On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 08:06:22 -0400, W1TEF wrote:

On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 15:10:06 -0400, bpuharic wrote:


uh no. what i said was that the rich, having stolen the entire economy
over the last 30 years, should pay the taxes on what they stole

But that's not consistent my friend. On the one hand, you want to
confiscate and redistribute the "stolen" wealth and have been loud and
vociferous in arguing for same. Now that those who would do what you
wish appear to have changed their minds for the sake of the "economy",
it's ok because at least something will be left for the little guy.

that's the nature of political reality. the right wing will hold the
middle class hostage, refusing to support any effort to support the
middle class.

This is the same tax regime as Bush. On the one hand you despise that
tax structure as "evil" and "stealing", now you appear to be content
that something will be left for the little guy with the exact same
regime.

Which is it?

i'm a realist. the middle class can't afford a tax increase. the
right wing wont let a tax cut pass unless it includes the ultrarich

you need to grow up

bpuharic wrote:

i'm a realist. the middle class can't afford a tax increase. the
right wing wont let a tax cut pass unless it includes the ultrarich

you need to grow up

You're a moron. You know nothing about basic economics and you display
your ignorance here daily.

On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 22:32:09 -0400, Larry wrote:

bpuharic wrote:

i'm a realist. the middle class can't afford a tax increase. the
right wing wont let a tax cut pass unless it includes the ultrarich

you need to grow up

You're a moron. You know nothing about basic economics and you display
your ignorance here daily.


now let's see...the right thinks the way to build the US is to cut
taxes on the rich and let the middle class bailout the rich when they
get in trouble

socialize the risk. privatize the reward

and they say i dont understand economics

On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 22:32:09 -0400, Larry wrote:

bpuharic wrote:

i'm a realist. the middle class can't afford a tax increase. the
right wing wont let a tax cut pass unless it includes the ultrarich

you need to grow up

You're a moron. You know nothing about basic economics and you display
your ignorance here daily.

And y'all think you're not arguing with the nincdepoop in drag? The only
difference is in their use of caps.
--

John H

On 7/25/10 10:05 AM, John H wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 22:32:09 -0400, wrote:

bpuharic wrote:

i'm a realist. the middle class can't afford a tax increase. the
right wing wont let a tax cut pass unless it includes the ultrarich

you need to grow up

You're a moron. You know nothing about basic economics and you display
your ignorance here daily.

And y'all think you're not arguing with the nincdepoop in drag? The only
difference is in their use of caps.

http://tinyurl.com/yew6cc5

John H wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 22:32:09 -0400, wrote:


bpuharic wrote:

i'm a realist. the middle class can't afford a tax increase. the
right wing wont let a tax cut pass unless it includes the ultrarich

you need to grow up


You're a moron. You know nothing about basic economics and you display
your ignorance here daily.

And y'all think you're not arguing with the nincdepoop in drag? The only
difference is in their use of caps.

Could be, but I doubt it.

On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 09:26:40 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 08:06:22 -0400, W1TEF wrote:

On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 15:10:06 -0400, bpuharic wrote:


uh no. what i said was that the rich, having stolen the entire economy
over the last 30 years, should pay the taxes on what they stole

But that's not consistent my friend. On the one hand, you want to
confiscate and redistribute the "stolen" wealth and have been loud and
vociferous in arguing for same. Now that those who would do what you
wish appear to have changed their minds for the sake of the "economy",
it's ok because at least something will be left for the little guy.

that's the nature of political reality. the right wing will hold the
middle class hostage, refusing to support any effort to support the
middle class.

You're still missing the point. Let me try again, if it was so bad
and stupid yesterday, then why is it ok and proper today? It's the
same issue - same policy - same procedure.

Or is it a case of ideology - their guys do it its bad, our guys do it
its fine and dandy?

This is the same tax regime as Bush. On the one hand you despise that
tax structure as "evil" and "stealing", now you appear to be content
that something will be left for the little guy with the exact same
regime.

