PDA

View Full Version : Michael Moore



iceblizzard69
03-23-2003, 11:27 PM
:monkey: Michael Moore

Moore won an Academy award, and he made some anti-Bush and anti-war remarks. He received a lot of boos, and some cheers too.

Platinum
03-23-2003, 11:38 PM
He is a moron. Its one thing to not agree and make a statement, but he just goes up there and rambles on about his nonsense, and all of his garbage views. Even if I were anti-war I still wouldnt like him. I hope he is enveloped in a fiery car accident on the way home.

Bumrush
03-23-2003, 11:46 PM
On a day where Marines were captured and executed, its amazing to see Moore spread his hate filled rhetoric.
Then again, this is the oscars, full of uptight, drug addicted, self centered people that think they are important.

Barbarian
03-24-2003, 01:10 AM
Did you hear Steve Martins reply afterword?

it was something along the lines of,
"I'd like to thank everyone who has helped make this show what it is, in fact right now the teamsters are helping Michael Moore into the trunk of his car."

CLASSIC!!!!!

Muck
03-24-2003, 01:41 AM
OH MAN!! GOOD STUFF!!

poornate
03-24-2003, 09:46 AM
He was way out of line last night.

LeftCoastPhin
03-24-2003, 01:18 PM
What films has this A$$HOLE directed?

Barbarian
03-24-2003, 02:04 PM
Originally posted by LeftCoastPhin
What films has this A$$HOLE directed?

"Bowling for Columbine"

and I think another was called something like "Me and Ed" or something like that...

both documentary types.

billsfanone
03-24-2003, 03:14 PM
I heard his next "film" will tackle the overeating and self control. :D

themole
03-24-2003, 03:39 PM
Originally posted by billsfanone
I heard his next "film" will tackle the overeating and self control. :D

:rofl: :up: And how to eat five wendy's triples in less than ten minutes.

Barbarian
03-24-2003, 04:07 PM
Hee keeps that up, and he won't be able to fit into the trunk of his limo anymore. ;)

themole
03-24-2003, 05:02 PM
Originally posted by Barbarian
Hee keeps that up, and he won't be able to fit into the trunk of his limo anymore. ;)

Do you mean...Hoffa style?:evil: ;)

Barbarian
03-24-2003, 06:35 PM
Originally posted by themole
Do you mean...Hoffa style?:evil: ;)

I would never suggest such a thing... the teamsters though, might be of a different opinion.

poornate
03-24-2003, 10:54 PM
Originally posted by LeftCoastPhin
What films has this A$$HOLE directed?




Actually, until his last film I really liked him. The film he is known for is "Roger and Me" about the head of GM deciding to close the plant in Flint, Michigan and basically killing the city. It's a documentary paralleling the lives of Flint residents with his very forward attempts to speak to Roger Smith. Very good. He also is known for his show "The Naked Truth" which sometimes was very funny and always interesting. I haven't seen "Bowling For Columbine" but I know it's basically a rant supporting the illegalization of private citizens ability to own firearms which I disagree with strongly. Between the message and his comments last night I will not be watching it.


Unfortunately I still like "Roger and Me" a lot. Great message if you support blue collar workers and like documentaries.


Roger and Me synopsis- Featuring some sad facts on the people who reside in Flint. (http://http://www.dogeatdogfilms.com/synopsis.html)

baccarat
03-24-2003, 11:23 PM
I didn't watch the Oscars(never would be caught wtaching them) but I saw a clip and it proves he's a narrow-minded, hate filled jerk. He made a movie called Canadian Bacon which I though was a decent comedy but his book, which I glanced through at a bookstore, is nothing special.
It's amazing. This guy makes a profit off of and exploits victims of a massacre and then he[as Bumrush said] "On a day where Marines were captured and executed, Moore spread his hate filled rhetoric. "

Penthos
03-24-2003, 11:59 PM
Yea he should go to hell and die because he doesn't like guns and war... sheesh...

Yes Michael Moore pulled a Sinead O'Conner, BUT did you even ever see Bowling For Columbine? If you did, then you would know he doesn't exploit the columbine massacre... in fact its the opposite... Its funny because I have heard plenty of Conservatives rip him for this movie but have yet to meet one who has seen it... typical... As far as wanting to eliminate private gun ownership, he points out that there are other Countries that allow almost anyone to own/carry guns, yet by comparison the gun deaths for an entire year in these places is disproportionatley less there than in the US... Its more about the American mentality then gun control... But why get deep into a subject and try to understand it when you can just dismiss it as the ranting of a liberal a$$hole right?

I've found that when many conservatives come against someone with a different view, the first thing they do is label him with some negative conotation: i.e. "Bleeding Heart", "Communist","Tree Hugger"... thereby discrediting the person so that anything the "Bleeding Heart" says is simply dismissed as the views of an "insert label here".

By the way, he (Michael Moore) also had a fantastic TV show called TV Nation but somehow it didin't survive in our allegedly "liberally" dominated media...

poornate
03-25-2003, 12:17 AM
i said I liked a lot of his work. Disagreed with his statements last night. And because of his view on the subject decided I have no interest in his current film. I did not call him--Quote--label him with some negative conotation: i.e. "Bleeding Heart", "Communist","Tree Hugger"... thereby discrediting the person so that anything the "Bleeding Heart" says is simply dismissed as the views of an "insert label here".--end quote--

SWS84
03-25-2003, 08:07 AM
Originally posted by 13isgr81


By the way, he (Michael Moore) also had a fantastic TV show called TV Nation but somehow it didin't survive in our allegedly "liberally" dominated media...


Was this show on one of the news networks or on just regular T.V.?


I think when some are talking about liberal bias, they are refering to the major news broadcasts except FOX.


Steve

ohall
03-25-2003, 09:49 AM
Originally posted by iceblizzard69
:monkey: Michael Moore

Moore won an Academy award, and he made some anti-Bush and anti-war remarks. He received a lot of boos, and some cheers too.

They showed Harrison Ford and his reaction and he couldn't stop giggling like a school boy at what Moore was saying. There were some cheers, odds are the "West Wing" cast must have been there watching what was going on with the big screen actors!

Oliver...

billsfanone
03-25-2003, 09:57 AM
Originally posted by 13isgr81
...Bowling For Columbine? If you did, then you would know he doesn't exploit the columbine massacre...

Oh no? Nice title to the movie. I'm sure they threw around every high school name in the US before deciding on Columbine.

Penthos
03-25-2003, 11:53 AM
Yes billsfan, its always good to judge a book by its cover.... Hello......? The title is a Metaphore... The guy makes a movie that does not have sex, does not glorify violence, a movie that actually has legitimate social commentary, and all the right can do is blast him for it.... Its pathetic myopia and discrimination based on party association without any kind of prior objective analysis...

You are saying because the name of his movie has a tradgedy in the title that he is exploiting that tradgedy for his own gain...

Ok then following your premise, what about the movie "Blackhawk Down"? Does this title not name tragedy...? Funny I didn't see the conservatives yelling about Ridley Scott exploiting those soldiers most terrible and horrifying moments on earth... Not to mention Blackhawk Down also made exponentially more money than Michael Moore's film... Why aren't you clammoring about that? Here is a film that DOES graphicly depict, and to some extent, glorifies violence. Yet there was no uproar about this film? I wonder why... maybe because its about war...? Maybe thats why "Peal Harbor" didn't piss off any republicans either...

billsfanone
03-25-2003, 12:09 PM
I haven't seen the movie - I admit. I want to. But I won't spend a dime to - to support the fat slob.

Put the content of the docmentary aside... To say he doesn't exploit the Columbine tragedy is absurd. When "Columbine" is in the title of the movie. What were they aiming at? Shock?

Barbarian
03-25-2003, 12:15 PM
Originally posted by booyeah_
I didn't watch the Oscars(never would be caught wtaching them) but I saw a clip and it proves he's a narrow-minded, hate filled jerk. He made a movie called Canadian Bacon which I though was a decent comedy but his book, which I glanced through at a bookstore, is nothing special.
It's amazing. This guy makes a profit off of and exploits victims of a massacre and then he[as Bumrush said] "On a day where Marines were captured and executed, Moore spread his hate filled rhetoric. "

I didn't realise he made Canadian Bacon.... oh man, that movie was hilarious.

(He's still a punk though... but that movie was great)

Penthos
03-25-2003, 12:18 PM
?
I haven't seen the movie - I admit. I want to. But I won't spend a dime to - to support the fat slob.

Put the content of the docmentary aside... To say he doesn't exploit the Columbine tragedy is absurd. When "Columbine" is in the title of the movie. What were they aiming at? Shock?

Did you even read my post? Apparently not... and by doing so you only add weight to it... What about "Blackhawk Down", "Pearl Harbor", "Titanic" all these movies made TONS more than than Columbine... Where's your outrage?

Speaking of weight, I see you make fun of Michael Moore's weight. Hippocrite... If he was a republican I'll bet you wouldn't call him a fat slob... Funny how when Rush Limbaugh was a fat slob you didn't hear any republicans reffer to him as a one... and if anyone did, then they were attacked for making fun of the man's weight just because they don't agree with his ideals....

Do you not see the slippery slope?

billsfanone
03-25-2003, 12:43 PM
Originally posted by 13isgr81
?

Did you even read my post? Apparently not... and by doing so you only add weight to it... What about "Blackhawk Down", "Pearl Harbor", "Titanic" all these movies made TONS more than than Columbine... Where's your outrage?

Speaking of weight, I see you make fun of Michael Moore's weight. Hippocrite... If he was a republican I'll bet you wouldn't call him a fat slob... Funny how when Rush Limbaugh was a fat slob you didn't hear any republicans reffer to him as a one... and if anyone did, then they were attacked for making fun of the man's weight just because they don't agree with his ideals....

Do you not see the slippery slope?

Was "Bowling for Columbine" a documentary? What's it about. Pearl Harbor (which sucked IMO), Blackhawk Down, Titanic (which sucked worse than Pearl Harbor IMO) were supposed to be movies about the events.

Rush Limbaugh WAS a fat slob. He trimmed down though.

Coming from someone who accused those who hate the fat 3 bacon cheeseburger eating buffoon Moore because of political party affiliation, I think you should know that I'm not as far right wing as you assume. I call it like I see it. Limbaugh is an a-hole too. FYI - I voted Republican only once in the last 3 presidential elections.

Barbarian
03-25-2003, 02:42 PM
Originally posted by 13isgr81
Speaking of weight, I see you make fun of Michael Moore's weight. Hippocrite... If he was a republican I'll bet you wouldn't call him a fat slob... Funny how when Rush Limbaugh was a fat slob you didn't hear any republicans reffer to him as a one... and if anyone did, then they were attacked for making fun of the man's weight just because they don't agree with his ideals....

Do you not see the slippery slope?

Actually, I have a "Flush Rush" bumper sticker on my car. I think that Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot as well.

While Rush may hate the homeless, it's Ironic that the homeless really like Rush, because there is allways a new refrigerator box in his garbage.

(Another advantage to being a moderate is being able to slm both libs and conservatives equally hard ;) )

Wildbill3
01-13-2005, 04:40 AM
The Where are they now thread reborn....

Where are you barbarian?

FinsNYanksFan13
01-13-2005, 04:32 PM
Props to Michael Moore for trying to get you Nazi Republicans out of office!

SkapePhin
01-13-2005, 04:48 PM
Props to Michael Moore for trying to get you Nazi Republicans out of office!

:roflmao:

You do realize Moore probably HELPED Bush get re-elected more than hurt his chances, right?

Jwcolour
01-13-2005, 04:48 PM
Props to Michael Moore for trying to get you Nazi Republicans out of office!

You obviously don't know what a Nazi is and my grandparents didn't go over to that hell hole just so Americans can slam other Americans using that word.

themole
01-13-2005, 04:52 PM
Props to Michael Moore for trying to get you Nazi Republicans out of office!

It's a matter of checks and balances. Thanks to us Nazi Republicans for keeping your Federal tax rate from reaching 70%, for showing strength and resovle at a critical time in this nations history. Managing a SuperPower ain't for the faint of heart, you touchy feely whimps need to stay out of that line of work and leave it to the real men to do your dirty work. If you want to talk about real issues I have with the Republican Party such as immigration and NAFTA & GATT we may be in agreement there.

finataxia24
01-13-2005, 04:55 PM
If you want to talk about real issues I have with the Republican Party such as immigration and NAFTA & GATT we may be in agreement there.


I may agree with u on those issues.



http://www.finheaven.com/clear.gif



http://www.finheaven.com/clear.gif


"That land is a community is the basic concept of ecology, but that land is to be loved and respected is an extension of ethics."

Aldo Leopold

Nzone
01-13-2005, 05:06 PM
Hitler was said to be a man's man too! But nothing was further from the truth.



http://www.finheaven.com/clear.gif

Pagan
01-13-2005, 05:10 PM
Props to Michael Moore for trying to get you Nazi Republicans out of office!
This from the guy with "Stop Hatin'" in his sig????

:roflmao:

Dolfan984
01-13-2005, 07:32 PM
It's a matter of checks and balances. Thanks to us Nazi Republicans for keeping your Federal tax rate from reaching 70%, for showing strength and resovle at a critical time in this nations history. Managing a SuperPower ain't for the faint of heart, you touchy feely whimps need to stay out of that line of work and leave it to the real men to do your dirty work. If you want to talk about real issues I have with the Republican Party such as immigration and NAFTA & GATT we may be in agreement there.


Not bashing your post, but do you really think America would really have a tax rate of 70% if the Dems were in office? I don't understand how this could have transpired. I thought if anything, it'd be pretty even considering the amount of tax money Dems use for the US compared to the amount of tax money Repubs are using for Iraq. Now obviously Repubs are all for tax breaks (for whomever they choose to get those breaks is a different post/topic) but do you think it would get that much out of hand to enforce people to pay 70% of their wages just for taxes? I know when Clinton was coming out of office we were going into a slight recession, but at that point still we had a surplus that we definately don't have now.

I'm just wondering how you'd figure it would get up to 70%. That number just boggled me. :P

Bling
01-13-2005, 08:01 PM
Props to Michael Moore for trying to get you Nazi Republicans out of office!

Hey Tony, don't you have school work to work on? How do you come off making fun of my age, when you make posts like this.....Jeez....

Dphins4me
01-14-2005, 04:17 AM
He is a moron. Its one thing to not agree and make a statement, but he just goes up there and rambles on about his nonsense, and all of his garbage views. Even if I were anti-war I still wouldnt like him. I hope he is enveloped in a fiery car accident on the way home.
His political views may be moronic, but the man is far from a moron.

He convinced people to go see a propaganda film (Something usually seen for free) and made over 100 million on it.

The morons are the people that paid to see it.

??? to win
01-14-2005, 04:33 AM
Props to Michael Moore for trying to get you Nazi Republicans out of office!


This from the guy with "Stop Hatin'" in his sig????

In the spirit of Barbara Streisand, let me reply on behalf of NYanksFan13...


I DIDN'T MEAN ME!!!

??? to win
01-14-2005, 04:48 AM
Not bashing your post, but do you really think America would really have a tax rate of 70% if the Dems were in office?

I'm just wondering how you'd figure it would get up to 70%. That number just boggled me. :P
No offense, but why don't people do simple google searches before asking questions? All the information in the world is at your fingertips. Why choose ignorance over effort?

From 1936 to 1980 the top marginal income tax rate was greater than 70%.

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php

http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2005/01/topratesgraph-1.php



Repubs are all for tax breaks (for whomever they choose to get those breaks is a different post/topic)
Tax Cuts vs. Government Revenue

In each of the last three cuts in marginal tax rates, revenues received by the U.S. Treasury have increased. Coolidge cut tax rates in the 1920s, Kennedy cut marginal tax rates in the 1960s, and Reagan cut them in the 1980s.

Under Coolidge, marginal tax rates were cut from the top rate of 73% to 24%. The economy rewarded this policy by expanding 59% from 1921 to 1929. Revenues received by the federal treasury increased from $719 million in 1921 to more than $1.1 billion 1929. That's a 61% increase (there was zero inflation in this period). Growth averaged more than six percent annually. We are currently growing at 2.5%.

Under Kennedy, marginal tax rates were cut from a top rate of 91% to 70%. In real dollar terms, the economy grew by 42%, an average of 5 percent a year from 1961 to 1965. Tax revenue to the U.S. Treasury increased by 62%. Adjusted for inflation, they rose by one-third.

Under Reagan, marginal tax rates were cut from a top of 70% to 28%. Revenues (from all taxes) to the U.S. Treasury nearly doubled. According to the Budget of the U.S. Government, FY 1997, Office of Management and Budget. Revenues increased from roughly $500 billion in 1980 to $1.1 trillion in 1990.

In each case, the personal income taxes paid by "the rich" increased when their tax rates were cut. The top 10 percent of earners in the Reagan years paid 48% of the income tax burden between 1981 and 1988. [/B]

http://www.mackinac.org/article.asp?ID=676



I don't understand
Most people don't.
.
.
.

??? to win
01-14-2005, 04:58 AM
For those with short attention spans...

Tax cuts cause the rich to pay MORE taxes.

Other than petty spite, what's the purpose of raising taxes on the rich?

??? to win
01-14-2005, 09:03 PM
Other than petty spite, what's the purpose of raising taxes on the rich?

Well? Anyone? Anyone? :roflmao:

themole
01-14-2005, 09:12 PM
Not bashing your post, but do you really think America would really have a tax rate of 70% if the Dems were in office? I don't understand how this could have transpired. I thought if anything, it'd be pretty even considering the amount of tax money Dems use for the US compared to the amount of tax money Repubs are using for Iraq. Now obviously Repubs are all for tax breaks (for whomever they choose to get those breaks is a different post/topic) but do you think it would get that much out of hand to enforce people to pay 70% of their wages just for taxes? I know when Clinton was coming out of office we were going into a slight recession, but at that point still we had a surplus that we definately don't have now.

I'm just wondering how you'd figure it would get up to 70%. That number just boggled me. :P

Dolphan984. I could not have given a better example than the one that "??? To Win" put forth so we will let that one stand.

Nzone
01-14-2005, 09:22 PM
Well? Anyone? Anyone? :roflmao:
I think the theory is cutting taxes spurs growth and the treasury takes in more revenue. Not exactly the rich paying more in taxes. That is repub thinking but it never quite pans out that way.

The last 16 years of repub Presidents we have ran up a 6 trillion debt. The 8 years under Clinton we had a huge surplus and actually paid down the debt.

After 8 years of Bush, he plans to cut the deficit in half (not debt).

The truth is one is taking us deeper in debt the other didn't.

themole
01-14-2005, 09:26 PM
Well? Anyone? Anyone? :roflmao:

The "Rich" are in position to "aviod" taxes. They will only pass them along in higher prices or work force reduction. I begrudge no man for the wealth he accumulates. Our Congress is the villain, along with the IRS they use as enforcerers.

??? to win
01-14-2005, 09:54 PM
I think the theory is cutting taxes spurs growth and the treasury takes in more revenue. Not exactly the rich paying more in taxes. That is repub thinking but it never quite pans out that way.


What about this don't you grasp? When the rich pay a lower percentage they often end up paying more money.

For example, instead of paying 70% of $1,000,000 they pay 35% of $3,000,000.

People do not get tax breaks for stuffing money in their mattress. People avoid taxes largely by reinvesting the money into the economy. The more money they have to invest, the more money they make and the more income they have to pay tax on. That's in addition to having more money to spend generating more sales and property tax.

Tax Cuts vs. Government Revenue

In each of the last three cuts in marginal tax rates, revenues received by the U.S. Treasury have increased. Coolidge cut tax rates in the 1920s, Kennedy cut marginal tax rates in the 1960s, and Reagan cut them in the 1980s.

Under Coolidge, marginal tax rates were cut from the top rate of 73% to 24%. The economy rewarded this policy by expanding 59% from 1921 to 1929. Revenues received by the federal treasury increased from $719 million in 1921 to more than $1.1 billion 1929. That's a 61% increase (there was zero inflation in this period). Growth averaged more than six percent annually. We are currently growing at 2.5%.

Under Kennedy, marginal tax rates were cut from a top rate of 91% to 70%. In real dollar terms, the economy grew by 42%, an average of 5 percent a year from 1961 to 1965. Tax revenue to the U.S. Treasury increased by 62%. Adjusted for inflation, they rose by one-third.

Under Reagan, marginal tax rates were cut from a top of 70% to 28%. Revenues (from all taxes) to the U.S. Treasury nearly doubled. According to the Budget of the U.S. Government, FY 1997, Office of Management and Budget. Revenues increased from roughly $500 billion in 1980 to $1.1 trillion in 1990.

In each case, the personal income taxes paid by "the rich" increased when their tax rates were cut. The top 10 percent of earners in the Reagan years paid 48% of the income tax burden between 1981 and 1988. [/B]

http://www.mackinac.org/article.asp?ID=676

??? to win
01-14-2005, 10:03 PM
The "Rich" are in position to "aviod" taxes.
How do the rich legally avoid taxes? By investing in the economy. They also hire accountants. Guess what? They pay these accountants causing them to pay more income tax.


They will only pass them along in higher prices or work force reduction.
Except for sole proprietors, rich individuals cannot pass on their personal taxes anymore than the rest of us. It's business and corporations that rightfully pass on taxes to the end consumer.

themole
01-14-2005, 10:28 PM
What about this don't you grasp? When the rich pay a lower percentage they often end up paying more money.

For example, instead of paying 70% of $1,000,000 they pay 35% of $3,000,000.

People do not get tax breaks for stuffing money in their mattress. People avoid taxes largely by reinvesting the money into the economy. The more money they have to invest, the more money they make and the more income they have to pay tax on. That's in addition to having more money to spend generating more sales and property tax.

Tax Cuts vs. Government Revenue

In each of the last three cuts in marginal tax rates, revenues received by the U.S. Treasury have increased. Coolidge cut tax rates in the 1920s, Kennedy cut marginal tax rates in the 1960s, and Reagan cut them in the 1980s.

Under Coolidge, marginal tax rates were cut from the top rate of 73% to 24%. The economy rewarded this policy by expanding 59% from 1921 to 1929. Revenues received by the federal treasury increased from $719 million in 1921 to more than $1.1 billion 1929. That's a 61% increase (there was zero inflation in this period). Growth averaged more than six percent annually. We are currently growing at 2.5%.

Under Kennedy, marginal tax rates were cut from a top rate of 91% to 70%. In real dollar terms, the economy grew by 42%, an average of 5 percent a year from 1961 to 1965. Tax revenue to the U.S. Treasury increased by 62%. Adjusted for inflation, they rose by one-third.

Under Reagan, marginal tax rates were cut from a top of 70% to 28%. Revenues (from all taxes) to the U.S. Treasury nearly doubled. According to the Budget of the U.S. Government, FY 1997, Office of Management and Budget. Revenues increased from roughly $500 billion in 1980 to $1.1 trillion in 1990.

In each case, the personal income taxes paid by "the rich" increased when their tax rates were cut. The top 10 percent of earners in the Reagan years paid 48% of the income tax burden between 1981 and 1988. [/B]

http://www.mackinac.org/article.asp?ID=676

What I can't understand is how so many people of this nation "Don't get it" as to what this nation really is. Our founders brought forth to this continent a new nation conceived in liberty. Its economy would be the lifes blood that guaranteed individualism and sovereignty to each persons liberty. They established a government to insure the right to pursue that individuals happiness would not be infringed upon.

finataxia24
01-14-2005, 10:31 PM
hey mole everything turn out ok with your son

oh & i agree with what u are saying

themole
01-14-2005, 10:39 PM
How do the rich legally avoid taxes? By investing in the economy. They also hire accountants. Guess what? They pay these accountants causing them to pay more income tax.


Except for sole proprietors, rich individuals cannot pass on their personal taxes anymore than the rest of us. It's business and corporations that rightfully pass on taxes to the end consumer.

???.... I don't profess to know our tax codes. I do know the spirit of what the Founding Fathers intended and I'm in full agreement with that. Our tax system is an enemy to it.

themole
01-14-2005, 10:48 PM
hey mole everything turn out ok with your son

oh & i agree with what u are saying

Thanks for asking fintaxia. The judge threw it out of court and re-embursed him his "my" lol $250.

Sorry I didn't post the outcome. All's good to go now.

finataxia24
01-14-2005, 11:06 PM
good to hear man.... Now something we can all agree on


http://www.finheaven.com/clear.gif




http://www.finheaven.com/clear.gif

http://www.finheaven.com/clear.gif


http://www.finheaven.com/clear.gif




http://www.finheaven.com/clear.gif


http://www.finheaven.com/clear.gif


http://www.finheaven.com/clear.gif

themole
01-14-2005, 11:23 PM
good to hear man.... Now something we can all agree on


http://www.finheaven.com/clear.gif




http://www.finheaven.com/clear.gif

http://www.finheaven.com/clear.gif


http://www.finheaven.com/clear.gif




http://www.finheaven.com/clear.gif


http://www.finheaven.com/clear.gif


http://www.finheaven.com/clear.gif


OH MY!!!!

I'm sure on a one on one basis, eyeball to eyeball we could agree on many things.

The only time I actually get upset and ready to cross swords is with those who are from this nation and actually profess to hate it. By hating this nation I mean someone who hates the Constitution and the ideals that spawned it.

Nzone
01-14-2005, 11:58 PM
What about this don't you grasp? When the rich pay a lower percentage they often end up paying more money.

For example, instead of paying 70% of $1,000,000 they pay 35% of $3,000,000.

People do not get tax breaks for stuffing money in their mattress. People avoid taxes largely by reinvesting the money into the economy. The more money they have to invest, the more money they make and the more income they have to pay tax on. That's in addition to having more money to spend generating more sales and property tax.

I hear what your saying.. I do not advocate higher taxes, but hey, we have to pay the nations bills.

Logic tells me a higher tax rate would spur reinvestment to avoid paying taxes on that income (tax shelter)? Grows the economy! In the case of small businesses, reinvestment could move them to a lower income bracket.

I also believe putting more money in the hands of people that spend it grows the economy. Thats the middle and lower class.

finataxia24
01-15-2005, 12:06 AM
I hear what your saying.. I do not advocate higher taxes, but hey, we have to pay the nations bills.

Logic tells me a higher tax rate would spur reinvestment to avoid paying taxes on that income (tax shelter)? In the case of small businesses, reinvestment could move them to a lower income bracket.

I also believe putting more money in the hands of people that spend it spurs economy. Thats the middle and lower class.

I agree....

but c'mon what do u think about eva???

Nzone
01-15-2005, 12:09 AM
I hear what your saying.. I do not advocate higher taxes, but hey, we have to pay the nations bills.

Logic tells me a higher tax rate would spur reinvestment to avoid paying taxes on that income (tax shelter)? In the case of small businesses, reinvestment could move them to a lower income bracket.

I also believe putting more money in the hands of people that spend it spurs economy. Thats the middle and lower class.

I agree....

but c'mon what do u think about eva???
She should put some cloths on... :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

finataxia24
01-15-2005, 12:13 AM
http://www.finheaven.com/clear.gif


nzone u got to thank the lord for making someone like this

Nzone
01-15-2005, 12:27 AM
http://www.finheaven.com/clear.gif


nzone u got to thank the lord for making someone like this
Yes, yes.. I'm very thankful for the Lord making one of those for me too!.....:D :D :D :D :D :D

??? to win
01-15-2005, 02:09 AM
Logic tells me a higher tax rate would spur reinvestment to avoid paying taxes on that income (tax shelter)? Grows the economy! In the case of small businesses, reinvestment could move them to a lower income bracket.

I also believe putting more money in the hands of people that spend it grows the economy. Thats the middle and lower class.
Logic? Liberal logic? Isn't that an oxymoron?

Regardless of what "logic" tells you, reality is different.

Higher tax rate TAKES MORE MONEY AWAY FROM PEOPLE! THEY HAVE LESS TO INVEST.

THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT REDISTRIBUTE WEALTH! THEY DON'T TAKE THE MONEY AND GIVE IT TO THE POOR!

One rich person circulates more money than a dozen or even a 100 middle class people. Rich people buy rich toys - many of which incur "luxury" tax rates. Property, new homes, yachts, cars, airplanes, etc, etc, etc.

Nzone
01-15-2005, 02:34 AM
Logic? Liberal logic? Isn't that an oxymoron?

Regardless of what "logic" tells you, reality is different.

Higher tax rate TAKES MORE MONEY AWAY FROM PEOPLE! THEY HAVE LESS TO INVEST.

THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT REDISTRIBUTE WEALTH! THEY DON'T TAKE THE MONEY AND GIVE IT TO THE POOR!

One rich person circulates more money than a dozen or even a 100 middle class people. Rich people buy rich toys - many of which incur "luxury" tax rates. Property, new homes, yachts, cars, airplanes, etc, etc, etc.Then I ask you, why is it a repub President never has a robust economy? Wouldn't you think after 12 years of Reagan/Bush Sr, and a huge tax cut (Top marginal tax rate 28%) we would have had a robust economy? Sorry, but we didn't. The slogan "the economy stupid" is what got Bush Sr. canned (NO JOBS). Dan Quayle was pointing at help wanted signs at McDonalds saying "see, there's jobs."

Rafiki
01-15-2005, 03:45 AM
What's so wrong with raising the question between the Bin Laden family and the Bush family?

The present day President and the modern day Villan are indeed linked. Wether or not it's of any importance is debatable I guess.

Dphins4me
01-15-2005, 09:58 AM
Then I ask you, why is it a repub President never has a robust economy?
Never? You don't have any idea as to what you are talking about, do ya?

Rep are the only ones that drive the economy, they put money into the economy, raising taxes to give the Gov more money does nothing for the economy.

Dphins4me
01-15-2005, 10:04 AM
Logic? Liberal logic? Isn't that an oxymoron?

Regardless of what "logic" tells you, reality is different.

Higher tax rate TAKES MORE MONEY AWAY FROM PEOPLE! THEY HAVE LESS TO INVEST.

THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT REDISTRIBUTE WEALTH! THEY DON'T TAKE THE MONEY AND GIVE IT TO THE POOR!

One rich person circulates more money than a dozen or even a 100 middle class people. Rich people buy rich toys - many of which incur "luxury" tax rates. Property, new homes, yachts, cars, airplanes, etc, etc, etc.
Speaking of the luxury tax. Remember when the Dem put it on the yachts under Clinton and thought that it would the rich would simply pay the higher taxes.

What it ended up doing was costing the people who make the yachts their jobs, because the rich told the Gov to go screw their new tax.

This is a great example of how high taxes destroy the economy. It removes money from the economy and lets face it. The Gov has no idea about how to spend MY money.

I really do not understand why people hate the rich so much. They start businesses that hire people and provide job so others can provide for their families.

I've yet to have a poor person offer me a job, so I can support my family.

I love rich people. They are what drive America.

Nzone
01-15-2005, 03:01 PM
Speaking of the luxury tax. Remember when the Dem put it on the yachts under Clinton and thought that it would the rich would simply pay the higher taxes.

What it ended up doing was costing the people who make the yachts their jobs, because the rich told the Gov to go screw their new tax.

This is a great example of how high taxes destroy the economy. It removes money from the economy and lets face it. The Gov has no idea about how to spend MY money.

I really do not understand why people hate the rich so much. They start businesses that hire people and provide job so others can provide for their families.

I've yet to have a poor person offer me a job, so I can support my family.

I love rich people. They are what drive America.That "people hate the rich" slogan is getting old. In your mind asking the rich to pay a 3% higher tax rate means people must hate them. WRONG!...

The repubs insist on running a huge national debt and either now or later, someone in this country is going to be taxed to pay for it. Who will it be, the middle class or the upper class?

The bottom line is the repubs are driving the nation deeper in debt and in the end we the middle class is going to be the ones paying for it!

ohall
01-15-2005, 03:08 PM
That "people hate the rich" slogan is getting old. In your mind asking the rich to pay a 3% higher tax rate means people must hate them. WRONG!...

The repubs insist on running a huge national debt and either now or later, someone in this country is going to be taxed to pay for it. Who will it be, the middle class or the upper class?

The bottom line is the repubs are driving the nation deeper in debt and in the end we the middle class is going to be the ones paying for it!

Why should someone pay more taxes just because they are better at making $?

Nzone
01-15-2005, 04:09 PM
Why should someone pay more taxes just because they are better at making $?Well, the alternative would be raising taxes on the other 90% of our population. With 90% of the people having less money to spend it will hurt the economy and in the process hurt big business costing them far more money.

The fact is someone is going to pay more taxes. If your middle class and want to pay more taxes, be my guest.

If I were the younger generation, I would demand a balanced budget amendment, because the older generation is going to die off and leave the young with a huge national debt that will be disastrous to their standard of living. TAXED OUT THE WAZOOLAH!!!

ohall
01-15-2005, 04:33 PM
Well, the alternative would be raising taxes on the other 90% of our population. With 90% of the people having less money to spend it will hurt the economy and in the process hurt big business costing them far more money.

The fact is someone is going to pay more taxes. If your middle class and want to pay more taxes, be my guest.

If I were the younger generation, I would demand a balanced budget amendment, because the older generation is going to die off and leave the young with a huge national debt that will be disastrous to their standard of living. TAXED OUT THE WAZOOLAH!!!

So let me understand this. You work harder, you are able to accumalte $ better than most and you should be fined for this?

What world do you live in? What about equality?

I say we penalize the lazy ppl of the world. If we are going to want to make fantasies come true, that is the one I would support.

Nzone
01-15-2005, 05:03 PM
So let me understand this. You work harder, you are able to accumalte $ better than most and you should be fined for this?
Fine? It's not a fine, it's paying for a strong national defense to protect that wealth and standard of living. The middle class pay for it with their lives.



What world do you live in? What about equality?

I say we penalize the lazy ppl of the world. If we are going to want to make fantasies come true, that is the one I would support.
ohall, are you suggesting we tax the Kings and Queens of the world? I don't think that would go over too well at tea time. But, if you insist, I'll bring it up at the next board meeting, but I will assure you, Leona Helmsley is going to think you have gall. ("Only little people pay taxes (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,656070,00.html)")

ohall
01-15-2005, 06:21 PM
Fine? It's not a fine, it's paying for a strong national defense to protect that wealth and standard of living. The middle class pay for it with their lives.


ohall, are you suggesting we tax the Kings and Queens of the world? I don't think that would go over too well at tea time. But, if you insist, I'll bring it up at the next board meeting, but I will assure you, Leona Helmsley is going to think you have gall. ("Only little people pay taxes (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,656070,00.html)")

I'm not talking about the world. We are not the world; we only control our lil slice of it. IMO it is wrong to fine certain ppl just because they are able to acquire more wealth. It just seems to be counter productive IMO. It is also illogical to say the least.

Oh and there's no doubt it is a fine.

??? to win
01-15-2005, 06:33 PM
That "people hate the rich" slogan is getting old. In your mind asking the rich to pay a 3% higher tax rate means people must hate them. WRONG!...
The problem with this type of thinking is it ignore the fact that rich already pay 3x as much.

Poor: 10%
Rich: 30%

Nzone
01-15-2005, 06:52 PM
I'm not talking about the world. We are not the world; we only control our lil slice of it. IMO it is wrong to fine certain ppl just because they are able to acquire more wealth. It just seems to be counter productive IMO. It is also illogical to say the least.

Oh and there's no doubt it is a fine.
I guess I should have said Kings and Queens of America, but now days they are multi-national.

If paying for a strong national defense is a fine then surely the middle class has paid the ultimate fine with their lives. If you ask me the taxes are the smaller of the fines.

iceblizzard69
01-15-2005, 07:25 PM
So let me understand this. You work harder, you are able to accumalte $ better than most and you should be fined for this?

What world do you live in? What about equality?

I say we penalize the lazy ppl of the world. If we are going to want to make fantasies come true, that is the one I would support.

