My First Run In With Obamacare...

First off, here's an article with some statistics showing the economy does better under Democratic Presidents: http://articles.sfgate.com/2008-10-..._budget-surplus-national-debt-bush-s-tax-cuts

Even Warren Buffett thinks the super-rich pay to little in taxes.

Is that the case? Most small business owners aren't super rich. Does your state have an income tax, sales tax, or both? Florida has no income tax, it's against the state Constitution.

I tried to search for information on Google, but all I found was an article saying the homeless population fell under Bush. I couldn't find anything on Clinton. If you have some figures, please post them.

I'm not him. You have similar views with other posters on here and I don't suggest you're a sock puppet.

 

A large percentage of small business owners file taxes for their business on personal tax returns. You advocate raising the tax rate on the "super rich" as you've earlier defined as making more than 250,000 a year. What you fail to understand is that you would be raising the tax rate on these small business owners who file personal tax returns. A business does not have to be overly large to make over 250,000 a year. Look at many fast food franchise owners for an example.

And you still having answered me if it was fair for 1% of the tax payers to pay 40% of the tax in this country. Is that fair?

 

Of course it's not fair; but then life is not fair.

However, in this particular instance, the lack of fairness is not compatible with the liberal objective of "soaking the rich" so it's totally overlooked and ignored.


Don't expect any kind of a reasonable reply.

(What would be very interesting, IF you could get accurate records, [probably impossible] would be to compare the tax actually paid by the "rich" Rs vs the "rich Ds. I'd wager my next pancake breakfast that the Ds paid far less than the Rs overall %wise. ---- At least a lot of the administration henchmen did. :laugh

 

Really? Where are the Clinton homeless mentioned ? Those are opinion pieces, not news articles. My nice high paying job went to Mexico under Clinton. And the economy certainly has not improved under this guy we have in now, has it ?

I never claimed to be super rich, and the statement makes no sense to me.

So you admit Clinton's term produced more homeless than Bush ? Kinda shoots holes in the first statement, don't it ?

Right now I have no time to dig. If I get time, I will post up some stats.

It's not your views. It's your habit of leaving challenges unanswered. But point taken.

 

It has in some regards such as the Dow Jones Industrial Average. Unemployment has gone up some, though.

I never said you are super rich. My whole point about taxes is that we have to raise taxes some and cut spending in some areas to get the budget deficit under control. Since we're comparing Bush and Clinton, do you have a defense of Bush's deficits being higher that Clinton's? What's your plan for balancing the budget?

I guess so, but as I said, I couldn't find anything specifically about the homeless under Clinton.

 

It is dishonest to simply make broad brush comparisons between Bush and Clinton deficites. Clinton did not have a 911. Although the spending during Clinton's admin was due to GOP policies. Bush spent way to much on unconstitutional entitlement programs.

 

The best way to cut spending and taxes - in so far as the issue on the table is concerned - is for the federal government to stay out of the health care business.

Most prudent people that are trying to balance their own personal budgets don't start some new spending spree at the same time. Their hard work and wise decisions pay off. There wealth becomes a source of income for workers they need.

By the way, people that know how to manage their money best - save, invest, spend, produce, etc. - are also, in general, more likely to become wealthy in this land of opportunity. Unfortunately, the lovers of socialism - such as Obama and followers are - envy that wealth greatly. They want to take it and spend on other people. They play on idea the "rich should pay their fair share" never minding that they already pay a much higher share. They need this money to buy votes to continue their quest for power.

Government has never made anyone rich except the corrupt that thrive off of its programs. People with ideas, motivation, and determination can make someone rich and whole lot of others around them much better off.

Obama's ideas can be summarized by his recent statement that insurance plans worth more that $8,500 should be taxed because they provide more coverage than a person needs. This clearly illustrates his socialistic thinking. He wants to penalize one man who wants and can afford to pay for more so he can give it to someone else. He wants to government - not the individual - to determine the need and find the means. This is so fundamental its difficult to understand how it can be missed. The latter - not the former - is what has made our nation great and yet so many are clamoring for the federal government to take care of them even if they have to "steal" the earnings of someone else to do it. It is truly shameful!

 

My, my, are we arguing about the virtues of Democrats and Republicans again? So, what did we decide this time? Who is better at balancing the budget, Bush or Obama? Who controls the borders better, Democrats or Republicans? Who is better at getting Social Security and Medicare under control? Which one is better at helping the American people get better health care? The one that does nothing? Or the one that takes over the industry, spends us into oblivion, and makes health care worse than it is?

Etc, etc, etc

We never learn, do we.

 

Notice that no one called you on this? It is not a sin to be rich.
It has to do with what one does with it that matters.
I HAD to live in Houston, Texas for a while.
So don't think you have to apologize for the idiots, (I mean cod-brains)
in Florida.
The cod-brains in Houston were dang near the death of me.:laugh:

 

You cannot cut spending while your spending. In order to cut spending you have to stop any and all spending as well. Only liberals think you can do other wise.

 

No, Paul has deliberately ignored both times I've asked him whether it was fair that 1% of the tax payers pay 40% of the tax. He knows it isn't fair, but it would ruin is argument that we need to tax the rich more if he agreed it wasn't fair.

 

Paul has been well educated in a government school and bought into everything his liberal professors taught him hook line and sinker. But, as he gets out into the real world and starts to live a real life away fromt the ivory towers of academia he may very well change his mind. Then again the brainwashing may have been complete and he'll be like some of our good liberal friends here on The Baptist Board.

 

Yes, it is fair. I support progressive taxation. Don't get too carried away with that argument. There is a cap on the amount taxed for Social Security, which makes it a regressive tax. At the same time, we need to make sure that the poor and middle class still pay into government, and the current tax rates do a good job at that. Once the Congress passes a deficit-neutral healthcare reform program, we can work on getting the deficit under control. There's a plan in Congress to create a commission that will report to Congress at the end of this year on specific spending cuts and tax increases that we can do to start fixing the huge deficits of Bush's eight years, as well as the first Obama budget.

 

You are completely insane if you think that it is fair for 1% to pay 40% of the tax. When you and your friends go out to dinner, do you make the richest person at the table pay for most of the others food?

 

Of course, you ignore where I talk about regressive Social Security taxes.

I went out to dinner with my friend Robert last week, and we each paid for our own meals.

 

What does the Social Security tax have to do with 1% of tax payers paying 40% of the tax? I ignored your statement about that because it is irrelevant.

By your reasoning, if Robert makes twice as much as you, he should have paid 67% of the bill while you only paid 33%. He's richer than you, so it's only "fair" that he should have to pay more!

As a side note, where do you go to high school?

 

I couldn't agree more. :thumbs: