or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › "6 Months Until the Largest Tax Hikes in History"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

"6 Months Until the Largest Tax Hikes in History" - Page 8

post #281 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

What you don't get, and what your table doesn't show, is that if you're making less than $250k per year, less of your income will be taxable. So your total tax paid will be less. That is if Obama doesn't wimp out on his plan or if obstructionist Republicans don't block it.

Republicans have no power to do anything right now, so you're vision of the whole country just sucking it up and taking it might be negated by tax riots or mass strikes instead.

John Galt is just the beginning.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #282 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

What you don't get, and what your table doesn't show, is that if you're making less than $250k per year, less of your income will be taxable. So your total tax paid will be less.

^^^ That's about the most hysterical attempt at logic I've ever heard. Thanks for the laugh!
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #283 of 683
The fact is that your table doesn't take into account deductions. So it does not tell the whole story.

This is what Obama has to say about his tax proposal:

"Middle class families will see their taxes cut – and no family making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase. The typical middle class family will receive well over $1,000 in tax relief under the Obama plan, and will pay tax rates that are 20% lower than they faced under President Reagan. According to the Tax Policy Center, the Obama plan provides three times as much tax relief for middle class families as the McCain plan."

So where in your table does it mention the $1000 tax relief?
post #284 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

The fact is that your table doesn't take into account deductions. So it does not tell the whole story.

This is what Obama has to say about his tax proposal:

"Middle class families will see their taxes cut and no family making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase. The typical middle class family will receive well over $1,000 in tax relief under the Obama plan, and will pay tax rates that are 20% lower than they faced under President Reagan. According to the Tax Policy Center, the Obama plan provides three times as much tax relief for middle class families as the McCain plan."

So where in your table does it mention the $1000 tax relief?


Were his lips moving when he said that?
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
post #285 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by john galt View Post

I clearly made reference to taxable income. Tax on income for which no taxes are due is zero. Taxes on income for which taxes are due will increase to devastating effect.

It's no wonder paid tax preparers do so well, having to explain this stuff to you folks.



Wrecked... OK, what's the word for Obama's actions? Obliterated? Annihilated? Über-wrecked? How much worse than wrecked is wrecked to the nth degree? Such comparisons are meaningless.

Yes we all know you'd like us to sweep the facts under the rug that Dubbya ( a republican ) had 8 long years ( 6 years of total control ) to do something about the approaching economic downturn ( that many were predicting ) and only made things worse ( I know this didn't really happen but I have this fantasy that Bush and Cheney meet a year before the election and see that the republicans are going to lose so they decide to make things as bad as possible so the incoming Democrats can't possibly fix it in the short run and look bad ).

I think it's very important to look at who's to blame when this started because if any voters are thinking of voting Republican they need to remember who was in charge when the bottom fell out of everything.

Slice it however you want but they had much more of an opportunity to do something about our current problems than Obama has in his 2 years. That's fact. If nothing else do the math.

Do you really want them back?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #286 of 683
Since you and others appear to be obsessed with it jim, I started another thread on the subject of blame. Complete with math

In the meantime, put your tinfoil hat back on the shelf. We don't need any more harebrained conspiracy theories. Conspiracies require copious amounts of intelligence and forethought, and I don't recall you or any of your leftist friends attributing either of those characteristics to the former administration.
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #287 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

...
Do you really want them back?


Not at all. I ALSO do not want BHO back for another term. He is NOT doing any better than GWB did.

It is NOT about republicans vs democrats... It's about finding a good man (person) for the job, unfortunately, that good man is unlikely to show up as a candidate from EITHER major party. The parties are more interested in preserving their power-base than in doing good for the country (or even the world.)

I have. Repeatedly voted for independent candidates. I pretty much knew that meant my vote was "useless" because of that, but I REFUSE to vote based on any criteria other than who I think is the best person for the job. PARTY AFFILIATION DOES NOT MATTER!
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
post #288 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by john galt View Post

I clearly made reference to taxable income. Tax on income for which no taxes are due is zero. Taxes on income for which taxes are due will increase to devastating effect.

It's no wonder paid tax preparers do so well, having to explain this stuff to you folks.

