More Right Wing Hypocrisy - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

Coup · 07-12-2010, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coup

the only thing deep tax cuts for the rich seems to accomplish is to enlarge the wealth divide.

You know.. that thing that puts more money in the pockets of the corporate interests and ultra rich that actually control this country.

cut taxes for the rich! they need the money to buy our government

Sausage · 07-12-2010, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc

Here, if you're an American you pay global tax on money earned, you report your income either way otherwise it's criminal. Some rules change a little once you live off shore, but if you live here you can make all the money you want some place else and you're still paying taxes, unless you're not the majority owner - but you would for any direct income earned.

The taxes aren't increasing, they're simply going back to a previous level. A level which did not have rich people running from our Country but making the most money ever in history.

Just 5-8 years before that, taxes were crazy higher than they will be returning to... again, they didn't leave the Country and during that time the economy sucked for a good bit too. But as always it helps boost things and turn it around for the future.

You don't have tax treaties with other countries? Here in Aus we have a ton of tax treaties and you only really pay tax on what you bring in .. with a few other rules.

BFT3K · 07-12-2010, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coup

the interesting part of that graph is the period between the 30's to the 70's. you know. the time period we came out of the depression and became an economic super power. seems hurt the argument that deep tax cuts for the rich are good for the economy shit right-wingers keep spewing.

the only thing deep tax cuts for the rich seems to accomplish is to enlarge the wealth divide.

That's crazy talk! You must be a commie!

TheDoc · 07-12-2010, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sausage

You don't have tax treaties with other countries? Here in Aus we have a ton of tax treaties and you only really pay tax on what you bring in .. with a few other rules.

At a personal level... not that I'm aware of or can think of. It's pretty cut and dry for us, pay no mater what, again with some mild changes for those that live off shore, but you still report either way.

At a business level, yes. However if you own the business and its offshore, you still have to report and depending on those treaties and tax levels you may still pay at a corporate level. But you do have plenty of stuff to take advantage of as a business.

America is kinda jacked like that... one of very few Countries that do this.

baddog · 07-12-2010, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc

You think I could get a job as a news anchor? Them boys get paid well to look pretty on tv.... I think I could pull the spins off without laughing.

I heard you had a face for radio.

tony286 · 07-12-2010, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BestXXXPorn

Money from unemployment doesn't stimulate the fucking economy... and I'm talking about where the funds come from... one comes from the pockets of a citizen to the pocket of the government... one comes from the pockets of companies to the pockets of FORMER employees...

actually employees pay for it.Tax cuts come back as $1.06 back into the economy, unemployment comes back as over $1.60 into the economy.Because people spend every unemployment dollar that comes in unlike tax cuts. If the concern is paying down the debt and considering we are in two wars. Then saying oh no dont stop the tax cuts is just horseshit.

TheDoc · 07-12-2010, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog

I heard you had a face for radio.

Radio isn't a bad idea either... I wouldn't make a very good Celebrity. A powerful voice like mine is much better for the radio after all, but I would feel bad putting all those talk radio shows out of business...

BFT3K · 07-12-2010, 09:42 PM

This just in: GOP to run Joad Cressbeckler in 2012.

He ran against McCain in 2008 as an Independent, but it didn't work out.

Now he's back, with the full support and backing of the Tea Party!

https://youtube.com/watch?v=0iqktCdX0hs

icymelon · 07-13-2010, 04:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheSenator

The teabaggers/right wingers/child molsters/republican/ don't deal with the facts. The make up their own realities.

thats called fox news

BFT3K · 07-13-2010, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by icymelon

that's called fox news

The Demon · 07-13-2010, 08:35 AM

Quote:

The teabaggers/right wingers/child molsters/republican/ don't deal with the facts. The make up their own realities.

The irony of this statement coming from an incompetent liberal is almost too funny to pass up.

Vendzilla · 07-13-2010, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by icymelon

thats called fox news

Quote:

Originally Posted by BFT3K

wig · 07-13-2010, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

My mom has a couple pensions and has some money in IRA's and CD's , because of the interest rate the government puts out, you're lucky to get above 1% on your savings, so the people that acted conservatively with their money are fucked

I don't think that's proven to be true in the 2000's... how many "houses" can her safe investments buy now? How much commodities?

Cash is king, imo and will be for a few more years. It's the hardest thing to not chase yield, but that's what got everyone so fucked in the first place and what continues to set people up for a killing now (ie; investing in muni's and higher yielding corporates many of which will go bust).

It's time to focus on the return OF your capital; not the return ON your capital.

wig · 07-13-2010, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coup

the interesting part of that graph is the period between the 30's to the 70's. you know. the time period we came out of the depression and became an economic super power. seems hurt the argument that deep tax cuts for the rich are good for the economy shit right-wingers keep spewing.

the only thing deep tax cuts for the rich seems to accomplish is to enlarge the wealth divide.

The only problem with your analysis is that simply looking at tax rates is not going to give you the right answer (ie; write-offs unavailable today were every where when income taxes were much higher).

The tax code is more complicated than that.

The Demon · 07-13-2010, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wig

I don't think that's proven to be true in the 2000's... how many "houses" can her safe investments buy now? How much commodities?

Cash is king, imo and will be for a few more years. It's the hardest thing to not chase yield, but that's what got everyone so fucked in the first place and what continues to set people up for a killing now (ie; investing in muni's and higher yielding corporates many of which will go bust).

It's time to focus on the return OF your capital; not the return ON your capital.

Cash is king? I would disagree with that statement. Precious metals like silver and gold are kings. Cash is getting less and less useful with the printing presses running. Purchasing power is decreasing and will continue to do so until the dollar is completely worthless. Thanks Barack!

wig · 07-13-2010, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Demon

Cash is king? I would disagree with that statement. Precious metals like silver and gold are kings. Cash is getting less and less useful with the printing presses running. Purchasing power is decreasing and will continue to do so until the dollar is completely worthless. Thanks Barack!

I know you and I disagree on this, but I stand behind the statement. I could qualify it and to say cash and cash equivalents, which could include metals which as you know I believe are in a long-term bull market.

The fact is, the US Dollar index is currently at the same basic level that is was in 2004. It also rallied hard during 2008 when the meltdown was in full force, and despite all the talk of inflation and dollar collapse, T-bonds are still strong and commodities in general are still weak. M3 and core inflation are not accelerating as would be expected in a run away inflation.

In 1999 and into 2002 I forecast (on another board) the demise of the dollar and that one should buy gold / silver. Now, while I still believe this is the general trend, the first part of this major move has been seen already. And, the economy is still trying to fend off deflationary forces -- with the Govt's full cooperation.

Nevertheless, I believe there is still a massive amount of credit contraction and bad debt (that will go bust) that will keep this force in play for 2-3 more years. However, following this I am quickly behind the (your) camp of further, more accelerating dollar weakness and corresponding commodity bull markets.

Our difference in opinion is a slight one. I see deflation as the near term, main risk before your scenario has a chance to be unleashed in full force. I could be wrong of course. However, you have to admit what the markets are saying which seems to match my analysis so far.

12clicks · 07-13-2010, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wig

The only problem with your analysis is that simply looking at tax rates is not going to give you the right answer (ie; write-offs unavailable today were every where when income taxes were much higher).

The tax code is more complicated than that.

Exactly.
All these kids that want their betters to pay their way for them always talk about the old rates. The loopholes of the past are all closed. Big difference that the rabble can't or won't understand.

wig · 07-13-2010, 09:42 AM

Here's a chart of the dollar index to give some perspective. If it does not load, use this link: http://futures.tradingcharts.com/chart/US/M

The US$ Index high occurred in June 2001 (128.35) and collapsed into December 2004 (81.78). It is currently higher than that level (83.71).

12clicks · 07-13-2010, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc

Logic often tickles the funny bone..

Especially idiot logic.

TheDoc · 07-13-2010, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12clicks

Exactly.
All these kids that want their betters to pay their way for them always talk about the old rates. The loopholes of the past are all closed. Big difference that the rabble can't or won't understand.

Statistically speaking, your parents paid your way to nicer schools, roads, security, all the benefits you will use when you get older, etc. They paid more in taxes than you ever will in your life....

You do realize Obama campaigned on this correct? It's not like it's some big secret, he said he was going to close the loopholes, remove the tax breaks, clear the budget as well... and once he got done, he would then look into adjusting the tax code so it's not so complex in some areas.

What is it with the minds of the right, is it all squishy or something?

TheDoc · 07-13-2010, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12clicks

Especially idiot logic.

Aye, just laughing at something with no ability to actually comment is rather idiotic.

Joshua G · 07-13-2010, 10:17 AM

the tax rate on rich people would be a nonissue if the government could control its appetite for spending.

The truth is, the poor & the unemployed are bottomless money pits. The government could take over the entire economy, hand all the wealth of the country over to them, & there will still be unemployed & poor people. The reasons of poverty & unemployment span numerous factors, like education, judgement, work ethic, discipline, & luck.

the real question is, where you you draw the line on compassion & safety nets for people in need, when resources are limited. 99 weeks of unemployment benefits helps the unemployed, but it doesnt create jobs for them.

Hating the rich & taxing them out of the country won't create jobs or make poor people productive in society. There will always be people with needs, & government needs to draw lines & stop acting like they have unlimited money to spend on them.

wig · 07-13-2010, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joshgirls

the tax rate on rich people would be a nonissue if the government could control its appetite for spending.

The truth is, the poor & the unemployed are bottomless money pits. The government could take over the entire economy, hand all the wealth of the country over to them, & there will still be unemployed & poor people. The reasons of poverty & unemployment span numerous factors, like education, judgement, work ethic, discipline, & luck.

the real question is, where you you draw the line on compassion & safety nets for people in need, when resources are limited. 99 weeks of unemployment benefits helps the unemployed, but it doesnt create jobs for them.

Hating the rich & taxing them out of the country won't create jobs or make poor people productive in society. There will always be people with needs, & government needs to draw lines & stop acting like they have unlimited money to spend on them.

Very well said! Those are my sentiments as well.

Joshua G · 07-13-2010, 10:25 AM

but before people start accusing me of blaming the poor for the deficit, let me be clear that UNFETTERED GOVERNMENT SPENDING is the problem...not just on the poor, but on the rich as well. The times has a great op ed about governments spending programs to help the rich:

Quote:

The rich are different from you and me. They know how to game the system.

That?s one interpretation, at least, of last week?s news that Americans with million-dollar mortgages are defaulting at almost twice the rate of the typical homeowner. It suggests an infuriating scenario in which the average American slaves away to keep Wells Fargo or Bank of America off his back, while fat cats and high fliers cut their losses and sail off to the next investment opportunity.

That isn?t exactly what?s happening, most likely. Just because you have a million-dollar mortgage doesn?t make you a millionaire, and a lot of the fat-cat defaulters probably aren?t that fat anymore. Chances are they?re more like Teresa and Joe Giudice from ?The Real Housewives of New Jersey,? tacky reality-TV climbers who recently filed for bankruptcy after their decadent lifestyle turned out to be a debt-enabled fantasy.

Still, watching the Giudices sashay through their onyx-encrusted mansion, and knowing that thousands of similarly profligate homeowners are simply walking away from their debts, it?s easy to succumb to a little class-warrior fantasizing. (Pitchforks, tar, feathers ... that sort of thing.)

The trick is to channel those impulses in a constructive direction. The left-wing instinct, when faced with high-rolling irresponsibility, is usually to call for tax increases on the rich. But the problem, here and elsewhere, isn?t exactly that we tax high rollers? incomes too lightly. It?s that we subsidize their irresponsibility too heavily ? underwriting their bad bets and bailing out their follies. The class warfare we need is a conservative class warfare, which would force the million-dollar defaulters to pay their own way from here on out.

Consider the spread that the Giudices currently occupy (pending potential foreclosure proceedings, of course). The first million of its reported $1.7 million price tag is presumably covered by the federal mortgage-interest tax deduction. Intended to boost middle-class homebuyers, this deduction has gradually turned into a huge tax break for the affluent, with most of the benefits flowing to homeowners with cash income over $100,000. In much of the country, it?s a McMansion subsidy, whose costs to the federal Treasury are covered by the tax dollars of Americans who either rent or own more modest homes.

