OT: Unbiased analysis of Obama and McCain tax plans

[CA renter]

Let me clarify a bit WRT my definition of “rich”.

**In my opinion,** the rich are those whose income is derived primarily from capital gains. I do NOT have a problem with people who EARN (from actual work) $250K or more. I DO have a problem with “deal makers” who use leverage and connections to access large amounts of money to make deals/trades which DO NOT benefit most working people and society — quite the contrary.

I do believe in progressive taxation, and I believe that ALL income should be taxed at the same progressive rates. Capital should be taxed at least as much as labor. Otherwise, you end up with the top X% wealth controlling most markets and controlling most laws (power=wealth=power).

People are being distracted from what’s really going on, and using the better income-earners as an argument in favor of keeping tax rates low for the upper-class. I am not talking about WORKERS, just deal-makers (hedge fund managers, overpaid CEOs, big traders, etc.) and extreme wealth (hundreds of millions of dollars).

[Aecetia]

It is easy to be generous with OPM. Other people’s money. All of Congress has this problem and both parties are guilty of it whether it is used to fund social programs or a war. I disagree with a progressive tax code and would like to see a flat tax. I know this will impact the poor, but so does gas tax, alcohol tax, cigarette tax, etc. There is no way you can not impact the poor and run the government with its present configuration. Frankly, the movie Mars Attacks had some good scenes in it.

[Aecetia]

It is easy to be generous with OPM. Other people’s money. All of Congress has this problem and both parties are guilty of it whether it is used to fund social programs or a war. I disagree with a progressive tax code and would like to see a flat tax. I know this will impact the poor, but so does gas tax, alcohol tax, cigarette tax, etc. There is no way you can not impact the poor and run the government with its present configuration. Frankly, the movie Mars Attacks had some good scenes in it.

[Aecetia]

It is easy to be generous with OPM. Other people’s money. All of Congress has this problem and both parties are guilty of it whether it is used to fund social programs or a war. I disagree with a progressive tax code and would like to see a flat tax. I know this will impact the poor, but so does gas tax, alcohol tax, cigarette tax, etc. There is no way you can not impact the poor and run the government with its present configuration. Frankly, the movie Mars Attacks had some good scenes in it.

[Aecetia]

It is easy to be generous with OPM. Other people’s money. All of Congress has this problem and both parties are guilty of it whether it is used to fund social programs or a war. I disagree with a progressive tax code and would like to see a flat tax. I know this will impact the poor, but so does gas tax, alcohol tax, cigarette tax, etc. There is no way you can not impact the poor and run the government with its present configuration. Frankly, the movie Mars Attacks had some good scenes in it.

[Aecetia]

It is easy to be generous with OPM. Other people’s money. All of Congress has this problem and both parties are guilty of it whether it is used to fund social programs or a war. I disagree with a progressive tax code and would like to see a flat tax. I know this will impact the poor, but so does gas tax, alcohol tax, cigarette tax, etc. There is no way you can not impact the poor and run the government with its present configuration. Frankly, the movie Mars Attacks had some good scenes in it.

[an]

afx114, Bush won the presidency twice. He can only win if he got at least 50% of the voters. So when you say he got to his presidency twice without merit, you’re basically calling 1/2 of the voters stupid for voting for someone who have no merit. Do you understand now?

Back to your MiddleSchoolDebate 101 comment, you made a leap of faith argument, saying that Bush was a horrible president and he’s an aristocrats, therefore all aristocrats will be horrible president and should have there $ taxed more. That to me is the same as saying Bush is a horrible president and he’s a man, so all men will be horrible president and should have their $ taxed more. Get it?

My point about Bush was that he has absolutely no merit to justify his position. If you disagree, please provide me with a list of his accomplishments that make him worthy of the presidency other than his name and his money.
I don’t like Bush and didn’t vote for him, so I couldn’t tell you. But I’m sure over 1/2 of Americans voters can answer your question, since they did vote for him.

[an]

afx114, Bush won the presidency twice. He can only win if he got at least 50% of the voters. So when you say he got to his presidency twice without merit, you’re basically calling 1/2 of the voters stupid for voting for someone who have no merit. Do you understand now?

Back to your MiddleSchoolDebate 101 comment, you made a leap of faith argument, saying that Bush was a horrible president and he’s an aristocrats, therefore all aristocrats will be horrible president and should have there $ taxed more. That to me is the same as saying Bush is a horrible president and he’s a man, so all men will be horrible president and should have their $ taxed more. Get it?