Then why does the chart start with 0?
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
post #289 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Republicans have no power to do anything right now, so you're vision of the whole country just sucking it up and taking it might be negated by tax riots or mass strikes instead.

John Galt is just the beginning.

they say no quite well.

Strikes ...? since when are Republicans union people?
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
post #290 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post

Not at all. I ALSO do not want BHO back for another term. He is NOT doing any better than GWB did.

It is NOT about republicans vs democrats... It's about finding a good man (person) for the job, unfortunately, that good man is unlikely to show up as a candidate from EITHER major party. The parties are more interested in preserving their power-base than in doing good for the country (or even the world.)

I have. Repeatedly voted for independent candidates. I pretty much knew that meant my vote was "useless" because of that, but I REFUSE to vote based on any criteria other than who I think is the best person for the job. PARTY AFFILIATION DOES NOT MATTER!

Quote:
He is NOT doing any better than GWB did.

That's a matter of opinion. Bush did nothing but go the wrong direction. On " Meet The Press " yesterday someone brought up the fact that we started to recover from this recession faster than any in 25 years it's just that jobs are coming back just not fast enough because this one was so much worse than any in recent memory. That's more than Bush did.

From that show :

Quote:
MR. GREGORY: But, Erin Burnett, the big question on unemployment, if, if--and in 30 seconds, when is there a meaningful dent in the unemployment rate that can help these political fortunes?

MS. BURNETT: Well, I think it's interesting, because by the way, I don't think the stimulus has been a failure, and I think that you are correct that it is perceived that way. But I don't think it's actually true. Without that stimulus, we would be significantly worse off than we are right now. There, there's really no question about it. You can ask any economist on Wall Street or any CEO. I see you shaking your head, I know you disagree. But, but, but, but my reporting would show otherwise.

MR. DIONNE: Keep going.

MS. BURNETT: I--look, I, I, I think the problem is you have the fastest job creation in this recovery than you have in any recession in 25 years, but it is still not enough. You aren't going to win this on jobs, and that is the problem. It's going to take a long time. I don't know how you get around that problem, but technically speaking, this recovery has not been tepid.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39011239...ss-transcripts

Then who do you suggest? Anyone independent with real answers? I haven't seen any. If you have no one I suggest the less evil of the two which is the Democrats in my book. Because someone is going to get in there and if you don't vote or vote for someone who can't win you only have yourself to blame for the consequences.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #291 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

they say no quite well.

Strikes ...? since when are Republicans union people?

Yes. They've denied benifit extensions, they've drug their heels on Wall Street Reform ( and it's obvious that's needed after what happened ), they've pretty much done almost all they could do to slow recovery. They say " No! " extremely well.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #292 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by john galt View Post

Since you and others appear to be obsessed with it jim, I started another thread on the subject of blame. Complete with math

In the meantime, put your tinfoil hat back on the shelf. We don't need any more harebrained conspiracy theories. Conspiracies require copious amounts of intelligence and forethought, and I don't recall you or any of your leftist friends attributing either of those characteristics to the former administration.

Quote:
Since you and others appear to be obsessed with it jim, I started another thread on the subject of blame. Complete with math

Yes and I couintered you in this one! Rather than bump your silly thread and give it any credibility.

Quote:
We don't need any more harebrained conspiracy theories.

John, can't you read? I'm assuming you're making reference to my " Fantasy " about Bush and Cheney ( and I even called it that ). The rest is fact!

Fact that you can't get arouind.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #293 of 683
First from tonton :
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton
What you don't get, and what your table doesn't show, is that if you're making less than $250k per year, less of your income will be taxable. So your total tax paid will be less.


Quote:
Originally Posted by john galt View Post

^^^ That's about the most hysterical attempt at logic I've ever heard. Thanks for the laugh!

Instead of trying to act superior and pass it off why don't you tell us exactly what's wrong with his logic here?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #294 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

they've drug their heels on Wall Street Reform ( and it's obvious that's needed after what happened ),

Perhaps to those given to superficial analysis of what happened, yes.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

they've pretty much done almost all they could do to slow recovery.

So you switched from talking about what the Republicans were doing to what the Democrats are doing in one sentence.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

They say " No! " extremely well.

