BoatBanter.com - Obama endorses slavery

Page 10 of 31

« First

Last »

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

BoatBanter.com (https://www.boatbanter.com/)

- General (https://www.boatbanter.com/general/)

- - Obama endorses slavery (https://www.boatbanter.com/general/128221-obama-endorses-slavery.html)

rickorickk

April 11th 11 10:04 PM

hi,
i'm new here,
can u tell me about this site?

rickorickk

April 11th 11 10:07 PM

hi,
i'm new here,
can u tell me about this forum?

rickorickk

April 11th 11 10:12 PM

yea,
i'm new here,
can u tell me about the site?

rickorickk

April 11th 11 10:14 PM

hey,
i'm new here,
can u tell me about this site?

rickorickk

April 11th 11 10:21 PM

hi,
i'm new here,
can you tell me about the forum?

rickorickk

April 11th 11 10:26 PM

yea,
i'm new here,
can u tell me about your site?

Harryk

April 11th 11 10:33 PM

Obama endorses slavery

wrote:

OK I am wrong but the FACTS are the tax on$250k will get us 70
billion a year, assuming they actually pay it (no tax avoidance
schemes)
The tax on the$250K is $300 billion a year (the total tax cut costs
$3.7T over 10 years) so it is 18.9%, not 10%

So when you look at the whole thing, assuming we went back to the
Clinton levels, it would only cover about 24.6% of the deficit.
$370B vs a $1.5T deficit)

Double the tax rates on those whose income is more than $500,000 a year,
single or couple.

Make all income except income used to open or build up an individual's
own business, one that hires people, subject to the higher tax rates.

I_am_Tosk

April 11th 11 10:46 PM

Obama endorses slavery

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 12:18:34 -0700, wrote:

You keep saying the richest 400 people. Do you really think there are
only 400 people in the US who make more than $250K per year????

No that is about 5 million but that curve from 250k to the top 400 is
a hockey stick.

I would like to see them dump all of the Bush tax cuts but most people
only want to see the taxes go up for people who make more than they do
and assume that will fix the debt.

Dumping the tax cuts are fine eventually. Not now. Not for the middle
class. Dump them for those who make more than $250K. It's a good
start, but you deny that.

I only deny that limiting this to people who make more money than you
will not make that much difference. In this case the difference is
about 10% of the whole tax cut.

More than me? Your figures are wrong. It will make a huge difference
even if you don't want to accept that.

OK I am wrong but the FACTS are the tax on $250k will get us 70
billion a year, assuming they actually pay it (no tax avoidance
schemes)
The tax on the $250K is $300 billion a year (the total tax cut costs
$3.7T over 10 years) so it is 18.9%, not 10%

So when you look at the whole thing, assuming we went back to the
Clinton levels, it would only cover about 24.6% of the deficit.
$370B vs a $1.5T deficit)

You continually claim that the argument being made is that it'll fix
the debt. Nobody is making that claim. Another diversion and lack of
facts.

I hear it every day by guys like Bernie Sanders. They blame the whole
budget crisis on the Bush tax cuts and use platitudes like "going back
to Clinton tax rates when the budget was balanced".
I agree we should go back to the Clinton tax rates and I have said
that repeatedly. I also point out it won't make a dent in a $1.5
trillion dollar deficit.

A huge percentage of the problems can be laid at the feet of the Bush
admin. Sorry if you're not willing to admit it.

Changing the subject again?
I agree. Bush was a huge part of the problem but he had a congress
that actually spent all of that money. If the president could actually
spend money, we wouldn't have all of this shut down the government
talk.

The point is, even if there were no Bush tax cuts, we would still be
well over a trillion in the hole.($1.13T)

The fact is, it is not Bushs fault at all. It's the congress that spends
the money and Pelosi was in charge of that. I remember the lying sack of
**** saying "gas prices will be my first issue if I am elected"... Among
other things, depending on who she was talking to at the time. Either
way, this recession is right at the feet of Pelosi, Obama, Kerry, and
Frank...

--
Rowdy Mouse Racing - We race for cheese!

Harryk

April 11th 11 11:19 PM

Obama endorses slavery

I_am_Tosk wrote:

The fact is, it is not Bushs fault at all. It's the congress that spends
the money and Pelosi was in charge of that. I remember the lying sack of
**** saying "gas prices will be my first issue if I am elected"... Among
other things, depending on who she was talking to at the time. Either
way, this recession is right at the feet of Pelosi, Obama, Kerry, and
Frank...

It's Stunatz Scotty, our own little Glenn Beck.

[email protected]

April 11th 11 11:39 PM

Obama endorses slavery

On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 17:13:28 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 12:16:16 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 13:01:40 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 12:49:42 -0400, Harryk
wrote:

wrote:

Why is it democrats go to the extreme in every argument. Someone says
they want to cut the cost of government and immediately you say they
want to stop food inspections and shut down the air traffic
controllers. (although both could easily be privatized)

Why is it Republicans want to privatize just about everything? If you
want to ensure crappy services on which the public depends, then turn it
over to some for-profit corporation. That's especially true in areas
such as food inspections, and there are many others.

I only have to point to the failures in the government system.

If "the system" worked as is, we would not be talking about salmonella
and E-coli poisoning almost every week.
The publicizing of these incidents and the bad press for the company
involved is a far greater impact than any sanction the government is
likely to impose. Companies try to keep their products safe because
the market will punish them if they don't, not because of a government
inspector sitting in an office somewhere updating his fantasy baseball
team.

So, all of a sudden you expect the gov't to be perfect. Wow. It must
be imperfect because Obama is in office.

No it has always been imperfect. Obama is just more of the same.
I see little difference between any of the Bush/Clinton/Bush/Obama
administrations. For that matter It has not really changed much since
Eisenhower left.

He's not even close to being "more of the same." Just because YOU
don't see much difference does not make that a fact.

Feel free to vote for Eisenhower's daughter. Oh wait, she doesn't want
to have anything to do with GOP.

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:47 PM.

Page 10 of 31

« First

Last »

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page