama's tax plan will raise the taxes of people with incomes above $250,000 (and you'll please excuse me if I laugh at anyone who says someone at that income level is middle class), so these are people who know they will be taxed more highly, but are willing to make these contributions for the good of their country.

Meanwhile, McCain lies by telling the voters that Obama is going to raise their taxes, and raises money from the class who will directly benefit financially from the tax cuts that he is proposing for the wealthy.

And Republicans claim to be patriots? It's a joke.


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

M6Classic said:


> Almost as _unctuous_ as the Republican oil billionaires buying off dubbaya and Cheney. :icon_smile_big:
> 
> Buzz


So true. It makes me what the ticket price was to sit on Cheney's super-secret energy policy committee.


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

jackmccullough said:


> The people who attended this event are not going to get tax cuts in return for their contributions.


The biggest donors on the Left and Right are hunting for rewards far greater than measly tax deductions (e.g. ambassadorships, a piece of pork projects, etc.).

As much as I'd like to think to the contrary, most people aren't all that altruistic. And the more one is worth and the more he/she donates, the more his/her altruism comes with a price tag.


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

Meanwhile, McCain lies by telling the voters that Obama is going to raise their taxes, and raises money from the class who will directly benefit financially from the tax cuts that he is proposing for the wealthy.


Jack, you still haven't answered my other post. The top 1% of wage earners pay more in taxes than the bottom 90%. The top 10% pay 70% of the taxes in America. Please stop with all the class war nonsense.


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

M6Classic said:


> Yet there are people who post on this site who buy platinum Rolex watches for a great deal more than $28,000. There are people on this site who gladly pay ...what?...$1,200 or more on a pair of shoes and more than $6,000 for a suit. *It is their money*, if they want to contribute to a political campaign, buy themselves an ostentatious watch, or wear exceedingly expensive shoes, that is their business. If they want to support the poor, bravo, but that is again, their business.
> 
> Funny, this is the argument that conservatives have been trying to make. The money you earn is your money. You can do with it what you want. Conservatives don't dispute that. It's the left that wants to use taxes to confiscate wealth and give it to the poor. Funny, though, they would never think to take that $28,000 and donate it to help the poor. Instead they use to get someone elected to who will use the government to take that money from others for the benefit of the poor. It's also strange that liberal politicians give so little to charity. In 1998, Joe Biden gave only $120 to charity, out of an income of over $200,000. It's their money, they can do with it what they want. I just wish they were as charitable with their own money as they are with the money of the taxpayers.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

Terpoxon said:


> Funny, this is the argument that conservatives have been trying to make. The money you earn is your money. You can do with it what you want. Conservatives don't dispute that. It's the left that wants to use taxes to confiscate wealth and give it to the poor. *Funny, though, they would never think to take that $28,000 and donate it to help the poor*. Instead they use to get someone elected to who will use the government to take that money from others for the benefit of the poor. It's also strange that liberal politicians give so little to charity. In 1998, Joe Biden gave only $120 to charity, out of an income of over $200,000. It's their money, they can do with it what they want. I just wish they were as charitable with their own money as they are with the money of the taxpayers.


Oh, make no mistake, I do believe in taxes and government and public service and all that stuff.

Why do you say, "_Funny, though, they would never think to take that $28,000 and donate it to help the po_or"? You state that as a fact when you show no evidence that you would actually know that. How many people do you know that attended that fundraiser and how can you state with such certainty that they would never think to take [any] $28,000 andf donate it to help the poor?

Buzz


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

M6Classic said:


> Oh, make no mistake, I do believe in taxes and government and public service and all that stuff.
> 
> Why do you say, "_Funny, though, they would never think to take that $28,000 and donate it to help the po_or"? You state that as a fact when you show no evidence that you would actually know that. How many people do you know that attended that fundraiser and how can you state with such certainty that they would never think to take [any] $28,000 andf donate it to help the poor?
> 
> Buzz


Well, they didn't. Because they spent it on the fundraiser. See how that works? Stop being so childishly pedantic. The point is that the conservative movement has long argued that people should keep their money and do with it what they want. Liberals have long argued that the rich should be taxed and that more money should be spent on social programs. The liberal elite- Obama, Biden, Kerry, et al- rarely use their own money for charity.

https://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13329

And the average liberal gives less to charities than the average conservative.


----------



## fenway (May 2, 2006)

M6Classic said:


> Yet there are people who post on this site who buy platinum Rolex watches for a great deal more than $28,000. There are people on this site who gladly pay ...what?...$1,200 or more on a pair of shoes and more than $6,000 for a suit. It is their money, if they want to contribute to a political campaign, buy themselves *a politician*, or wear exceedingly expensive shoes, that is their business. If they want to support the poor, bravo, but that is again, their business.


Corrected.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

Terpoxon said:


> Well, they didn't. Because they spent it on the fundraiser. See how that works? Stop being so childishly pedantic. The point is that the conservative movement has long argued that people should keep their money and do with it what they want. Liberals have long argued that the rich should be taxed and that more money should be spent on social programs. The liberal elite- Obama, Biden, Kerry, et al- rarely use their own money for charity.
> 
> https://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13329
> 
> And the average liberal gives less to charities than the average conservative.


I am not being pedantic. You stated something as fact which you cannot possibly know. My question was, "[*h*]*ow many people do you know that attended that fundraiser and how can you state with such certainty that they would never think to take [any] $28,000 and donate it to help the poor?*" I do not think it matters which $28,000 they donate to the poor, only a rank pedant would argue about _that_.

You can answer the question, or you can act like someone of your species, a Yahoo. It is typical of right wing Yahoos to state an assumption as fact and then try and weasel out of their assertion and, failing that, they billow smoke screens to hide their errors.

Buzz


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

fenway said:


> Corrected.


It is really poor form, Fenway, to alter someone else's quote, no matter how cute you think it is.

Buzz


----------



## fenway (May 2, 2006)

Howard said:


> Who's going to pay $28,000 dollars for a dinner plane,I could buy a house with that much money.


Where? Somalia? Mali?


----------



## fenway (May 2, 2006)

M6Classic said:


> It is really poor form, Fenway, to alter someone else's quote, no matter how cute you think it is.
> 
> Buzz


Awwwwh. Poor Buzz!

Get over it, Sally.


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

Argument: The Buzz Way

No need to use facts, just make personal attacks against people
Never address arguments, make personal attacks against people.
When presented with facts, ignore them, and make personal attacks against people.
When your own mistakes are pointed out, don't respond. Just repeat previous assertions, oh and make personal attacks against people

Buzz, the basic point, which you haven't addressed is this: Liberals would rather use the government to enforce charity than to actually give to charity themselves. Anyone who really cares about helping other people would take the 28k and give it to a charity rather than spending it to elect someone who would use the apparatus of the government to confiscate other people's wealth and give it to the poor.