Which is it?

i'm a realist. the middle class can't afford a tax increase. the
right wing wont let a tax cut pass unless it includes the ultrarich

you need to grow up

Got news for you dude - the expansion of the debt by this
Administration has placed such an extreme liability on the entire tax
base that everybody is going to be hit with large tax increases. That
is reality. It might start with the "rich" as you put it, but there
are only so many "rich" to tax. Even if you confiscated 90% of their
wealth, it's still not enough to pay for the debt burden initiated by
the Bush Administration and tripled by the Obama Administration - not
even close.

The tax burden will have to be extended to the Middle Class because,
and this might cause you to have a stroke, that is where most of the
wealth is and is the widest, deepest money pool from which taxes can
be obtained. And it will compress the Middle Class beyond recognition
- it's almost there now what with property taxes, excise taxes, sales
taxes, regulatory "fees", dual and sometimes triple and quadruple
income taxes at the state level - stop and consider what you pay
everyday in taxes as a portion of your daily income. I think you
would be surprised. Adding additional taxes burden to the Middle
Class might very well kill it permanently, but there is no way around
it.

Right now, money is cheap so the burden isn't quite what it could be,
but once the debt service curve starts to climb, which it might if the
dollar ceases to be a reserve currency and loses strength (what little
is left), then it becomes a very real burden and the cost of carrying
that debt becomes greater.

That is reality. The fantasy world of having the "rich" solve the
debt burden crisis isn't one that actually exists. Like it or not,
your tax burden, as a member of the middle class, will go up -
significantly - and you will not be able to hide or protect any of it
because everything and anything you own, make or produce will be taxed
in some way, shape or form.

We're all going to be it right up the tucus and we can thank both
Democrats and Republicans for that.

Finally, I am grown up - and much more of a realist than you are
apparently because I don't hide behind a faux notion of confiscating
wealth as a solution to all our problem.

W1TEF wrote:


The tax burden will have to be extended to the Middle Class because,
and this might cause you to have a stroke, that is where most of the
wealth is and is the widest, deepest money pool from which taxes can
be obtained.

Obama should backtrack on that no higher taxes for $200k deal.
Higher taxes on about $90k would get the deficit down a lot quicker.
And eliminate the cap on SS contributions to get that right side up on
current income/outgo, and means test for benefits.
The best option would be higher taxes down to just above my level and
means testing the same, but I don't want to get too close.
Capital gains should be heavily taxed because I don't have any.
And get some fraud squads out there to eliminate fraud with Medicare,
SS disability and defense contracts.
Gov pensions are too rich and should be cut.
Lots of cuts could be made.
Farmers still being paid to not produce?
Ethanol subsidies?
The list goes on.

Here's where the wealth is
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesam...er/wealth.html

You decide what's "middle class."
But those charts give a good idea where the money is.
I think bpuharic is rich, because he's got a bigger boat.

Jim - Sure is hard figuring if I'm middle class or poor folk. One other
thing - lettuce should be kept below 99 cents a head. That's my biggest
demand.

On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 12:36:12 -0500, Jim wrote:

But those charts give a good idea where the money is.

They are also total bull****.

"According to a study published by the Federal Reserve Bank of
Cleveland, only 1.6% of Americans receive $100,000 or more in
inheritance. Another 1.1% receive $50,000 to $100,000. On the other
hand, 91.9% receive nothing (Kotlikoff & Gokhale, 2000)."

That's enough right there to make the entire article suspect.

On 7/26/10 2:59 PM, W1TEF wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 12:36:12 -0500, wrote:

But those charts give a good idea where the money is.

They are also total bull****.

"According to a study published by the Federal Reserve Bank of
Cleveland, only 1.6% of Americans receive $100,000 or more in
inheritance. Another 1.1% receive $50,000 to $100,000. On the other
hand, 91.9% receive nothing (Kotlikoff& Gokhale, 2000)."

That's enough right there to make the entire article suspect.


Hehehe...what a tired old bull**** quote that is, Tom. I mean, it's been
everywhere. You're hitting on this awfully hard...afraid your estate
might have to pay a few bucks in taxes?