Just because someone doesn't make a lot of money doesn't mean they are "lazy." My mom makes a lot more than my dad but yet he works way more hours.

The poor already struggle to make a living. Imagine how much worse it would be if "we punished them." The divide between the rich and poor would increase even more. It would weaken the lower and middle classes and that would weaken the economy. The key to a strong economy is a strong middle class. That's always the difference between the richer and poorer nations of the world. The poorer nations tend to have the weakest middle classes while the richer nations have the strongest ones.

If we "penalize" the lower classes like you want because "they are lazy," then we will have more poverty. Yeah, great ****ing idea. :rolleyes2

Nzone
01-15-2005, 07:42 PM
The problem with this type of thinking is it ignore the fact that rich already pay 3x as much.You might be shocked to find that according to the Congressional Budget Office the middle class are paying 64% of all taxes collected, while people making over a 1 million are paying 20.1% and their tax rate has fallen from 33.4 percent to 26.7 percent, and thats before deductions/loop holes/shelters.

You can see why Kerry wanted to raise the taxes on the top 10%.

"Stephen Moore, president of the Club for Growth, writes in the WALL STREET JOURNAL on Monday:

"According to the Kerrys' own tax records, the couple had a combined income of $6.8 million in income last year and paid $725,000 in income taxes. That means their effective tax rate was a whopping 12.8%....

"Under the current tax system the middle class pays far more than the Kerry tax rate. In fact, the average federal tax rate -- combined payroll and income tax -- for a middle-class family is closer to 20% or more." (30%)

Don't let anybody tell you the rich are paying half of their income in taxes. Their effective tax rate is far less than the middle class.

Nzone
01-15-2005, 08:35 PM
Quoting from the previous article: "Only little people pay taxes (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,656070,00.html)"

"Enron could afford to stuff the pockets of hundreds of politicians, journalists, academics and judges because it didn't pay a penny of income tax for four of the corporation's last five years." and big campaign contributions!

Corporate welfare and kick backs!

Do you hear that? Thats how the game works. Enron, the company that was robbing California blind in energy costs didn't pay a penny income tax 4 of 5 years.

ohall
01-15-2005, 08:42 PM
Just because someone doesn't make a lot of money doesn't mean they are "lazy." My mom makes a lot more than my dad but yet he works way more hours.

The poor already struggle to make a living. Imagine how much worse it would be if "we punished them." The divide between the rich and poor would increase even more. It would weaken the lower and middle classes and that would weaken the economy. The key to a strong economy is a strong middle class. That's always the difference between the richer and poorer nations of the world. The poorer nations tend to have the weakest middle classes while the richer nations have the strongest ones.

If we "penalize" the lower classes like you want because "they are lazy," then we will have more poverty. Yeah, great ****ing idea. :rolleyes2

Whether you are rich or poor you should not pay less or more taxes as far as % wise based on that. That kind of thinking is almost communist at it's core IMO.

Dphins4me
01-15-2005, 09:15 PM
That "people hate the rich" slogan is getting old. In your mind asking the rich to pay a 3% higher tax rate means people must hate them. WRONG!...
3% more? If you make over 319K a year you pay 35% of your pay to Fed tax. That means that 111,650 goes to Fed tax. I think they are pulling their fair share.


The repubs insist on running a huge national debt and either now or later, someone in this country is going to be taxed to pay for it. Who will it be, the middle class or the upper class?...
You do not have to raise taxes to simply pay off the debt. You pay it off with a booming economy.

However it has nothing to do with Rep or Dem. Both spend money to get themselves re-elected and until we allow no more re-election then it is something we will always deal with.


The bottom line is the repubs are driving the nation deeper in debt and in the end we the middle class is going to be the ones paying for it! The middle class pays the most simply because they are the majority. However dollar for dollar the people making the most pay the most.

The sad thing is people want the rich to pay the most, but when it comes time to get it back the poorer people want it returned to them and think its unfair for the rich to get the biggest piece.

Bascially people want to steal from the rich via the Gov.

Dphins4me
01-15-2005, 09:19 PM
Everyone needs to write their congressman and tell him to vote for the Fair Tax Plan.

It would stop all this rich, poor income tax BS.

The IRS would then be done away with.

There would be no income tax and a 23% sales tax on purchases.

It would be great for corporations and even tourist would be paying the sales tax, but the kicker is cost of items would remain the same because of all the embedded taxes would also be gone and everyone would get a check from the Gov each month since you would also not be taxed on the basic needs of life.

Everyone needs to read up on it and push for it.

Research "The Fair Tax Plan"

finataxia24
01-15-2005, 09:21 PM
You might be shocked to find that according to the Congressional Budget Office the middle class are paying 64% of all taxes collected, while people making over a 1 million are paying 20.1% and their tax rate has fallen from 33.4 percent to 26.7 percent, and thats before deductions/loop holes/shelters.

You can see why Kerry wanted to raise the taxes on the top 10%.

"Stephen Moore, president of the Club for Growth, writes in the WALL STREET JOURNAL on Monday:

"According to the Kerrys' own tax records, the couple had a combined income of $6.8 million in income last year and paid $725,000 in income taxes. That means their effective tax rate was a whopping 12.8%....

"Under the current tax system the middle class pays far more than the Kerry tax rate. In fact, the average federal tax rate -- combined payroll and income tax -- for a middle-class family is closer to 20% or more." (30%)

Don't let anybody tell you the rich are paying half of their income in taxes. Their effective tax rate is far less than the middle class.
preach on brother nzone

Dphins4me
01-15-2005, 09:23 PM
Well, the alternative would be raising taxes on the other 90% of our population. With 90% of the people having less money to spend it will hurt the economy and in the process hurt big business costing them far more money.

The fact is someone is going to pay more taxes. If your middle class and want to pay more taxes, be my guest.

If I were the younger generation, I would demand a balanced budget amendment, because the older generation is going to die off and leave the young with a huge national debt that will be disastrous to their standard of living. TAXED OUT THE WAZOOLAH!!!

A balanced budget is not a good thing.

The Gov needs to be able to spend more when the economy slows in order to put money into the economy and then needs to spend less when the economy is booming.

A balanced budget will not allow this.

The problem is the Gov just wants to spend and not have to concern themselves with budgets. That is why SS is in such bad shape.

Dphins4me
01-15-2005, 09:25 PM
You might be shocked to find that according to the Congressional Budget Office the middle class are paying 64% of all taxes collected, while people making over a 1 million are paying 20.1% and their tax rate has fallen from 33.4 percent to 26.7 percent, and thats before deductions/loop holes/shelters.

You can see why Kerry wanted to raise the taxes on the top 10%.

"Stephen Moore, president of the Club for Growth, writes in the WALL STREET JOURNAL on Monday:

"According to the Kerrys' own tax records, the couple had a combined income of $6.8 million in income last year and paid $725,000 in income taxes. That means their effective tax rate was a whopping 12.8%....

"Under the current tax system the middle class pays far more than the Kerry tax rate. In fact, the average federal tax rate -- combined payroll and income tax -- for a middle-class family is closer to 20% or more." (30%)

Don't let anybody tell you the rich are paying half of their income in taxes. Their effective tax rate is far less than the middle class.
Fair Tax plan=No Deductions.

Fair Tax Plan (http://home.comcast.net/~spameni/fair_tax.htm)

??? to win
01-16-2005, 02:33 AM
You might be shocked to find that according to the Congressional Budget Office the middle class are paying 64% of all taxes collected
To give your statement some context, please define "middle class" and tell us what percentage of the taxpaying population they represent.

??? to win
01-16-2005, 02:35 AM
"Stephen Moore, president of the Club for Growth, writes in the WALL STREET JOURNAL on Monday:

"According to the Kerrys' own tax records, the couple had a combined income of $6.8 million in income last year and paid $725,000 in income taxes. That means their effective tax rate was a whopping 12.8%....
Did Kerry finally release his tax records? Didn't he refuse to during the election?

??? to win
01-16-2005, 02:39 AM
Don't let anybody tell you the rich are paying half of their income in taxes. Their effective tax rate is far less than the middle class.
I've never heard anyone say this. I think you may be confused. What was said is that the rich pay half of all income taxes.

iceblizzard69
01-16-2005, 02:52 AM
Whether you are rich or poor you should not pay less or more taxes as far as % wise based on that. That kind of thinking is almost communist at it's core IMO.

I don't think everyone should make the same amount, but I do believe that having a flat tax would hurt our whole nation and most politicians agree. It would make the rich/poor divide even larger and put more people into poverty. Last time I checked, having people in poverty is a bad thing.

If you think my thinking is communist, then you must think that our current tax system is communist. I'm advocating for what we currently have.

iceblizzard69
01-16-2005, 02:55 AM
Everyone needs to write their congressman and tell him to vote for the Fair Tax Plan.

It would stop all this rich, poor income tax BS.

The IRS would then be done away with.

There would be no income tax and a 23% sales tax on purchases.

It would be great for corporations and even tourist would be paying the sales tax, but the kicker is cost of items would remain the same because of all the embedded taxes would also be gone and everyone would get a check from the Gov each month since you would also not be taxed on the basic needs of life.

Everyone needs to read up on it and push for it.

Research "The Fair Tax Plan"

Oh man, what a great idea. Let's make life harder for pretty much everyone!

That sales tax would hurt so many people. The elderly would be really hurt by that. Kids like me who work and don't have to pay a lot of tax would be really hurt by that. The lower and middle classes would be hurt by that, and a portion of the upper class would as well. Oh yeah, and people will have less of a desire to buy things in this country. If we implement a sales tax like that, you will see a lot more people buying things online from foreign countries. Yeah, the shipping would be expensive, but I would imagine shipping could still be cheaper in some cases than the extreme taxes we would have to pay.

All in all, the idea of a national salex tax is stupid. If you love screwing people over though, I guess you will think it's a good idea.

iceblizzard69
01-16-2005, 02:56 AM
Did Kerry finally release his tax records? Didn't he refuse to during the election?

His wife initially refused to but later did.

??? to win
01-16-2005, 02:57 AM
When? What was the approximate date? Was it before or after the election?

Dphins4me
01-16-2005, 10:12 AM
Oh man, what a great idea. Let's make life harder for pretty much everyone!

That sales tax would hurt so many people. The elderly would be really hurt by that. Kids like me who work and don't have to pay a lot of tax would be really hurt by that. The lower and middle classes would be hurt by that, and a portion of the upper class would as well.
Obviously you either did not check it out or simply do not understand how it would work.

It would actually help people who make less because they would actually be pay less for their products (embedded taxes GONE)and also getting a check from the Gov each month, plus they would be bringing home more of their check since the Fed Income tax would be GONE.

Its the simple fact of change that is scaring you. Its the unknown, just like with politics, people will not allow another party because they are too scared too change.




Oh yeah, and people will have less of a desire to buy things in this country. If we implement a sales tax like that, you will see a lot more people buying things online from foreign countries. Please!!!



Yeah, the shipping would be expensive, but I would imagine shipping could still be cheaper in some cases than the extreme taxes we would have to pay.
Dude, you would actual be paying less for the same products you purchase today.


All in all, the idea of a national salex tax is stupid. If you love screwing people over though, I guess you will think it's a good idea.
Again, do some research on it. It would be a much better system than what we have now. No deductions for the rich. The US would be a major draw for companies to locate here instead of moving their corperate headquarters out of the US to avoid paying income taxes on products already sold overseas.

Think man, think.

Do the research and do not be scared of simple change. The current system was set up years ago. Times change, why think something created that many years ago still works today.

iceblizzard69
01-16-2005, 10:37 AM
Obviously you either did not check it out or simply do not understand how it would work.

It would actually help people who make less because they would actually be pay less for their products (embedded taxes GONE)and also getting a check from the Gov each month, plus they would be bringing home more of their check since the Fed Income tax would be GONE.

Companies won't lower their prices because some tax is gone. This is America, where everything is about profits.


Its the simple fact of change that is scaring you. Its the unknown, just like with politics, people will not allow another party because they are too scared too change.

I'm scared of stupidity, not change.




Dude, you would actual be paying less for the same products you purchase today.

Even if prices on products are lowered (which I doubt), they won't be lowered 23%!



Again, do some research on it. It would be a much better system than what we have now. No deductions for the rich. The US would be a major draw for companies to locate here instead of moving their corperate headquarters out of the US to avoid paying income taxes on products already sold overseas.

No one likes taxes, but we need them. There is no way some national sales tax would bring in enough revenue to our government.



Do the research and do not be scared of simple change. The current system was set up years ago. Times change, why think something created that many years ago still works today.

We have a progressive tax system now. Why replace it with a regressive one?

There is no ****in way that poor people will benefit from having to pay 23% tax on every item. They pay a way lower percentage of income tax and they have to spend all of their money to survive. Just THINK for a second. Don't be a blind optimist. Companies aren't going to severly lower their prices because you want them to. That isn't realistic. They need to make profits and if their prices are too low, they won't. The only people who benefit from this are the extremely wealthy because they don't have to spend all of the money they make and the 23% is lower than the 30something percent they pay now in income tax. Everyone else gets ****ed by this. Oh yeah, and there's no way that this would give the government the money it needs. You can not argue that those near the poverty line benefit from this. You can't argue that the elderly who make a fixed income benefit from this. The only people who would benefit from this are people like Dubya who have millions of dollars. You shouldn't be taxed on what you spend, you should be taxed on what you make. This would be even worse than a flat tax because the rich would end up giving less of a percentage of the money they make to the government than the poor. Those making $20,000 dollars a year have to spend all of the money they make to survive and thus would be giving 23% of their income to the government (which is a lot more than they currently do.) Those making $500,000 a year don't spend all of the money they make and would be giving a lot less than 23% of their money to the government. All this system would do is give the rich a lot more money while the poor would be forced to have even less and take more of the tax burden that they already can't afford. There's a reason why all Democrats and many Republicans oppose a national sales tax. They oppose it because it is insanely stupid. It screws everyone in this country over except for a small minority and they know it.

iceblizzard69
01-16-2005, 10:38 AM
When? What was the approximate date? Was it before or after the election?

I don't remember the exact date, but it was months before.

??? to win
01-16-2005, 10:46 AM
I'm scared of stupidity, not change.
Autophobia?

iceblizzard69
01-16-2005, 02:04 PM
Autophobia?


Good one, genius. :rolleyes2

Dphins4me
01-16-2005, 03:17 PM
Companies won't lower their prices because some tax is gone. This is America, where everything is about profits.
Obviously then you do not believe in the process of competition.




I'm scared of stupidity, not change.
You would rather have a known evil than an unknown.



Even if prices on products are lowered (which I doubt), they won't be lowered 23%!
Again do the research and not just give knee jerk reaction.




No one likes taxes, but we need them. There is no way some national sales tax would bring in enough revenue to our government.
Be to differ. You simply like the old way where the Gov takes your money with you having a say in it.




We have a progressive tax system now. Why replace it with a regressive one?
Progessive? Where in the heck do you get that? The tax system is out dated. It allows tax shelters and lets people hide their money. What is progressive about that?

Tell me something that is that old that is still in use today and actually works?

The only thing let is the electoral college and that also needs upgrading.


There is no ****in way that poor people will benefit from having to pay 23% tax on every item. They pay a way lower percentage of income tax and they have to spend all of their money to survive. First off do a little research.

Second the poor would greatly benefit from it. They would actually get their paycheck, plus a check from the Gov for the basic essential, plus would pay less or the same for their purchases.



Just THINK for a second. Don't be a blind optimist. Companies aren't going to severly lower their prices because you want them to. That isn't realistic.
They will not lower then simply because we want them too, they will lower them because another company will in order to get you to buy their product.

Its called competition and it works.




They need to make profits and if their prices are too low, they won't. Yes, they will because they will also not be paying income taxes and other embedded taxes the Gov has put on their income.



The only people who benefit from this are the extremely wealthy because they don't have to spend all of the money they make and the 23% is lower than the 30something percent they pay now in income tax. Everyone else gets ****ed by this. Oh yeah, and there's no way that this would give the government the money it needs. You can not argue that those near the poverty line benefit from this. You can't argue that the elderly who make a fixed income benefit from this. The only people who would benefit from this are people like Dubya who have millions of dollars. You shouldn't be taxed on what you spend, you should be taxed on what you make. This would be even worse than a flat tax because the rich would end up giving less of a percentage of the money they make to the government than the poor. Those making $20,000 dollars a year have to spend all of the money they make to survive and thus would be giving 23% of their income to the government (which is a lot more than they currently do.) Those making $500,000 a year don't spend all of the money they make and would be giving a lot less than 23% of their money to the government. All this system would do is give the rich a lot more money while the poor would be forced to have even less and take more of the tax burden that they already can't afford. There's a reason why all Democrats and many Republicans oppose a national sales tax. They oppose it because it is insanely stupid. It screws everyone in this country over except for a small minority and they know it.
All you are giving me is knee jerk reaction. You obviously have not looked into and really have no idea about how it would work. Do some research on it and then we will talk. It will work if the Dave Wannstedt people of this world who are so afraid of a doing it differently would actually open their minds to understand and not just knee jerk it.

Why do people go back to politicians? They are the reason thing are so bad to begin with, because they do not care about spending. They spend to get re-elected and if they spend to much they simply raise your taxes.

Hold them accountable and push for change.

Nzone
01-16-2005, 03:40 PM
Right...... I want to pay $246,000 for a $200,000 home with the Gov collecting $46,000. And then if I sale the home I don't reclaim the $46G, the Gov gets another $46G from the buyer. And to top it off, If I buy another home to replace the one I sold, I pay another $46G. Talk about wrecking the economy, THE REPUBS ARE WORKING ON IT!!

Dphins4me
01-16-2005, 05:02 PM
Right...... I want to pay $246,000 for a $200,000 home with the Gov collecting $46,000. And then if I sale the home I don't reclaim the $46G, the Gov gets another $46G from the buyer. And to top it off, If I buy another home to replace the one I sold, I pay another $46G. Talk about wrecking the economy, THE REPUBS ARE WORKING ON IT!!
:shakeno: :rolleyes: Its obvious you have not one clue as to what you are rambling about.

