Forum


44 days in...
Thraxle wrote
at 11:18 AM, Wednesday March 4, 2009 EST
...and there is no sign that Mr. Obama is any different from the past democrats that sat in the oval office. The only exception is that he has 100% compliance within his party and a majority in congress that will pass anything Mr. Obama supports.

How hypocritical is it that Mr. Obama continues to remind the general public of the deficit he inherited, but then spends so recklessly that the possibility of having a balanced budget anytime within his term is utterly impossible.

How hypocritical is it that the libs called the recent spending bill that was passed a "stimulus package". How does $20 billion dollars towards food stamps stimulate the economy? What jobs will be created by increasing food stamp allowances? This is only one example of many within that spending bill, but I'll try to avoid making this post unneccisarily long.

One of you left wingers need to help me understand what our President is attempting to do. The view from the cheap seats here in right field makes the picture look exactly like I thought it would look before the election took place; the liberal democrats want a socialist republic in place of our cherished capitalistic society. Let's continue to drain the rich to pay for the poor. Let's continue to increase taxes on large corporations that have been laying off employees at an enormous pace. Let's increase benefits to the unemployed instead of finding ways to provide jobs for them.

I'm ranting a bit, but one thing is clear. Barack Obama scares the living shit out of me. JP, UGB, anybody, please help me feel better about the job he's doing.

And someone explain to me how the fuck he has a 67% approval rating. They must have done the polling at a foreclosure seminar or a foodbank.

« First ‹ Previous Replies 171 - 180 of 458 Next › Last »
skrumgaer wrote
at 6:11 AM, Monday August 10, 2009 EDT
The only challenges to the proposal that have been made is how do you measure national defense or police protection for the consumption VAT. Those challenges have already been answered because national defense and police protection are not in the consumption part of GDP; so they are not in the tax base, so they do not have to be measured.
IIIlllIIIl wrote
at 10:41 AM, Monday August 10, 2009 EDT
get a room you three.
nunes wrote
at 5:39 PM, Monday August 10, 2009 EDT
skrumgaer wrote
at 9:34 PM, Monday August 10, 2009 EDT
UGB:

Ok, Challenge #3:

How do rich pay more in a consumption tax when defense and police are not consumeable?

Because they buy more stuff that is consumable (clothing, cars, stereos, vacations, spa visits, and other stuff counted in the consumption part of GDP), and for a fixed rate on value added, they will pay in more taxes.
skrumgaer wrote
at 9:38 PM, Monday August 10, 2009 EDT
Challenge # 4:

And my point is do they pay a proper percentage of what they consume from the government [?]

Yes, because the amount of police protection they will need is proportional to the amount of stuff they buy that generates envy, and the amount of taxes they pay is proportional to the amount of stuff they buy that generates envy. If two things are equal to the same thing, they are equal to each other.

Q.E.D.

IIIIIIIIII wrote
at 10:01 PM, Monday August 10, 2009 EDT
UGB don't waste your time. People like Thraxle just watch Douche O'Reilly and Sean Hannity and then repeat exactly what they say. Never mind that O'Reilly and Hannity are notorious for taking things out of context and just making shit up. Fox News is about as reputable as Scientology. Luckily the far right, like Thraxle, is not in control of our nation.


Btw Thraxle, you know who else was ultra conservative? Hitler.
Thraxle wrote
at 7:08 AM, Tuesday August 11, 2009 EDT
I appreciate you commenting on my views without reading them Mr. L. Disregard the fact that I've said more than twice in this thread that I don't watch O'Reilly or listen to Limbaugh and that I only watch Hannity because he's the funniest motherfucker on TV.

Oh, and thanks for using a "scare tactic" with your reference to conservatism and Hitler. Let's see if UGB jumps in your grill about using scare tactics the way he claimed I did. He probably won't. This will only add to the hypocrisy.
skrumgaer wrote
at 12:42 PM, Saturday August 15, 2009 EDT
UGB:

Under a consumption VAT, the rich don't pay less in taxes. They pay a smaller percentage of their income in taxes (what we call a regressive tax). Any individual, rich or poor, can reduce his/her tax load by saving more.
IIIIIIIIII wrote
at 2:16 PM, Saturday August 15, 2009 EDT
Thrax, I was being sardonic when I compared you to Hitler. The only person that seriously compares anything to Hitler is usually Republican... or on the Faux News payroll.
skrumgaer wrote
at 9:50 PM, Saturday August 15, 2009 EDT
UGB:

You conveniently left out the middle part of the quote. Here is the whole thing:

rich people who consume less (save more) will pay less in taxes

"who consume less", unseparated by commas, is a restrictive clause, excluding those rich people who do not consume less.

Game, set, match.
KDice - Multiplayer Dice War
KDice is a multiplayer strategy online game played in monthly competitions. It's like Risk. The goal is to win every territory on the map.
CREATED BY RYAN © 2006 - 2025
GAMES
G GPokr
Texas Holdem Poker
K KDice
Online Strategy
X XSketch
Online Pictionary