Conservatives believe that people should have the ability to keep their own money and do with it what they want. Liberals don't, they want to tax it as much as possible, and buy votes with it. The objection is to people who pretend otherwise, those that pretend they care about the poor.

Trying arguing points instead of blustering in and calling everyone Yahoos. Your personal attacks and your lack of anything substantive to say are tiring.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

Terpoxon said:


> Argument: The Buzz Way
> 
> No need to use facts, just make personal attacks against people
> Never address arguments, make personal attacks against people.
> ...


There you go again, Terpoxon, billowing smoke screens because you cannot or will not answer a question about a clear statement you made. I did not call _everyone_ a Yahoo!

Buzz


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

fenway said:


> Awwwwh. Poor Buzz!
> 
> Get over it, Sally.


It is still poor form to alter someone else's quote.

Buzz


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

M6Classic said:


> It is really poor form, Fenway, to alter someone else's quote, no matter how cute you think it is.
> 
> Buzz


fenway's error is really better in spirit than your clumsy attempt at sleight of hand with Terpoxon; trying transform his stated "*that* $28,000" to your preferred "*any* $28,000" argument.

fenway's was simply an attempt at humor. Yours was a more dishonest attempt to "win" the argument.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

Relayer said:


> fenway's error is really better in spirit than your clumsy sleight of hand with Terpoxon; trying transform his stated "*that* $28,000" to your preferred "*any* $28,000" argument.
> 
> fenway's was simply an attempt at humor. Yours was a more dishonest attempt to "win" the argument.


Point well taken, Relayer. I did attempt to show an alteration using standard editing notation, but I should probably not have done so and I apologize to the list and to Terpoxon.

Buzz


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

Buzz, I'll do you a favor and write pretty much every message you've ever written on the interchange.

Blah blah blah, I'm so smart. Blah blah blah, you're a Yahoo. Blah blah blah, I write better than you. Blah blah blah, Conservatives are bad. Blah blah blah, you're ignoring what I said. Blah blah blah, I'm changing the topic to not focus on the real issue because I have no argument. Blah blah blah...

No you can just cut and paste it and put it in every post. 

No need to thank me.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

Terpoxon said:


> Buzz, I'll do you a favor and write pretty much every message you've ever written on the interchange.
> 
> Blah blah blah, I'm so smart. Blah blah blah, you're a Yahoo. Blah blah blah, I write better than you. Blah blah blah, Conservatives are bad. Blah blah blah, you're ignoring what I said. Blah blah blah, I'm changing the topic to not focus on the real issue because I have no argument. Blah blah blah...
> 
> ...


As I said, you can answer a simple question about a statement of fact that you made or you can continue to billow smoke screens.

Buzz


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

Buzz, I have made the basic point 3 times that Liberals prefer to confiscate the wealth of others and use it for charity, but don't back it up with their own money. I have provided two articles proving the assertion among the general population and among prominent liberal politicians. I have nothing more to prove. You have ignored the argument and shifted it to a personal attack as you always do. Address my point or don't address me at all. I grew weary of your sophistry, pedantry, ad hominem attacks and the general way you poison every conversation that you join.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

Terpoxon said:


> Buzz, I have made the basic point 3 times that Liberals prefer to confiscate the wealth of others and use it for charity, but don't back it up with their own money. I have provided two articles proving the assertion among the general population and among prominent liberal politicians. I have nothing more to prove. You have ignored the argument and shifted it to a personal attack as you always do. Address my point or don't address me at all. I grew weary of your sophistry, pedantry, ad hominem attacks and the general way you poison every conversation that you join.


I repeat...

_You stated something as fact which you cannot possibly know. My question was, "[*h*]*ow many people do you know that attended that fundraiser and how can you state with such certainty that they would never think to take [any] $28,000 and donate it to help the poor?*" I do not think it matters which $28,000 they donate to the poor, only a rank pedant would argue about that._

You may feel you have nothing else to prove, that is your right. However, I did ask you a simple question about a statement you offered as a fact. It is quite obvious that you either cannot or will not stand up for assertion. The rest of your blather about liberals and conservatives and their charitable natures is a smoke screen, a silly attempt at distraction and misdirection.

Buzz


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

M6Classic said:


> I repeat...
> 
> _You stated something as fact which you cannot possibly know. My question was, "[*h*]*ow many people do you know that attended that fundraiser and how can you state with such certainty that they would never think to take [any] $28,000 and donate it to help the poor?*" I do not think it matters which $28,000 they donate to the poor, only a rank pedant would argue about that._
> 
> ...


Once again, anyonewho cares about the poor would use the 28k to help them, not to try to influence an election so that the government can confiscate the wealth of others to do so. My main point has always been that Liberals don't practice what the preach. They don't use their own wealth to help the poor, they only want to use other people's money. Your focus on this is the distraction. Answer the main point or kindly go away so the adults can have a conversation. You don't ever want to have a discussion, you only want to have an argument.


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

Oh, and to answer your point, I know they wouldn't because they didn't. They didn't use the $28,000 to help the poor because they spent it on a fundraiser. See, see how simple it is?


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

Terpoxon said:


> Once again, anyonewho cares about the poor would use the 28k to help them, not to try to influence an election so that the government can confiscate the wealth of others to do so. My main point has always been that Liberals don't practice what the preach. They don't use their own wealth to help the poor, they only want to use other people's money. Your focus on this is the distraction. Answer the main point or kindly go away so the adults can have a conversation. You don't ever want to have a discussion, you only want to have an argument.


Both of the articles you offer as proof are opinion pieces...as opposed to news...that cherry pick information to support their hypotheses.

Buzz


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

Terpoxon said:


> Oh, and to answer your point, I know they wouldn't because they didn't. They didn't use the $28,000 to help the poor because they spent it on a fundraiser. See, see how simple it is?


It's not that simple. The time you spend posting messages on this list could have been spent working in a soup kitchen, but you didn't.

Buzz


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

https://www.smartmoneydaily.com/celeb-finance/celebrity-charity.aspx


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

M6Classic said:


> Both of the articles you offer as proof are opinion pieces...as opposed to news...that cherry pick information to support their hypotheses.
> 
> Buzz


Well, one is a university study. And one is based on publicly availible information. What proof have you offered? What arguments have you even offered? Oh, that's right, you don't bother, you just make personal attacks.


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

M6Classic said:


> It's not that simple. The time you spend posting messages on this list could have been spent working in a soup kitchen, but you didn't.
> 
> Buzz


I also don't want to use the government as an apparatus for seizing other people's hard earned money to assuage my guilty conscience to dupe myself into thinking that I did something to help the poor. But, of course, you can't understand the difference.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

Terpoxon said:


> https://www.smartmoneydaily.com/celeb-finance/celebrity-charity.aspx


*Smart Money Daily*?? I'm sorry, but I don't really think of an organ that bills itself as, "An Offbeat Look at What Makes the World Go Round," as exactly authoritative.

Buzz


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

Terpoxon said:


> Well, one is a university study. And one is based on publicly availible information. What proof have you offered? What arguments have you even offered? Oh, that's right, you don't bother, you just make personal attacks.


No, I was simply showing the fallacy of your assertion that because they gave some $28,000 to the Obama campaign that those liberals were ipso facto uncharitable. If you choose to take my example as a personal attack, I appologize and will rephrase. The time that George Will spent writing his opinion piece could have been used working in a soup kitchen, but he didn't.

Buzz


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

Buzz, make an argument. Offer some proof. Dispute what they are saying. Your whole life is just a series of personal attacks. Try to do something substantive, then you won't be so tiresome and predictable. You have nothing substantive or factual to say, yet you keep talking. It's kind of sad.


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

M6Classic said:


> No, I was simply showing the fallacy of your assertion that because they gave some $28,000 to the Obama campaign that those liberals were ipso facto uncharitable. If you choose to take my example as a personal attack, I appologize and will rephrase. The time that George Will spenbt writing his opinion piece could have been used working in a soup kitchen, but he didn't.
> 
> Buzz


And the time you spend making personal attacks on this board could be spent in soup kitchen as well. Again, the point is that George Will and I don't want to force charity through government action. You do. I have offered evidence that liberals are not charitable. It doesn't prove your point so you dismiss it out of hand. You offer no proof and no real arguments, so I am done dealing with you. Wallow in your self absorbed little world of ad hominem attacks.


----------



## fenway (May 2, 2006)

Terpoxon said:


> Well, one is a university study. And one is based on publicly availible information. What proof have you offered? What arguments have you even offered? Oh, that's right, you don't bother, you just make personal attacks.


Terpoxon, my dad used to say:

"Son, you can't teach a pig to dance... it's a waste of your time, you just get muddy and it pisses off the pig."

Don't even bother. That's what he wants.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

Terpoxon said:


> And the time you spend making personal attacks on this board could be spent in soup kitchen as well. Again, the point is that George Will and I don't want to force charity through government action. You do. I have offered evidence that liberals are not charitable. It doesn't prove your point so you dismiss it out of hand. You offer no proof and no real arguments, so I am done dealing with you. Wallow in your self absorbed little world of ad hominem attacks.


You really should calm down a bit, Terpoxon, you're going to have a cerebrovascular accident. Oh, yes, just how do you know about the charitable habits of the people who attended that Obama fundraiser? Somehow, you never did say...

Buzz


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

fenway said:


> Terpoxon, my dad used to say:
> 
> "Son, you can't teach a pig to dance... it's a waste of your time, you just get muddy and it pisses off the pig."
> 
> Don't even bother. That's what he wants.


I think your dad may have been wrong, Fenway, alhough I will bow to his expertise if he actually did try to teach pigs to dance. Pigs are among the most tractable of qudrupeds and can be taught to do many amazing things. Okay, they can't be taught to put on lipstick, but perhaps to dance...

Buzz


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Terpoxon said:


> Jack, you still haven't answered my other post. The top 1% of wage earners pay more in taxes than the bottom 90%. The top 10% pay 70% of the taxes in America. Please stop with all the class war nonsense.


It's not even a question. I assume your facts are correct, but they're not an argument. We do have a slightly progressive system of taxation, although it's a lot less progressive than it used to be, and a lot less progressive if you consider payroll taxes like FICA and Medicare, and not just the income tax. In addition, especially if you consider after-tax income, income inequality has increased and continues to increase greatly. I don't know if income inequality is more than it has ever been, but that seems very likely.

That's not a bug, it's a feature. The people in that top 1% have benefitted fabulously from the services that the government provides, and it is reasonable to expect them to pay higher taxes.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Terpoxon said:


> https://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13329
> 
> And the average liberal gives less to charities than the average conservative.


I haven't read the source data, but I would expect that the largest contributor to the difference is contributions to churches. There are religious organizations that do some good, but I see contributions to churces as closer to club dues than charitable contributions.


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> It's not even a question. I assume your facts are correct, but they're not an argument. We do have a slightly progressive system of taxation, although it's a lot less progressive than it used to be, and a lot less progressive if you consider payroll taxes like FICA and Medicare, and not just the income tax. In addition, especially if you consider after-tax income, income inequality has increased and continues to increase greatly. I don't know if income inequality is more than it has ever been, but that seems very likely.
> 
> That's not a bug, it's a feature. The people in that top 1% have benefitted fabulously from the services that the government provides, and it is reasonable to expect them to pay higher taxes.


Jack this was my original message:

https://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/22652.html

Jack, the top 1% of wage earners pay more in taxes than the bottom 90%. Like it or not, the wealthy (for lack of a better word) create jobs through investment, expansion, and the opening of businesses. High personal tax rates, corporate rates or capital gains taxes do nothing but stifle the economy. A few years back, the state of NJ had the brilliant idea of placing a luxury tax on the purchase of yachts. The result was that pretty much every place in NJ that sold yachts went out of business or relocated to Delaware where there is no sales tax. High tax rates drive businesses out. High personal tax rates just encourage people to leave- the reason that the Beatles and Rolling Stones and other British Rockers moved to the US in the 1970s was at least partially influenced by the amazingly high tax rates in Britain at the time (It's one for you, nineteen for me). Even with all the tax cuts for the rich over the years, they still bear the brunt of the tax burden.

This being the case, whats with all the complaints about tax cuts for the rich?


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> I haven't read the source data, but I would expect that the largest contributor to the difference is contributions to churches. There are religious organizations that do some good, but I see contributions to churces as closer to club dues than charitable contributions.


Interesting, does that make them less valid as charitable contributions? Don't most churches do some sort of community outreach or aid for the poor?


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

https://www.urantiawatch.org/?p=18

https://www.worldmag.com/articles/12493 Original article if anyone care's to subscribe.

BROOKS: The assumption that religious Americans are just giving to
their churches is one I made myself when I first started writing about
giving. But it's wrong. The fact is that religious people are more
personally charitable in every measurable way than secularists. For
example, religious people are 10 percentage points more likely than
secularists to give money to explicitly secular charities, and 21
points more likely to volunteer. The data show the same pattern for
informal giving to friends and family, blood donations, small acts of
kindness-everything you can think of. Religious people are even more
ethical than secularists: If a cashier accidentally gives a churchgoer
too much change, the odds are better than half that he or she will
return it, while the odds are more than six in 10 that a secularist
will choose not to give it back.

Conservatives also are more likely to give blood.


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

fenway said:


> Terpoxon, my dad used to say:
> 
> "Son, you can't teach a pig to dance... it's a waste of your time, you just get muddy and it pisses off the pig."
> 
> Don't even bother. That's what he wants.


Fenway, thanks for the advice. I hate comparing people to pigs, pigs have always been one of my favorite animals.