Questions.

How many houses have you purchased in your life?

Why are you the only one that seems to pay sales tax on them? :rolleyes:

If you are paying, then I guess the say a fool and his money are soon parted :shakeno:

themole
01-16-2005, 05:07 PM
If you think my thinking is communist, then you must think that our current tax system is communist. I'm advocating for what we currently have.

That's precisely what I think!

Our current tax system IS communistic.

I've had 39 more years of dealing with it than you, to make that determination.

Once you are out in the world earning your own money, you will become a lot more fond of keeping every dollar that you have earned for yourself.

Read the Better Tax Plan.

iceblizzard69
01-16-2005, 05:26 PM
You blind optimists are hilarious. You guys need to step into reality. Unless you think the poor should be paying a higher percentage of their money to the government than the rich, then you shouldn't support a national sales tax. The reason why rich people give 30% and the poor give 15% is because that is what they can afford. That is what makes sense. The rich still have a large majority of the wealth of this nation, but this system is done because people are giving up a fair amount of money when considering their situation. A national salex tax will put a lot more money into rich people's bank accounts and will put more people into poverty. It will increase the already large divide between the rich and poor. When you people replace your blind optimism with common sense you will then realize this. There's a reason why most Democrats and Republicans in power are against a national sales tax, they are against it because it won't work. It is BAD for the PEOPLE OF AMERICA and even they realize that. Only the crazy politicans like Jim DeMint support such ridiculous changes to our tax system.

Oh yeah, and some of you need to read up on communism. Rich people giving 30% of their income to the government is not communism.

iceblizzard69
01-16-2005, 05:28 PM
That's precisely what I think!

Our current tax system IS communistic.

I've had 39 more years of dealing with it than you, to make that determination.

Once you are out in the world earning your own money, you will become a lot more fond of keeping every dollar that you have earned for yourself.

Read the Better Tax Plan.

I have had jobs. I don't pay a lot of tax on them because I'm a kid and the jobs only pay between $8-$10 per hour. However, I would have A LOT less money if there was a national sales tax.

themole
01-16-2005, 05:31 PM
I have had jobs. I don't pay a lot of tax on them because I'm a kid and the jobs only pay between $8-$10 per hour. However, I would have A LOT less money if there was a national sales tax.

READ THE PLAN!

Just click on the link provided for you in a previous link.

iceblizzard69
01-16-2005, 05:34 PM
READ THE PLAN!

Just click on the link provided for you in a previous link.

I know what "the plan" is, and I think it is insanely stupid just like most Americans. Only far right Republicans (not ones anywhere near the center) support such stupidity.

You can keep on dreaming about this dumb tax plan though because it will never actually happen. Democrats don't want it and many Republicans don't either.

Nzone
01-16-2005, 05:35 PM
:shakeno: :rolleyes: Its obvious you have not one clue as to what you are rambling about.

Questions.

How many houses have you purchased in your life?

Why are you the only one that seems to pay sales tax on them? :rolleyes:

If you are paying, then I guess the say a fool and his money are soon parted :shakeno:
Thats right and your about to be parted from your money!..:lol:

National Sales Tax per the CATO Institute

"Property (or services) produced or rendered outside of the United States (imports) would be taxed at the point of sale. Thus, virtually any consumer good (ranging from food to video games to cars) would be taxed. Apartment and house rents and home purchases also would be subject to tax. Goods purchased abroad by consumers would be taxed upon entry into the United States. Services to individuals and households (including, for example, services provided by barbers, plumbers, therapists, accountants, lawyers, doctors, and the like) would also be taxed."

Even services would be taxed....

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-272.html

Its obvious you have not one clue as to what you're rambling about! I suggest you learn something about a National Sales Tax before making your self look foolish!

Blitz
01-16-2005, 05:36 PM
Our current tax system IS communistic.

Love it or leave it. :roflmao:

America's tax system is not communistic in any way, shape, or form. A national sales tax would be a disaster compared to what we have today. You've been hit in the head too much if you think it's the way to go.

iceblizzard69
01-16-2005, 05:40 PM
Love it or leave it. :roflmao:

America's tax system is not communistic in any way, shape, or form. A national sales tax would be a disaster compared to what we have today. You've been hit in the head too much if you think it's the way to go.

These people don't even know what communism is. Anyone who knows anything about communism knows that our tax system is very far away from being communist.

themole
01-16-2005, 05:41 PM
Love it or leave it. :roflmao:

America's tax system is not communistic in any way, shape, or form. A national sales tax would be a disaster compared to what we have today. You've been hit in the head too much if you think it's the way to go.

Oh! I guess in your case the crack pipe is ok though. Hamburger flipper.
:shakeno:

themole
01-16-2005, 05:44 PM
I know what "the plan" is, and I think it is insanely stupid just like most Americans. Only far right Republicans (not ones anywhere near the center) support such stupidity.

You can keep on dreaming about this dumb tax plan though because it will never actually happen. Democrats don't want it and many Republicans don't either.

DID YOU READ IT?

Blitz
01-16-2005, 05:50 PM
Oh! I guess in your case the crack pipe is ok though. Hamburger flipper.
:shakeno:

This coming from the guy who still thinks Iraq is going according to plan :roflmao:

What have hard-right Republicans been right about lately? Not much. It must be terrible. Sooner or later hard-right Republicanism will be thrown back to minority status, and kept down for the rest of themole's life...

themole
01-16-2005, 05:50 PM
These people don't even know what communism is. Anyone who knows anything about communism knows that our tax system is very far away from being communist.

You people don't know the principles upon which this nation was founded.

The government taking from the haves to give to the have nots is one of the points of communism.

themole
01-16-2005, 06:11 PM
This coming from the guy who still thinks Iraq is going according to plan :roflmao:

What have hard-right Republicans been right about lately? Not much. It must be terrible. Sooner or later hard-right Republicanism will be thrown back to minority status, and kept down for the rest of themole's life...

I don't recall stating "ever" that the war was going according to plan. War is like a football game where your plans change according to what the opposition is trying to dictate to you. I don't think we have lost any of the battles much less the war.

If the plan was to have these up coming elections in Iraq, the it appears that the plan is on schedule.

:roflmao: Your philosophy has lost the last two elections yet you state: "Sooner or later hard-right Republicanism will be thrown back to minority status, and kept down for the rest of themole's life...[/QUOTE]" Beat us some more! We like it.

Blitz
01-16-2005, 06:16 PM
I don't think we have lost any of the battles much less the war.

What battles did we lose in Vietnam?

We're tied down in a guerilla war with no light in sight. If we lose in Iraq, which is a very real possibility, Republicans like you will be to blame. Most every Democrat bears no responsibility for this war. It will be YOUR generation's SECOND Vietnam. It will be Bush's, not America's, Vietnam. America isn't going to lose this war. Our troops are not going to lose this war. If anybody is going to lose this war, it's going to be Republicans: Republican politicians, bureaucrats, and voters such as yourself.


Your philosophy has lost the last two elections yet you state: "Sooner or later hard-right Republicanism will be thrown back to minority status, and kept down for the rest of themole's life" Beat us some more! We like it.

Hard-right Republicanism is on its last legs. This is the last time the electorate is going to vote Republican without positive results. People are going to expect positive results in these next four years. The days of blaming your problems on Democrats are over. There are no more excuses left. Unfortunately, we're going to get more of the same. As a result, you'll see Democratic gains in '06, and a Democratic majority in the House and Senate by '10 at the latest. After that day comes, you won't see another Republican majority in the House in your lifetime, themole.

Nzone
01-16-2005, 06:24 PM
The repubs won because of their propaganda war. Like Dems will ban the Bible..:rolleyes:

themole
01-16-2005, 06:39 PM
What battles did we lose in Vietnam?

We're tied down in a guerilla war with no light in sight. If we lose in Iraq, which is a very real possibility, Republicans like you will be to blame. Most every Democrat bears no responsibility for this war. It will be YOUR generation's SECOND Vietnam. It will be Bush's, not America's, Vietnam. America isn't going to lose this war. Our troops are not going to lose this war. If anybody is going to lose this war, it's going to be Republicans: Republican politicians, bureaucrats, and voters such as yourself.



Hard-right Republicanism is on its last legs. This is the last time the electorate is going to vote Republican without positive results. People are going to expect positive results in these next four years. The days of blaming your problems on Democrats are over. There are no more excuses left. Unfortunately, we're going to get more of the same. As a result, you'll see Democratic gains in '06, and a Democratic majority in the House and Senate by '10 at the latest. After that day comes, you won't see another Republican majority in the House in your lifetime, themole.


Why don't you just join up and go help the cause Blitz. :evil: Oh I forget. The war on terror is not your war is it? You prefer to go crawl up in your little hole and hope all this "terrorism" will go just go away. It will NOT! Covertly or Overtly, I don't care! I want it rooted out and KILLED. I prefer the covert method but thanks to Teddy Kennedy we are a little behind in that field.

Dphins4me
01-16-2005, 06:43 PM
Thats right and your about to be parted from your money!..:lol:

National Sales Tax per the CATO Institute

"Property (or services) produced or rendered outside of the United States (imports) would be taxed at the point of sale. Thus, virtually any consumer good (ranging from food to video games to cars) would be taxed. Apartment and house rents and home purchases also would be subject to tax. Goods purchased abroad by consumers would be taxed upon entry into the United States. Services to individuals and households (including, for example, services provided by barbers, plumbers, therapists, accountants, lawyers, doctors, and the like) would also be taxed."

Even services would be taxed....

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-272.html

Its obvious you have not one clue as to what you're rambling about! I suggest you learn something about a National Sales Tax before making your self look foolish! We were both wrong..

You get a tax credit when you sell you home & purchase another one.

Considering you would no longer be paying a income tax then your checks would then be larger and what little the tax would increase your payment would be slight in comparison to how much more you would be bringing home.

For me I would bring home about $1400 more per month and the tax would only be about $50 more per month. That is still a 1350 plus for me.

I'll pay the $50 bucks and put the rest in my wallet and spend it for myself and not just blindly give it to people we already know cannot be trusted to spend it.

Let us examine the case of a homeowner who sells a home and purchases a more expensive home. Assume he sold a home for $117,647 (of which $17,647 is tax). The seller would then be entitled to a credit of $17,647. If he then purchased another home for $176,471 (of which $26,471 would be tax), he would owe a net tax of $8,824 (the $26,471 of tax less the $17,647 credit from the sale of the previous home). Moreover, under the special rule for primary residences, the $8,824 could, at the taxpayer's election, be paid over 30 years (i.e., $294 per year or $25 per month plus interest). If, however, he had purchased a less expensive home and saved the difference, he would be entitled to a net refund. Of course, if he later took the savings and then spent it on, say, a new car, he would pay tax at that time on the car.

Still trying to find where the bad is in all of this.

You're 17, you should be opened to change. I would understand this if you were my age.

Blitz
01-16-2005, 06:48 PM
Why don't you just join up and go help the cause Blitz. :evil: Oh I forget. The war on terror is not your war is it?

The War on Terror is a war that every American has a stake in. However, the war in Iraq is NOT a part of the War on Terror, and you cannot blame all Americans for the war in Iraq if we lose it.


Covertly or Overtly, I don't care! I want it rooted out and KILLED.

I joined that club a long time ago. On 09/12/01, to be exact.


I prefer the covert method but thanks to Teddy Kennedy we are a little behind in that field.

Republicans have owned the House for a decade, the presidency for four years, and the Senate for nearly ten straight years. You can't blame today's problems on Teddy Kennedy. The year is 2005, not 1995 or 1985.

Dphins4me
01-16-2005, 06:50 PM
Love it or leave it. :roflmao:

America's tax system is not communistic in any way, shape, or form. A national sales tax would be a disaster compared to what we have today. You've been hit in the head too much if you think it's the way to go.
The only people against a NST will be people who are simply too afraid to try something different.

It will boom the economy and make the US attactive to all corperation around the world.

However, I know there will be some people who are simply too afraid of change and would rather stay with the old and tried, but failed system.

Just think, no IRS, no income tax return, no deductions just a very simple tax on things you choose to purchase.

Blitz
01-16-2005, 07:00 PM
The only people against a NST will be people who are simply too afraid to try something different.

Once you go to a NST, there's no turning back.



It will boom the economy and make the US attactive to all corperation around the world.

You also said that Bush's tax cuts would bring unprecedented prosperity. Unfortunately, the nation is not nearly as prosperous today as it was in the late-60s, mid-80s, and late-90s. What makes you think you're not wrong about this too?



However, I know there will be some people who are simply too afraid of change and would rather stay with the old and tried, but failed system.

Gee, we're already the greatest nation on the planet with the biggest and best economy. Do you really think it's old and worthless? We can do better, but our system is the best of the bunch, not anywhere close to being the worst, and it certainly does not need a massive overhaul.



Just think, no IRS, no income tax return, no deductions just a very simple tax on things you choose to purchase.

Every worthwhile study shows that the proposal you favor would be immoral in that it would amount to a significant, unaffordable tax hike on the poorest Americans. Furthermore, the proposal would almost surely create a massive, unsustainable budget deficit unless we made serious cuts to government spending (Including defense/intelligence cuts, which are out of the question). Perhaps the studies are wrong, but we cannot take such a massive risk.

Dphins4me
01-16-2005, 07:07 PM
Once you go to a NST, there's no turning back.
Turning back from what?




You also said that Bush's tax cuts would bring unprecedented prosperity. Unfortunately, the nation is not nearly as prosperous today as it was in the late-60s, mid-80s, and late-90s. What makes you think you're not wrong about this too?
No sure what you mean by you, since I have never said that. Also the tax cuts have helped get the economy turned around.




Gee, we're already the greatest nation on the planet with the biggest and best economy. Do you really think it's old and worthless? We can do better, but our system is the best of the bunch, not anywhere close to being the worst, and it certainly does not need a massive overhaul.
The tax system is outdated, it hinders the economy. The economy is alright, but it can be much much better.




Every worthwhile study shows that the proposal you favor would be immoral in that it would amount to a significant tax hike on the poorest Americans. Furthermore, the proposal would almost surely create a massive, unsustainable budget deficit unless we made serious cuts to government spending (Including defense/intelligence cuts, which are out of the question).
Studies? First off who did the studies and what were they setting out to prove with their study? Second, all studies are biased.

Example: Chips Ahoy did a study that eating chocolate chip cookies and drinking milk will actually help you lose weight.

Yes, they actually did this study.

themole
01-16-2005, 07:13 PM
The War on Terror is a war that every American has a stake in. However, the war in Iraq is NOT a part of the War on Terror, and you cannot blame all Americans for the war in Iraq if we lose it.

There have been no terror attacks on our soil since, has there?

I joined that club a long time ago. On 09/12/01, to be exact.



Republicans have owned the House for a decade, the presidency for four years, and the Senate for nearly ten straight years. You can't blame today's problems on Teddy Kennedy. The year is 2005, not 1995 or 1985.

There have been no terror attacks on our soil since, have there? The bad guys are preoccupied protecting there sand piles.

Blitz
01-16-2005, 07:19 PM
There have been no terror attacks on our soil since, have there? The bad guys are preoccupied protecting there sand piles.

Were there any terror attacks on our soil in the three years prior to 9/11? Nobody knows if we're really producing results, or if the terrorists are simply sitting back and waiting for a certain time to hit us. Nonetheless, we cannot allow the terrorists to have any control over us. They want to terrorize us. That's what they want. If we live in fear, they win. If we live without fear and continue to rout them out, we'll win.

Blitz
01-16-2005, 07:28 PM
Turning back from what?

If we go to a NST, there will probably be no way of getting rid of it in the future.


No sure what you mean by you, since I have never said that. Also the tax cuts have helped get the economy turned around.

Many people of your political ilk claimed that Bush's tax cuts would bring unprecendented prosperity. They were wrong.


The tax system is outdated, it hinders the economy. The economy is alright, but it can be much much better.

We're not even in a recession, let alone a depression. Nobody knows what your proposal would really do. The massive overhaul that you support is too big of a risk.


Studies? First off who did the studies and what were they setting out to prove with their study? Second, all studies are biased.

I was referring to a plethora of unbiased academic studies on the subject.

themole
01-16-2005, 07:51 PM
Were there any terror attacks on our soil in the three years prior to 9/11? Nobody knows if we're really producing results, or if the terrorists are simply sitting back and waiting for a certain time to hit us. Nonetheless, we cannot allow the terrorists to have any control over us. They want to terrorize us. That's what they want. If we live in fear, they win. If we live without fear and continue to rout them out, we'll win.

Well then, we have no arguement do we.

Hunt them down and kill them. That's all I'm interested in. WHERE EVER they can be found.

I don't think they are propagating faster than we can kill them.

Dphins4me
01-16-2005, 08:44 PM
If we go to a NST, there will probably be no way of getting rid of it in the future..
Don't think you will want too.




Many people of your political ilk claimed that Bush's tax cuts would bring unprecendented prosperity. They were wrong.. Just wanted to say I'm not a Rep. I am Anti Dem. though, until they straighten out their party and start putting up a candidate who is not just another stuffed shirt.




We're not even in a recession, let alone a depression. Nobody knows what your proposal would really do. The massive overhaul that you support is too big of a risk...
So basically you are scared of what the change might bring. As I said, a known evil is better than a unknown. This is why the same two parties are always in power. People are too afraid of what a 3rd party might bring to the table.




I was referring to a plethora of unbiased academic studies on the subject. There is no such thing as a unbiased study, because the people who are doing the study have their own opinions on the matter and what they want their study to prove.

For every study proving one thing, there will be another proving just the opposite, because of the people doing the study are biased. No one is ever unbiased.

When people do studies they are setting out to prove or disprove something and will spin their findings to fit what they are wanting to prove.

themole
01-16-2005, 09:44 PM
Just wanted to say I'm not a Rep. I am Anti Dem. though, until they straighten out their party and start putting up a candidate who is not just another stuffed shirt.


I have been since 1976, on both counts. But...I'm no Party whore.

I am a Constitution whore though. I have about 40 books in my library pertaining to the Constitution and Economy.