This policy is typical of the way the federal government does business. In case after case, Washington?s web of subsidies and tax breaks effectively takes money from the middle class and hands it out to speculators and have-mores. We subsidize drug companies, oil companies, agribusinesses disguised as ?family farms? and ?clean energy? firms that aren?t energy-efficient at all. We give tax breaks to immensely profitable corporations that don?t need the money and boondoggles that wouldn?t exist without government favoritism.

And we do more of it every day. Take Barack Obama?s initiative to double U.S. exports in the next five years. As The Washington Examiner?s Tim Carney points out, it involves the purest sort of corporate welfare: We?re lending money to foreign governments or companies so that they?ll buy from Boeing and Pfizer and Archer Daniels Midland. That?s good news for those companies? stockholders and C.E.O.?s. But the money to pay for it ultimately comes out of middle-class pocketbooks.

This isn?t just a corporate welfare problem. The same pattern is at work in our entitlement system, which is lurching toward bankruptcy in part because of how much Medicare and Social Security pay to seniors who could get along without assistance. Instead of a safety net that protects the elderly from poverty, we have a system in which the American taxpayer is effectively underwriting cruises and tee times.

All of this ought to be grist for a kind of ?small-government egalitarianism,? in the economist Edward Glaeser?s useful phrase, that seeks to shrink government by attacking Washington?s wasteful spending on the well-connected. And sometimes conservative politicians make moves in this direction. President George W. Bush?s Tax Reform Commission proposed sharply reducing the mortgage-interest deduction. House Minority Leader John Boehner, to his great credit, recently floated the possibility of means-testing Social Security. Many Republican senators have been staunch critics of corporate welfare.

In the age of Barack Obama, many rank-and-file conservatives have been more upset about redistribution of a different sort ? the kind that takes money from the prosperous and ?spreads the wealth? (as Obama put it, in his famous confrontation with Joe the Plumber) down the income ladder.

This kind of spending can be problematic. But conservatives need to recognize that the most pernicious sort of redistribution isn?t from the successful to the poor. It?s from savers to speculators, from outsiders to insiders, and from the industrious middle class to the reckless, unproductive rich.

BFT3K · 07-13-2010, 02:40 PM

No corkscrew?... No problem!

http://www.patspapers.com/blog/item/...orkscrew_shoe/

07-12-2010, 09:42 PM	#58
BFT3K Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Narnia Posts: 10,764	This just in: GOP to run Joad Cressbeckler in 2012. He ran against McCain in 2008 as an Independent, but it didn't work out. Now he's back, with the full support and backing of the Tea Party! https://youtube.com/watch?v=0iqktCdX0hs Last edited by BFT3K; 07-12-2010 at 09:46 PM..

07-13-2010, 09:42 AM	#68
wig Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Panama Posts: 708	Here's a chart of the dollar index to give some perspective. If it does not load, use this link: http://futures.tradingcharts.com/chart/US/M The US$ Index high occurred in June 2001 (128.35) and collapsed into December 2004 (81.78). It is currently higher than that level (83.71). __________________ Credit Card and ACH Processing Last edited by wig; 07-13-2010 at 09:47 AM.. Reason: chart did not load; added price points for dollar index

07-13-2010, 10:17 AM	#72
Joshua G dumb libs love censorship Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 8,198	the tax rate on rich people would be a nonissue if the government could control its appetite for spending. The truth is, the poor & the unemployed are bottomless money pits. The government could take over the entire economy, hand all the wealth of the country over to them, & there will still be unemployed & poor people. The reasons of poverty & unemployment span numerous factors, like education, judgement, work ethic, discipline, & luck. the real question is, where you you draw the line on compassion & safety nets for people in need, when resources are limited. 99 weeks of unemployment benefits helps the unemployed, but it doesnt create jobs for them. Hating the rich & taxing them out of the country won't create jobs or make poor people productive in society. There will always be people with needs, & government needs to draw lines & stop acting like they have unlimited money to spend on them.

07-13-2010, 02:40 PM	#75
BFT3K Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Narnia Posts: 10,764	No corkscrew?... No problem! http://www.patspapers.com/blog/item/...orkscrew_shoe/