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> and a lot less progressive if you consider payroll taxes like FICA and Medicare, and not just the income tax.


Good point Jack, I fully support getting rid of the FICA and Medicare taxes and the programs those taxes have failed to support.:icon_smile:


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

M6Classic said:


> Yet there are people who post on this site who buy platinum Rolex watches for a great deal more than $28,000. There are people on this site who gladly pay ...what?...$1,200 or more on a pair of shoes and more than $6,000 for a suit. It is their money, if they want to contribute to a political campaign, buy themselves an ostentatious watch, or wear exceedingly expensive shoes, that is their business. If they want to support the poor, bravo, but that is again, their business.
> 
> You, on the other hand, Wa, should be more consistent in your moral outrage. Was it outrageous for George W. Bush's so called Rangers to bundle literally hundreds of thousands of dollars each for the republic party candidates? You seem intent, Wa, on bashing members of the Democratic party and ignoring the equal outrages by republics. Shame on you!
> 
> Buzz


The point that I'm making is the left spin of what the left is and what the right is- and a spin is a lie. Smear/slander/etc. which you are part of.

In both parties there are good people as there are greedy people. And yet, you have a problem with somebody who can and may go out and buy $100,000 watch even if they give away a million or more $ a year to a number of charities.

Is the only Democrat that gave a tax cut to the poor and middle class Bill Clinton while the rest of the Democrats did there best to stop these tax cut? And yet the Republican have given big tax cuts to the poor and middle class. A tax cut to the poor and middle class is a big help for those on a the lower wage scale. Why haven't the Democrats ever stood up for these poor and middle class other than worthless hot air, unless they can enslave them by controlling them?

The point I made in the op is lies of the left and their hypocrisy. All you have to do is watch abc nbc cbs news and all you see is smear, slant, twist, facts left out and the list goes on and on of anything but truth. I could write on and on but, to write to you is a waste of time because, you are so gullible to spin believing and standing up for every lie they say.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

WA said:


> The point that I'm making is the left spin of what the left is and what the right is- and a spin is a lie. Smear/slander/etc. which you are part of.
> 
> In both parties there are good people as there are greedy people. And yet, you have a problem with somebody who can and may go out and buy $100,000 watch even if they give away a million or more $ a year to a number of charities.
> 
> ...


You know, Wa, I would be pleased to respond to you, but once again, I cannot figure out what you are trying to say. Sorry.

Buzz


----------



## misterdonuts (Feb 15, 2008)

M6Classic said:


> Yet there are people who post on this site who buy platinum Rolex watches for a great deal more than $28,000. There are people on this site who gladly pay ...what?...$1,200 or more on a pair of shoes and more than $6,000 for a suit. It is their money, if they want to contribute to a political campaign, buy themselves an ostentatious watch, or wear exceedingly expensive shoes, that is their business.


It seems like a strange statement (and the tone thereof) given your handle and avatar. That said, it does seem consistent with US foreign policy...
For the avoidance of doubt, I am not defending any posters on this or any other thread.


----------



## Arnold Gingrich fan (Aug 8, 2008)

Terpoxon said:


> Don't most churches do some sort of community outreach or aid for the poor?


Hmm...sounds "perilously" close to community organizing. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

misterdonuts said:


> It seems like a strange statement (and the tone thereof) given your handle and avatar. That said, it does seem consistent with US foreign policy...
> For the avoidance of doubt, I am not defending any posters on this or any other thread.


Leica cameras are the tools of my trade...at least one of my trades, although I acknowledge that some men are known to wear them as jewelry. My oldest camera is a 1966 M3 and my newest is an M6 Classic .85, vintage 1997). Note, though, that I am saying that people should spend their money however they wish...on outrageously expensive watches, shoes, cameras, or dinners with political candidates...without being judged.

Buzz


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

Arnold Gingrich fan said:


> Hmm...sounds "perilously" close to community organizing. :icon_smile_wink:


I have no problem with community organizing, I just don't think having done it qualifies one to be president.ic12337:


----------



## burnedandfrozen (Mar 11, 2004)

Interesting discussion. I really haven't a clue about all this since I don't know who to believe. The Dems say that the rich do not pay the lions share of the taxes, the middle class does. This is because of tax loopholes that favor the rich. Is this true?

All I know is that living in CA is a drag since we have the highest taxes in the nation and yet I still hit several potholes everyday and cannot find anything in my local library that is newer then ten years old. Meanwhile, businesses keep moving out of state to Nevada and Arizona and the idiots in Sacramento wonder why. I wonder just how much out of control spending CA can do before it dawns on people that throwing money at social problems never works. Just look at the lottery that was supposed to help the schools. What a joke that turned out to be.


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

burnedandfrozen said:


> The Dems say that the rich do not pay the lions share of the taxes, the middle class does. This is because of tax loopholes that favor the rich. Is this true?


No. You must realize that liberals are often habitual liars, but so are many conservatives. I'm a conservative.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

burnedandfrozen, the Democrats like to make millions of laws, of which they don't enforce, unless they hurt the innocent. 

Republicans like to throw out usless laws and make a few, so to hurt the crimials, but leave the innocence alone.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

burnedandfrozen said:


> Interesting discussion. I really haven't a clue about all this since I don't know who to believe. The Dems say that the rich do not pay the lions share of the taxes, the middle class does. This is because of tax loopholes that favor the rich. Is this true?


I'm a liberal, and I don't think I've ever heard a liberal say that the middle class pays the majority of all taxes. Can you direct me to an example?


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

fenway said:


> Where? Somalia? Mali?


Sorry Fenway,I meant Dinner plate not plane,my bad,I just type too fast.


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> I'm a liberal, and I don't think I've ever heard a liberal say that the middle class pays the majority of all taxes. Can you direct me to an example?


"We want to take money and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people," Biden said in an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America."

So, he doesn't say it directly, but under the Obama plan the implication is clear- the wealthy aren't paying enough and the middle class is paying too much. I would agree with that, but add that everyone is paying too much. But again, the top 10% pay 70% of the taxes in this country.


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

I'd also add this thought: $103,000 puts you in the top 10% of wage earners. I have a friend who is a teacher. She has a Masters and about 5 years experience, she makes about $49,000 a year. If she were to marry someone like her, same exeperience and level of education, who made the same amount of money, as a household they'd be dangerously close to becoming part of the evil "rich". I don't think that many people in two income professional households think of themselves as rich, many of them are struggling to get by, my friends pays about $750 a month in student loan debts, and works a second job on weekends, but by all means lets hike up her tax bill.


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

*

WASHINGTON, D.C*. - Recently released Congressional Budget Office (CBO) data show that the total effective federal tax rate of the middle fifth of households declined after 2001 to its lowest levels since at least 1979, Congressman Jim Saxton, ranking member of the Joint Economic Committee, said today. Under the 2001 and 2003 tax relief legislation, the income tax as a share of income for the middle fifth also has fallen to its lowest levels in decades. 
The CBO data show the impact of the 2001 and 2003 tax legislation on households ranked by adjusted income, and divided into fifths and other percentile groupings. 
In 2005, the CBO data indicate that in the middle fifth, the total effective tax rate -- the share of federal taxes as a percent of income -- was 14.2 percent, while the effective individual income tax rate was 3.0 percent. These figures compare to 2000 levels of 16.6 percent and 5.0 percent, respectively. Between 2003 and 2005, the total effective tax rate for the middle fifth edged up, but still remained far below the levels of the previous 24 years. 
"The CBO analysis shows that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts have lowered the tax burden on middle income taxpayers to the lowest levels since at least the late 1970s," Saxton said. "The CBO tax figures, put into historical perspective, also show that the income tax burden of middle income households has been reduced to its lowest levels in many years," Saxton concluded.​The total effective tax rate includes income, payroll, and excise taxes. The CBO tax numbers do have limitations, and it should be recalled that most households do not remain in a specific quintile for extended periods of time.


----------



## burnedandfrozen (Mar 11, 2004)

The statement I made regarding the middle class as shouldering the burden of the tax bill while the rich have ways around it actually came from a number of democrat friends and co-workers I've talked to about politics over the years. Therefore I'd thought I'd throw it out here to see if there was any truth to this. It appears to be the same old class warfare issue as usual.

Thanks,

Mark


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

It is true that taxes on rich people who do not work are generally lower as a percentage of total income than the taxes on middling-to-prosperous people who do work. This doesn't require any sort of planning, loopholes, or unethical behavior: it's just the way the game is set up today. Dividend and long-term capital gains rates are as low as they've been in a few generations (15%, + state taxes), while AMT, Social Security, and similar can chew up an astonishing fraction of a salary.

Warren Buffett's challenge to CEOs to see which of them pay a lower percentage in income tax vs. compensation than their secretaries is still out there, as best I know.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Terpoxon said:


> "We want to take money and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people," Biden said in an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America."
> 
> So, he doesn't say it directly, but under the Obama plan the implication is clear- the wealthy aren't paying enough and the middle class is paying too much. I would agree with that, but add that everyone is paying too much. But again, the top 10% pay 70% of the taxes in this country.


Big, big difference between saying that rich people aren't paying enough and that middle class people are paying the most. The one is an opinion, the other is a factual claim. My response was a response to the statement that liberals make the factual claim that the middle class pays the majority (or, as it was put in the post, the "lion's share") of taxes. I raised the challenge of whether that could be documented, and you seem to be agreeing that it cannot be. Liberals do not, in fact, make that claim.

We do make the claim that rich people aren't paying enough. That is a very different claim, and making some statement about the proportion of taxes paid by the top decile of the country doesn't disprove that position.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Terpoxon said:


> I'd also add this thought: $103,000 puts you in the top 10% of wage earners. I have a friend who is a teacher. She has a Masters and about 5 years experience, she makes about $49,000 a year. If she were to marry someone like her, same exeperience and level of education, who made the same amount of money, as a household they'd be dangerously close to becoming part of the evil "rich". I don't think that many people in two income professional households think of themselves as rich, many of them are struggling to get by, my friends pays about $750 a month in student loan debts, and works a second job on weekends, but by all means lets hike up her tax bill.


Check your facts. Obama's tax plan would reduce taxes on all earners below $250,000. That's a big difference even from the $103,000 level you cite.

Beyond that, whether you consider it rich or not, it would be a ridiculous claim to argue that someone making $250,000 a year is in the middle class.


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> Check your facts. Obama's tax plan would reduce taxes on all earners below $250,000. That's a big difference even from the $103,000 level you cite.
> 
> Beyond that, whether you consider it rich or not, it would be a ridiculous claim to argue that someone making $250,000 a year is in the middle class.


What about two people, each earning $125,000? Are they middle class?

I ask, because by that point, the marriage tax penalty that all of the Congressman celebrated getting rid of, comes back to haunt people who have the gall to be married. Actually of course, if you are married, have kids, and are in a two career family, you can get hit with marriage tax penalties while earning as little as $100k (in total).


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> We do make the claim that rich people aren't paying enough.


Indeed they have for at least 40 years. They have also promised tax cuts to the poor for 40 years, but when they have had the power they never did give any tax cuts to the poor or middle class, but I have seen them give tax cuts to the rich. They also have sunk every opportunity for a flat tax where there are no loop holes. And when it comes to loop holes they have created many. So the Democrats have an enormous amount of spin. What suprises me is how many Democrat voters believe so much spin and voted on hope.


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

According to IRS data, two-thirds of small business profits are earned in households making at least $250,000 per year -- those same households in the crosshairs of the Obama-Biden tax plan. By the Obama-Biden campaign's own admission, this tax rate would approach 50 percent.

Ok Jack, lets stick with Obama's number. I don't trust it, but I'll have to wait and see. So, $250,000. They are going to tax it at 50%. Do you have a problem with that high a number? Is there any point where you would agree that taxes on the rich are high enough?

When the income tax was created, the rate was only 1% on incomes above $3,000 and 2% to 7% on incomes between $20,000 and $500,000. The average income was $800. Average income in 2006 was $46,000. So in 1913 terms, the exmption today would be $175,000. I'd support that being the cut off. But I think that any system that takes more than 20% of income is outrageous. Why should you work more than one day a week for the government? Even medieval serfs were not supposed to have to pay more than 1/3 of their income to their lord.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> it would be a ridiculous claim to argue that someone making $250,000 a year is in the middle class.


It is hard to define what rich is. And, does joint income of that amount make them rich? What about the super rich? I hear of people who give away a miilion bucks a year. With inflation the definition of poor, middle class and rich is always changing. So, this year what are the boundaries between these four classes?


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

WA said:


> It is hard to define what rich is. And, does joint income of that amount make them rich? What about the super rich? I hear of people who give away a miilion bucks a year. With inflation the definition of poor, middle class and rich is always changing. So, this year what are the boundaries between these four classes?


$88,000 a year puts you in the top 20%, $157,000 a year puts you in the top 5%. But there are obviously other factors that influence it- debt, home ownership.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

> They are going to tax it at 50%.


One of the purposes of lower taxes is reinvestment. What does reinvestment do? It buys or rents building and equipment which requires people to work in and operate the equipment, therefore, new employes. Jimmy Carter raised taxes too much and companies started laying people off. There is a right amount to tax that benefits this country. To much hurts us, and less than beneficial gives us less benefits.


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

Terpoxon said:


> Even medieval serfs were not supposed to have to pay more than 1/3 of their income to their lord.[/FONT]


Sounds tempting. How good was their healthcare package?


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Terpoxon said:


> $88,000 a year puts you in the top 20%, $157,000 a year puts you in the top 5%. But there are obviously other factors that influence it- debt, home ownership.