You people act like the job of the minority party is to simply capitulate and agree with everything the majority party does and proposes. I suspect you had a different opinion when the Republicans were the majority party.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #295 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Perhaps to those given to superficial analysis of what happened, yes.




So you switched from talking about what the Republicans were doing to what the Democrats are doing in one sentence.




You people act like the job of the minority party is to simply capitulate and agree with everything the majority party does and proposes. I suspect you had a different opinion when the Republicans were the majority party.

Yes because they were Republicans and how they act. Not because they occupied a particular place.

And they're saying no to pratically everything. There's a difference and that's why they got the moniker of " The Party of No! ".
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #296 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Yes because they were Republicans and how they act. Not because they occupied a particular place.




Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

And they're saying no to pratically everything. There's a difference and that's why they got the moniker of " The Party of No! ".

So it is the quantity or frequency you object to? Do you have any notion that some might be saying no for good reasons and not merely political gamesmanship? Conversely, do you have any notion that some (Democrats) may be going alone just to go alone and not because what they're going along with is actually a good idea? Do you have notion that the "party of no" thing could also be a degree of political propaganda?

You're far too trusting.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #297 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Republicans have no power to do anything right now...

Are you serious?

Not having the majority != "no power".
post #298 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post






So it is the quantity or frequency you object to? Do you have any notion that some might be saying no for good reasons and not merely political gamesmanship? Conversely, do you have any notion that some (Democrats) may be going alone just to go alone and not because what they're going along with is actually a good idea? Do you have notion that the "party of no" thing could also be a degree of political propaganda?

You're far to trusting.

They're being extremely partisan to the hilt. Seeing it any other way is denying the obvious.

And your " To " should have 2 " O's " as in " Too ". I just thought as long as you're were trying to make fun of my grammer in the Darwin thread.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #299 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

They're being extremely partisan to the hilt. Seeing it any other way is denying the obvious.

Really? But this is only the Republicans that are being "extremely partisan to the hilt?" Right?




Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

And your " To " should have 2 " O's " as in " Too ".

Thanks. You're right that was an improper word usage. I've corrected it.

Now:

benifit -> benefit

couintered - countered

arouind - around

pratically -> practically

Using " spaces " around " quoted " words is eccentric at best, distracting in the least, but wrong in general.

Final punctuation goes inside the "quotes."

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #300 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

Then why does the chart start with 0?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

First from tonton :

Instead of trying to act superior and pass it off why don't you tell us exactly what's wrong with his logic here?

I'm not acting.

Tax liability is predicated on taxable income. Please research the subject of "taxable income". It's a very basic concept. As I and others have repeatedly explained, if your taxable income > 0 your taxes will increase under the Obama plan.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton

...if you're making less than $250k per year, less of your income will be taxable. So your total tax paid will be less.

Tonton, the absurdity of this statement made me suspect you were a right wing doppelgänger, planted here with the intent to expose the left's most radical fringe element. I didn't believe you meant to be taken seriously. Sorry, but you have it completely wrong. Under the Obama plan more of your income will be taxable, even if you earn a tenth of the oft-quoted $250,000.

The following Joint Committee on Taxation report details 37 specific tax credits that will have the effect of increasing taxable income. All of them expire at the end of this year. Among them are the popular child tax credit, the earned income tax credit, "making work pay" credit, marriage tax penalty relief, dividends taxed at capital gain rates, benefits for EMT and volunteer firefighters... etc:

http://www.jct.gov/x-20-09.pdf

To put this in Obama-speak, let me be clear: Tax rates will increase on all taxable income. Due to the expiration of these provisions, more of us will have taxable income. To be sure, millions of American citizens will remain below the threshold for which no taxes are due, but the effect of these provisions their number will decrease unless Congress acts to amend the Bush tax cuts.

If you don't want to hear this from me that's your choice. Here's a short article I came across today that might put it in terms you may more easily comprehend:

Tax changes may hit paychecks hard in 2011:

Quote:
Millions of Americans could see the amount of tax taken from their paychecks increase by 50 percent in 2011. ... "All Americans stand to be impacted by these tax changes," said Scott Mezistrano, CPP, senior manager of government relations for the American Payroll Association. "We should all take a close look now to see how these tax changes will impact our 2011 take-home pay and plan to review and adjust our withholding as necessary at the beginning of the new year."