My point about Bush was that he has absolutely no merit to justify his position. If you disagree, please provide me with a list of his accomplishments that make him worthy of the presidency other than his name and his money.
I don’t like Bush and didn’t vote for him, so I couldn’t tell you. But I’m sure over 1/2 of Americans voters can answer your question, since they did vote for him.

[an]

afx114, Bush won the presidency twice. He can only win if he got at least 50% of the voters. So when you say he got to his presidency twice without merit, you’re basically calling 1/2 of the voters stupid for voting for someone who have no merit. Do you understand now?

Back to your MiddleSchoolDebate 101 comment, you made a leap of faith argument, saying that Bush was a horrible president and he’s an aristocrats, therefore all aristocrats will be horrible president and should have there $ taxed more. That to me is the same as saying Bush is a horrible president and he’s a man, so all men will be horrible president and should have their $ taxed more. Get it?

My point about Bush was that he has absolutely no merit to justify his position. If you disagree, please provide me with a list of his accomplishments that make him worthy of the presidency other than his name and his money.
I don’t like Bush and didn’t vote for him, so I couldn’t tell you. But I’m sure over 1/2 of Americans voters can answer your question, since they did vote for him.

[an]

afx114, Bush won the presidency twice. He can only win if he got at least 50% of the voters. So when you say he got to his presidency twice without merit, you’re basically calling 1/2 of the voters stupid for voting for someone who have no merit. Do you understand now?

Back to your MiddleSchoolDebate 101 comment, you made a leap of faith argument, saying that Bush was a horrible president and he’s an aristocrats, therefore all aristocrats will be horrible president and should have there $ taxed more. That to me is the same as saying Bush is a horrible president and he’s a man, so all men will be horrible president and should have their $ taxed more. Get it?

My point about Bush was that he has absolutely no merit to justify his position. If you disagree, please provide me with a list of his accomplishments that make him worthy of the presidency other than his name and his money.
I don’t like Bush and didn’t vote for him, so I couldn’t tell you. But I’m sure over 1/2 of Americans voters can answer your question, since they did vote for him.

[an]

afx114, Bush won the presidency twice. He can only win if he got at least 50% of the voters. So when you say he got to his presidency twice without merit, you’re basically calling 1/2 of the voters stupid for voting for someone who have no merit. Do you understand now?

Back to your MiddleSchoolDebate 101 comment, you made a leap of faith argument, saying that Bush was a horrible president and he’s an aristocrats, therefore all aristocrats will be horrible president and should have there $ taxed more. That to me is the same as saying Bush is a horrible president and he’s a man, so all men will be horrible president and should have their $ taxed more. Get it?

My point about Bush was that he has absolutely no merit to justify his position. If you disagree, please provide me with a list of his accomplishments that make him worthy of the presidency other than his name and his money.
I don’t like Bush and didn’t vote for him, so I couldn’t tell you. But I’m sure over 1/2 of Americans voters can answer your question, since they did vote for him.

[TheBreeze]

Fact: Government spends money badly.

Here’s another fact for you: Under Bush and the Republican Congress, Federal Spending increased at the fastest rate in 30 years.

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/news_detail.asp?newsID=31

Why would a fiscal conservative vote for Republicans when they spend more money than Democrats? Is it because you’re an idiot?

[TheBreeze]

Fact: Government spends money badly.

Here’s another fact for you: Under Bush and the Republican Congress, Federal Spending increased at the fastest rate in 30 years.

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/news_detail.asp?newsID=31

Why would a fiscal conservative vote for Republicans when they spend more money than Democrats? Is it because you’re an idiot?

[TheBreeze]

Fact: Government spends money badly.

Here’s another fact for you: Under Bush and the Republican Congress, Federal Spending increased at the fastest rate in 30 years.

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/news_detail.asp?newsID=31

Why would a fiscal conservative vote for Republicans when they spend more money than Democrats? Is it because you’re an idiot?

[TheBreeze]

Fact: Government spends money badly.

Here’s another fact for you: Under Bush and the Republican Congress, Federal Spending increased at the fastest rate in 30 years.

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/news_detail.asp?newsID=31

Why would a fiscal conservative vote for Republicans when they spend more money than Democrats? Is it because you’re an idiot?

[Author]

Posts