These are incomes and not wealth. Wealth is like billions. Some kinds of wealth are taxable, such as property. $88,000 isn't that much any more, but a huge amount for those that make less than subsistance wages. But, $88,000 is peanuts compare what some politican make.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Concordia said:


> Sounds tempting. How good was their healthcare package?


Sounds interesting. When thinning apples in my youth I was designated the tooth puller for whino's. Luckly I didn't have to do it but, the cost would have been free.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Terpoxon said:


> According to IRS data, two-thirds of small business profits are earned in households making at least $250,000 per year -- those same households in the crosshairs of the Obama-Biden tax plan. By the Obama-Biden campaign's own admission, this tax rate would approach 50 percent.
> 
> Ok Jack, lets stick with Obama's number. I don't trust it, but I'll have to wait and see. So, $250,000. They are going to tax it at 50%. Do you have a problem with that high a number? Is there any point where you would agree that taxes on the rich are high enough?


Are you just making this stuff up?

Here's what the Obama plan does on income taxation:

Partial extension of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. Senator Obama has called for extending the tax cuts affecting the middle class while eliminating those benefitting the wealthiest Americans. According to his campaign staff, Obama would extend the child credit expansions; the changes to marriage bonuses and penalties; and the 10, 15, 25, and 28 percent income tax rates, as well as the lower tax rates on capital gains and qualified dividends for taxpayers in those four tax brackets. He would restore the 36 and 39.6 percent rates imposed on the highest income taxpayers. The maximum tax rate on capital gains and dividends would increase from 15 to 20 percent for taxpayers with adjusted gross income over $250,000 for married couples and $200,000 for others. (After 2010, this would represent a tax cut on dividends, which would be taxed at ordinary income rates up to 39.6 percent under current law.) Obama would also restore the phaseouts of personal exemptions and itemized deductions for high-income taxpayers ($250,000 joint; $200,000 others). The thresholds would be indexed for inflation as they are under current law. Senator Obama would also extend several smaller expiring tax cuts, including the adoption credit and the simplifications to the earned income tax credit. Certain other provisions would be modified, as described below.
https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/411749_update_candidates.pdf

I can only assume that you're making wild claims without any factual basis for your assertions.

Oh, and for WA, who constantly pretends to care about taxes on poor people:

Expansion of the earned income tax credit. Senator Obama has proposed several expansions to the earned income tax credit. He would increase the maximum amount of earned income used to calculate the credit for childless workers from the projected 2009 value of $5,910 to $6,300 in 2009, $6,800 in 2010, $7,100 in 2011, and $7,250 in 2012. The threshold at which the phaseout begins would be increased from its current 2009 level of $7,390 to $9,825 in 2009, $10,875 in 2010, $12,325 in 2011, and $14,500 in 2012. Both thresholds are indexed for inflation after 2012. He would double the phase-in and phaseout rates for childless workers who pay child support from 7.65 to 15.3 percent, increasing their maximum tax credit from $555 to $1,110 in 2012.9 Obama would also increase the credit rate from 40 to 45 percent for taxpayers with three or more children, but keep their phaseout rate at 21.06 percent. Finally, the phaseout threshold for joint filers would be $5,000 higher than for heads of household (up from $3,100 under current law) and that amount would be indexed for inflation after 2009.

Exempting seniors earning less than $50,000 from income taxation. Senator Obama would exempt seniors earning less than $50,000 from income taxation. A tax unit would pay no income tax if the primary taxpayer (and the spouse for married couples) is age 65 or older and the tax unit's adjusted gross income, untaxed Social Security benefits, and tax-exempt interest totals less than $50,000. Tax units entitled to a net refund from the government would remain entitled to that refund. The threshold would be the same for both single and married households and would not be indexed for inflation (so its value would erode over time). To avoid a "cliff" effect, we assume that the exemption from income taxes would phase out over a $10,000 income range between $50,000 and $60,000.

https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/411749_update_candidates.pdf


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

Jack, you can dispute the sources, but don't accuse me of making stuff up. You're starting to sound like the other trolls around here.


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

And, you didn't answer the question. Do you think that it's ok for the government to take half of what people earn?


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Terpoxon said:


> Jack, you can dispute the sources, but don't accuse me of making stuff up. You're starting to sound like the other trolls around here.


Okay, now that you've produced the source I don't accuse you of making it up. I accuse Americans for Tax Reform of making it up.


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

Gee thanks, I guess that's sort of like an apology for calling me a liar.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Terpoxon said:


> And, you didn't answer the question. Do you think that it's ok for the government to take half of what people earn?


So you want me to state an opinion on a policy position that nobody is proposing? I think I'll pass.

I will say that the appropriate level of taxation can vary at different times and places. The people who are being rigid and unrealistic are the conservatives who say that the only appropriate thing to do to taxes, at any time, and regardless of the economic circumstances or budgetary needs, is to lower them.


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

https://www.nysun.com/new-york/tax-rates-for-new-yorkers-would-top-50-under-obama/82191/

New York tax filers reporting more than $375,000 a year in earned income may end up paying nearly 60% of their wages in taxes to the government under a Barack Obama presidency, economists who have analyzed his plan said.

Top tax rate: Senator Obama would raise the top individual tax rate back to 39.6 percent, impose an additional 2 to 4 percent tax on earnings for some over the existing Social Security wage cap, and bring back the phase-out of the personal exemption and certain itemized deductions for higher-income taxpayers. When added up, the top effective marginal tax rate rises by 12 to 14 percentage points, from 37.9 percent to roughly 48 to 50 percent. "High" is in the eye of the beholder, but these are tax rates not seen since before the Tax Reform Act of 1986.

https://www.wsj.com/article/SB121910303529751345.html

Mr. Obama also wants a permanent federal estate tax, with a top rate of 45%; his health-insurance plan includes a new payroll tax on employers; and he also contemplates several increases in the corporate income tax, including a new so-called windfall profits tax on oil companies.

Relatively low income taxpayers, those with incomes below $45,000, would face tax rates upwards of 35 to 40 percent. Middle income taxpayers with incomes in the $105,000 to $125,000 range also see their tax rates rise to upwards of 45 percent. Only a narrow band of couples earning between $85,000 and $100,000 escape the economically damaging effect of the Obama plan's higher marginal tax rates.

So the real kicker is that under Senator Obama's tax plan, some low-income taxpayers will face combined income-payroll tax rates between 50 and 55 percent. This looks more like a return to the tax policies of the 1970s than a tax system for the 21st century.

Care to answer it now Jack?

I don't know why you are ducking the question. It's a basic question of fairness, should anyone be forced to give half or more of their income to the government in the form of taxes? I say no. I think it is unconscionable that any combination of state, federal and local taxes could result in an American citizen paying half of what they earn to the government, regardless of wealth. And don't pretend as if "economic circumstances" or "budgetary needs" have anything to do with it. The federal government has taken in record revenues each year for decades, and they have overspent every year for the last 40. There is never any talk about fiscal responsibility. I'd support tax increases if the government actually got spending under control and made some effort to pay down the debt- but they haven't, and they never do. They just keep overspending and demanding more tax money to feed the machine. Until the government has insured that every tax dollar is being spent efficiently on worthwhile and necessary programs they have no right to demand a dollar more from anyone.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Again, you're asking me to accept the spin coming from right-wing anti-tax groups. No sale.


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

How about just as a hypothetical question then Jack? 50%? 75%? 90%? 95%? 99%? Is there any level of taxation that you think is too high regardless of the income of the person being taxed? I really don't see why you can't answer a simple question. Is there ANY point where you think taxes are too high?


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Wow! I had no idea I had the power to inspire such an obsession. I guess it's just not a game I'm interested in playing. Just pick an answer, attribute it to me, and then engage in whatever attack you want. Get it out of your system.


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

It's not an obsession Jack. I've asked other people this question, and I just find it interesting that so many liberals refuse to name a number. There seems to be no limit to their desire to tax, which, of course, is the point.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> Oh, and for WA, who constantly pretends to care about taxes on poor people:
> 
> Expansion of the earned income tax credit. Senator Obama has proposed several expansions to the earned income tax credit. He would increase the maximum amount of earned income used to calculate the credit for childless workers from the projected 2009 value of $5,910 to $6,300 in 2009, $6,800 in 2010, $7,100 in 2011, and $7,250 in 2012. The threshold at which the phaseout begins would be increased from its current 2009 level of $7,390 to $9,825 in 2009, $10,875 in 2010, $12,325 in 2011, and $14,500 in 2012. Both thresholds are indexed for inflation after 2012. He would double the phase-in and phaseout rates for childless workers who pay child support from 7.65 to 15.3 percent, increasing their maximum tax credit from $555 to $1,110 in 2012.9 Obama would also increase the credit rate from 40 to 45 percent for taxpayers with three or more children, but keep their phaseout rate at 21.06 percent. Finally, the phaseout threshold for joint filers would be $5,000 higher than for heads of household (up from $3,100 under current law) and that amount would be indexed for inflation after 2009.
> 
> ...


This all looks sorta nice. The problem is will they do it? Since the 60's I have heard the Democrats promis tax cuts to the poor and sometimes the middle class and when they had the opportunity they refused. From that perspective they were stealling elections with bogus promises. Since both houses will probably be in Democrat power, if Obama wins, will they go along with it.

If you go back to Reagan, when you could live off of $5,000 a year, around here (subsistence living), he didn't want anybody to pay taxes until they made $5,000 to $7,000. So Obama isn't even close to Reagan, because, if Obama would be saying nobody pays taxes until they earn subsistence living ($25,000 to $30,000) that would be equal, but, as you show above, he is offering way less.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Terpoxon said:


> It's not an obsession Jack. I've asked other people this question, and I just find it interesting that so many liberals refuse to name a number.


Maybe it's because we know the world isn't as simple as conservatives think it is.

Or maybe it's because or sympathies lie more with someone whose after-tax income is $30,000 than someone whose after-tax income is $3,000,000.

Whatever the reason, and setting aside questions of fairness, years and years of Republican tax and spending policies have made one thing clear: Republicans can't be trusted to manage the taxpayers' money.


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> Maybe it's because we know the world isn't as simple as conservatives think it is.
> 
> Or maybe it's because or sympathies lie more with someone whose after-tax income is $30,000 than someone whose after-tax income is $3,000,000.
> 
> Whatever the reason, and setting aside questions of fairness, years and years of Republican tax and spending policies have made one thing clear: Republicans can't be trusted to manage the taxpayers' money.


Ok, so there is no percentage that you deem to high for taxing "the rich". Ok, question answered.


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

Concordia said:


> Sounds tempting. How good was their healthcare package?


Just as good as everyone else back then.


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

*The only patriotic tax*

is the one you fight tooth and nail against. That may not be true in every country, but I believe it does fit in well with the reasons that my ancestors fought the British to establish this country.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Terpoxon said:


> Ok, so there is no percentage that you deem to high for taxing "the rich". Ok, question answered.


As I said, feel free to make up any position for me that you want, and then say whatever you want about it.


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> Whatever the reason, and setting aside questions of fairness, years and years of Republican tax and spending policies have made one thing clear: Republicans can't be trusted to manage the taxpayers' money.


Democrats have controlled the legislature for 28 of the last 36 years, and the presidency for 12 of the last 36. I believe they have equally demonstrated their incompetence in managing the taxpayers money.

Funny, Bill Clinton keeps talking up the budget surpluses from his years in office, but the national debt only went down for one year of his eight, and that was after the Republicans took control of the purse strings. I suppose the only way to get either group of kleptocrats to work in the national interest is to insure that neither party controls both the legislative and executive branches.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Again, show me the time that a Republican president sent a balanced budget to Congress.


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

jackmccullough said:


> Check your facts. Obama's tax plan would reduce taxes on all earners below $250,000. That's a big difference even from the $103,000 level you cite.
> 
> Beyond that, whether you consider it rich or not, it would be a ridiculous claim to argue that someone making $250,000 a year is in the middle class.


Jack your really not my type so I don't care to really mix it up with you too much. But as a point of fact I have made a little over 250 the last couple years and I feel very middle class. I get hit every year with alternative min tax. I have put three kids through college (with some loans). I have paid for 2 modest weddings. I still have one more college starting next year and probably another wedding down the road. I never have driven more than a Honda or Toyota. My wife and I don't go out to dinner very much. I'm an accountant and a good money manager. I think the whole middle class thing is very dependent on the size of your family and a lot of other circumstances. If it were just my wife and I we would be rolling in it.


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

agnash said:


> Democrats have controlled the legislature for 28 of the last 36 years, and the presidency for 12 of the last 36. I believe they have equally demonstrated their incompetence in managing the taxpayers money.
> 
> Funny, Bill Clinton keeps talking up the budget surpluses from his years in office, but the national debt only went down for one year of his eight, and that was after the Republicans took control of the purse strings. I suppose the only way to get either group of kleptocrats to work in the national interest is to insure that neither party controls both the legislative and executive branches.


The national debt NEVER went down. The closest they ever got was an $18 billion deficit.


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> Again, show me the time that a Republican president sent a balanced budget to Congress.


You did ask. First, let me say, that regardless of what the president sends, the power lies with the Congress to control the purse strings. And, balanced budgets do not matter, if off-budget spending increases the national debt. Still, the United States had balanced budgets for 3 years under Ike, and one year under Nixon.

Oh, and I was wrong earlier. According to the Department of the Treasury, despite the budget surpluses in the Clinton years, the national debt actually increased EVERY year he was in office. So, the last president to actually decrease the national debt outstanding was Ike in 1956 and 1957.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> Again, show me the time that a Republican president sent a balanced budget to Congress.