From several of these responses it's apparent many don't calculate their own tax liability. If you still don't understand this fundamental concept after researching the subject on your own, you should consult a professional who will be happy to charge you for what I've just explained to you for free.

An educated electorate is crucial to a free republic. To put your head in the sand and think this looming issue isn't going to utterly destroy any hope of recovery, you frankly don't deserve the privilege of being an American.

I suggest you look past both the left wing and right wing "spin" on this topic and get the facts. It's really not that difficult.
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #301 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Really? But this is only the Republicans that are being "extremely partisan to the hilt?" Right?

Pretty much. There are quite a few Democrats who regularly vote against party lines.
post #302 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Yes and I couintered you in this one! Rather than bump your silly thread and give it any credibility.

Suit yourself. This thread and others seemed to drift off-topic toward the issue of "blame" so I considered it appropriate to begin a new one on that (apparently popular) subject.
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #303 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by john galt View Post

Tax liability is predicated on taxable income. Please research the subject of "taxable income". It's a very basic concept. As I and others have repeatedly explained, if your taxable income > 0 your taxes will increase under the Obama plan.

Jesus... what you don't get is that if your total income remains the same, your taxable income will be less under the Obama plan (see my next post), so you will pay less taxes! I honestly can't understand why you don't get this simple concept.
post #304 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by john galt View Post

Due to the expiration of these provisions, more of us will have taxable income.

Not according to the Obama plan, which certainly includes provisions for extending some credits which will expire, as well as introducing new ones. Only credits which mainly benefit the rich (capital gains and estate taxes, for instance) will be allowed to expire under the Obama plan. Obama and the Democrats have never argued for letting ALL of the Bush tax cuts expire, just those that benefit people who earn over $250k per year. This is stated again and again and again, yet you ignore these statements.
post #305 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Jesus... what you don't get is that if your total income remains the same, your taxable income will be less under the Obama plan, so you will pay less taxes! I honestly can't understand why you don't get this simple concept.

Kindly provide credible references for your assertion.
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #306 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

The rest is fact!

Not fact but opinion. Opinions are certainly welcome, but to assert something as factual without credible references is gratuitous.

Please provide credible references for your assertions.
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #307 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Not according to the Obama plan, which certainly includes provisions for extending some credits which will expire, as well as introducing new ones. Only credits which mainly benefit the rich (capital gains and estate taxes, for instance) will be allowed to expire under the Obama plan. Obama and the Democrats have never argued for letting ALL of the Bush tax cuts expire, just those that benefit people who earn over $250k per year. This is stated again and again and again, yet you ignore these statements.

I make (much) less that $250K per year, yet I will pay more in taxes next year in at least one specific area: Capital Gains taxes. Which you claim "mainly benefit the rich." This is just one example that would appear to contradict this statement:

Quote:
"Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #308 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I make (much) less that $250K per year, yet I will pay more in taxes next year in at least one specific area: Capital Gains taxes. Which you claim "mainly benefit the rich." This is just one example that would appear to contradict this statement:

So I'm wrong. Obama will have capital gains provisions specifically for those under the threshold. Good news for you.

Here's the proof, for you and John Galt:

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/taxes...Plan_FINAL.pdf

Capital Gains: Families with incomes below $250,000 will continue to pay the capital gains rates that they pay today. For those in the top two income tax brackets – likewise adjusted to affect only families over $250,000 – Obama will create a new top capital gains rate of 20 percent. Obama’s 20% rate is equal is the lowest rate that existed in the 1990s and the rate that President Bush proposed in 2001. It is almost a third lower than the rate that President Reagan signed into law in 1986.vii
post #309 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by john galt View Post

Not fact but opinion. Opinions are certainly welcome, but to assert something as factual without credible references is gratuitous.

Please provide credible references for your assertions.

You're asserting the the Obama plan will let those credits expire. Where is the evidence for your assertion? All the evidence for my assertion is in the statements already made public by the Obama administration, including the statement so kindly quoted above by MJ.

I've already shown concrete evidence for capital gains.
post #310 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Not according to the Obama plan, which certainly includes provisions for extending some credits which will expire, as well as introducing new ones. Only credits which mainly benefit the rich (capital gains and estate taxes) will be allowed to expire under the Obama plan.

a more detailed tax table

These guys do not get how the US tax systems works at all.
Higher deduction amounts and higher tax credits means less taxes. Getting this into their brain = impossible.
Look at the higher IRA credits that's awesome....
Tax Credits for energy saving installations up to 30% of the purchase price. If you are too stupid or too broke to take advantage and lower your e bills that's your problem. This would add to your future income so arguably you might have to pay more tax next year because YOU PAY LESS FOR ENERGY. What a bummer.
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
post #311 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

So I'm wrong. Obama will have capital gains provisions specifically for those under the threshold. Good news for you.

Do you have some source for this claim?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #312 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

All the evidence for my assertion is in the statements already made public by the Obama administration, including the statement so kindly quoted above by MJ.

Actually, you'll need more than that, because, in this country, political promises do not have the force of law (or IRS code).

It's funny that for someone who has claimed (I thought) to distrust what Obama has become since elected, you are awfully trusting that somehow, this one promise he'll make good on (all evidence to the contrary.)

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #313 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

So I'm wrong. Obama will have capital gains provisions specifically for those under the threshold. Good news for you.

Here's the proof, for you and John Galt:

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/taxes...Plan_FINAL.pdf

Capital Gains: Families with incomes below $250,000 will continue to pay the capital gains rates that they pay today. For those in the top two income tax brackets likewise adjusted to affect only families over $250,000 Obama will create a new top capital gains rate of 20 percent. Obamas 20% rate is equal is the lowest rate that existed in the 1990s and the rate that President Bush proposed in 2001. It is almost a third lower than the rate that President Reagan signed into law in 1986.vii

That's a fucking campaign flyer!

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #314 of 683
Ignored by Republicans and Libertarians since 2008™:

http://mediamatters.org/research/200806120006

OBAMA: So the general principle of raising taxes on higher-income Americans like myself, and providing relief to those who haven't benefited as much from this new global economy, I think, is a sound one. And keep in mind on all of these proposals, what I have said is, let's make sure that we define the well-off so that we're not hitting the middle class. I generally define well-off as people who are making $250,000 a year or more, and that means, for example, if we raise the capital gains tax, I would exempt people who are essentially small investors, and really capture the -- those who have done very, very well over the last two decades.

Capital gains was just an example.
post #315 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

That's a fucking campaign flyer!

So has Obama announced that he's not following through on that yet?
post #316 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

So has Obama announced that he's not following through on that yet?

Tell you what. Let's table this discussion until after everyone actually does their taxes. Then we can pull all of the BS rhetoric and promises to rest and see what really happened. Then we'll know for sure.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #317 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Tell you what. Let's table this discussion until after everyone actually does their taxes. Then we can pull all of the BS rhetoric and promises to rest and see what really happened. Then we'll know for sure.

As long as Republicans don't obstruct the Obama plan when it's proposed, this sounds like a fair litmus test.
post #318 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

As long as Republicans don't obstruct the Obama plan when it's proposed, this sounds like a fair litmus test.

With Obama, there's always someone else to blame.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #319 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by john galt View Post

Not fact but opinion. Opinions are certainly welcome, but to assert something as factual without credible references is gratuitous.

Please provide credible references for your assertions.

Oh! I see. It was just my opinion that the Republicans were in charge of the whole government ( just like the Democrats now who are taking huge amounts of blame from the Republicans over this same issue ) for 6 out of 8 years in the last administration.

They were in total control ( you know what the Republicans are whinning about now ) and we still fell into the abyss! John you can't get around that one! It's history! And if they weren't responsible after so much total control ( and so much time ) what the hell were they doing in the job all of that time ( 3 times the amount Obama and the Democrats have had to solve this )?

Sorry but history speaks for itself much as you'd like to spin something else that's fact!

First you try to counter by misrepresenting my question as a conspiracy then you ask for something I've already provided!

I think it most important to look at this before voting Republicans back in!

Please provide any credibility for yourself after that last statement.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #320 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Sorry but history speaks for itself

But history has a way of being a lot more complex than you seem to think.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › "6 Months Until the Largest Tax Hikes in History"