There was no budget for two year with Bush Sr., because the congress, mostly Democrats, porked out what he sent them so he vetoed what came back.


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

agnash said:


> You did ask. First, let me say, that regardless of what the president sends, the power lies with the Congress to control the purse strings. And, balanced budgets do not matter, if off-budget spending increases the national debt. Still, the United States had balanced budgets for 3 years under Ike, and one year under Nixon.
> 
> Oh, and I was wrong earlier. According to the Department of the Treasury, despite the budget surpluses in the Clinton years, the national debt actually increased EVERY year he was in office. So, the last president to actually decrease the national debt outstanding was Ike in 1956 and 1957.


I think the cat got Jacks tongue. Great job.


----------



## oktagon (Mar 9, 2005)

Liberals in power have always been a disaster for US. If Obama is elected, we will see the worst four years in the history of USA, ans that includes the 1860s. 
I really hope he looses, but if he does not, the consequences will be disastrous.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Back to WA post about $28,000 dinners. To quote lewis Carroll, " Tweedle-Dee and Tweadle-Dumm AGREED to have a fight." I see very few former members of congress, the Senate, the hordes of lobbyists et al sitting on a milk crate with a chicom made US flag, carboard sign proclaiming ' former senator, will work for food. Thankyou and God Bless.'

Joe the Plumber should aspire to office, not the headaches of business ownership.

If you want to find a presidential candidacy that caps ALL contributions at a humble number, holds no dinners. I invite you to www.votenader.org A gold star to vwhoever comes back and shares that contribution figure.

I promise you wont grow hair on your palms reading it. And for that matter, informed ameicans would do well to keep current on all third parties, regardless of previous knowledge or prejudice.

It was a tiny, rat sized animal that survived the dinosaur die off.


----------



## SlowE30 (Mar 18, 2008)

Some of these gentlemen have apparently been cursing each other for five pages (I couldn't be bothered to read all of it), all the while increasing their post counts. Time for my fair slice of the pie. That's all I have to say, and now I'm one closer to my discount card.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Paying to attend that dinner would be somewhat akin to the English royalty of the time, paying to sit and have dinner with Robin Hood!


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

eagle2250 said:


> Paying to attend that dinner would be somewhat akin to the English royalty of the time, paying to sit and have dinner with Robin Hood!


I guess what's on the plate or what they're serving is what costs $28,000.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Terpoxon said:


> Buzz, I have made the basic point 3 times that Liberals prefer to confiscate the wealth of others and use it for charity, but don't back it up with their own money. I have provided two articles proving the assertion among the general population and among prominent liberal politicians. I have nothing more to prove. You have ignored the argument and shifted it to a personal attack as you always do. Address my point or don't address me at all. I grew weary of your sophistry, pedantry, ad hominem attacks and the general way you poison every conversation that you join.


Spot on correct. Libs talk the talk while Conservatives walk the walk.

https://www.amazon.com/Who-Really-C...bs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1224249625&sr=8-1


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

Mike Petrik said:


> Spot on correct. Libs talk the talk while Conservatives walk the walk.
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Who-Really-C...bs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1224249625&sr=8-1


You are quite wrong, actually. Liberals walk the talk while conservatives talk the walk.

Buzz


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

M6Classic said:


> You are quite wrong, actually. Liberals walk the talk while conservatives talk the walk.
> 
> Buzz


Buzz, the emperical data I linked support my assertion; nothing supports yours.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

Mike Petrik said:


> Buzz, the emperical data I linked supports my assertion; nothing supports yours.


The Ministry of Funny Walks for years has been dominated by Tories of the most rigid sort...and everybody knows it...who just cannot stop criticizing all manner of ambulation. The SDs on the other hand, are known to pace the aisles of Whitehall endlessly while debate rages in the chamber. You do the math.

Buzz


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

M6Classic said:


> The Ministry of Funny Walks for years has been dominated by Tories of the most rigid sort...and everybody knows it...who just cannot stop criticizing all manner of ambulation. The SDs on the other hand, are known to pace the aisles of Whitehall endlessly while debate rages in the chamber. You do the math.
> 
> Buzz


Fair enough, Buzz, except that the two assertions are not contradictory. I concede yours, but will you concede mine?


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

Mike Petrik said:


> Fair enough, Buzz, except that the two assertions are not contradictory. I concede yours, but will you concede mine?


I dunno, on a certain level it makes sense but on another it doesn't. So, yeah, I kinda sorta concede it.

Buzz


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

What anybody half looking at as 'Libs' and 'Conservatives' these days niether walk or talk truly. And those astute observers are walking- away.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Kav said:


> What anybody half looking at as 'Libs' and 'Conservatives' these days niether walk or talk truly. And those astute observers are walking- away.


I have no idea what that means.

I do know that Brooks' study demonstrates that self-identified conservatives are more charitable than self-identified liberals, as a group. And by quite a bit. Of course Brooks -- a very highly regarded moderately liberal sociologist -- solves for the obvious variables such as geography, income, age, etc. Religiosity, however, is an imbedded variable, indeed a major one, since Brooks shows that religious people (defined by weekly attendance) are also significantly more charitable than their counter-cohort. Since many more conservatives meet Brooks' religious standard than liberals, it is important to disentangle, to the extent possible, the effect of religiosity versus that of ideological preference. But even solving for religiosity (and even excluding contributions to churches and temples), those who viewed income redistribution to be an important role of government are significantly less generous than those who disagreed, which serves as an imperfect but helpful proxy for distinguishing liberals and conservatives.

Of course generalities are just that. There are plenty of generous libs and plenty of stingy conservatives.

But the notion that Libs can claim a moral high ground simply because they are more enthusiastic about government-enforced wealth redistribution should be regarded as debunked.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I also wonder if liberals don't enjoy the increase in the number of well-paid chances to do (meaningful at least in their eyes) work as opposed to having to do the stuff the rest of us have to do in the private sector. I think there is a lot of cynical self-interest in their desire for the expansion of government.


----------



## wrwhiteknight (Mar 20, 2012)

WA said:


> $28,000 plate fund raiser for Obama. I wonder how many poor people ate there to help Obama win? What do the poor earn in a year - $25,000 or less? If these rich paid out to their lowest paid employes $28,000 in bounes they would do more for the poor than what social programs will do. But, I guess it is better to beg for bigger tax cuts for pay back. All these wealthy people will get a $28,000 tax cut while they claim to be for the poor, instead of paying the tax to help the poor, or just pay a charity.
> 
> It sure is amazing how the main stream media and the left have convinced the general public that the Democrat party is for the poor and middle class. I wonder how many middle class went to this fund raiser- none?


It's called a fund-raiser, not a fund-giver, for a reason.:icon_smile_wink:


----------

