If Romney gets the nod

[Headholio]

a few posts later taking digs at rush limbaugh.

Hey Bino, all I said was liar and drug addict. You said Limbaugh

 

[Headholio]

if i didn't drive i would still need a photo ID to:
-open a bank account
-purchase booze or tobacco
-fly on a jet
-book a hotel room
-enter a casino
many reasons why people need a photo ID, those that don't most likely:
-are illegally here and inclined to vote in favor of your entitlement driven politics.

Yes I have to admit I couldn't live without a picture ID, and it is hard to imagine how people do it. But illegals weren't part of that statistic. Those were all citizens. And it doesn't really matter if some snobs, racists, and and fear mongering xenophobes consider those people to be dirt bags or not. They are Americans.

amazing to me that a supposed petro employee is so in love with the party that demonizes and scorns your industry so...i'm suspicious to be qutie honest

Yes, I am an enigma. But, I am an engineer in the oil and gas industry. Amazing huh? I must admit the vast majority of people I deal with are misinformed right wing red necks. I spend a lot of time in oil fields in CO, TX and WY. But who knows, maybe I'll enlighten all those red necks one of these days. They'd be much better off if they voted democratic. And by the way, democrats like oil too.

 

[Headholio]

Yeah, an "historically" we were much less regulated and riddled with litigation too.

You sure are talented to be able to regress 80 years of American history and attribute our ridiculous tax code as "part of what made America great". We became a world superpower despite our confiscatory taxation system -- not due to it.

Hey Plunkster, you need to look at it this way; there is no evidence to say that higher taxes would stifle the economy. Even if you want to argue that higher taxes didn't create prosperity (which I think that it can), it is obvious that higher taxes, even much, much, much higher taxes than we have now, are not contradictory to economic growth or prosperity.

So think about that when you listen to Fox and they are whining about socialism and that other two word slogan "job creators" because Obama suggests 39% top rate compared to higher rates under Republicans GHW Bush, Ford, Nixon, Eisenhower, etc.

 

[mrplunkey]

Hey Plunkster, you need to look at it this way; there is no evidence to say that higher taxes would stifle the economy. Even if you want to argue that higher taxes didn't create prosperity (which I think that it can), it is obvious that higher taxes, even much, much, much higher taxes than we have now, are not contradictory to economic growth or prosperity.

So think about that when you listen to Fox and they are whining about socialism and that other two word slogan "job creators" because Obama suggests 39% top rate compared to higher rates under Republicans GHW Bush, Ford, Nixon, Eisenhower, etc.

There's plenty of evidence that taxes stifle the economy.

$1 that is confiscated by the government is $1 that can't be spent by private enterprise. That's direct evidence. Or are you going to argue that me taking $20 from you won't make you $20 poorer?

The only debate is whether you believe the government makes better decisions spending that $1 than the private sector does. And that should be an obvious answer.

 

[binö]

Yes I have to admit I couldn't live without a picture ID, and it is hard to imagine how people do it. But illegals weren't part of that statistic. Those were all citizens. And it doesn't really matter if some snobs, racists, and and fear mongering xenophobes consider those people to be dirt bags or not. They are Americans.




Yes, I am an enigma. But, I am an engineer in the oil and gas industry. Amazing huh? I must admit the vast majority of people I deal with are misinformed right wing red necks. I spend a lot of time in oil fields in CO, TX and WY. But who knows, maybe I'll enlighten all those red necks one of these days. They'd be much better off if they voted democratic. And by the way, democrats like oil too.

bolded is dem code speak for white folks who don't meet their aire of sophistication and economic standards...amazing how one can be so opposed to racism and intolerance yet express the same sentiments in the same post.
and it doesn't surprize me that you are a engineer, you seem like a smart bro....

 

[-SD-]

The White Male is the last demographic of 100% penalty free bashing

 

[binö]

The White Male is the last demographic of 100% penalty free bashing

obviously they deserve it since they are inherently racist (unless the plead loyality to the liberal cause, then they are all good).

 

[PICK3]

Analysis: Romney tax plan would most benefit wealthy

Read more here: Analysis: Romney tax plan would most benefit wealthy | McClatchy

 

[javaguru]

You are right, of course it will. you can get revenue from the middle class, but Dems don't want to do that, because they think (correctly) that it will hurt the economy. Republicans pretend that they don't want to do it either, but then come up with a revenue generating suggestion to eliminate the mortgage interest deduction, which would be a huge tax on the middle class. Can't touch one buck of the historically undertaxed multimillionaires though!



It's really hard to figure out where you are coming from. 6 bucks an hour What's the point? CEOs make 20 thousand or 50 thousand bucks AN HOUR. You think throwing your 6 bucks into the equation changes the balance?

The feds historically get about 19% of GDP in income taxes no matter the rates...Hell, most people don't itemize because they don't have enough deductions to make a difference. If you want the rich to pay their "fair share" then you should support a flat tax, eliminate the double corporate tax (no capital gains) and modify the 16th Amendment to preclude deductions.[/quote]

A tax based on consumption instead of income might work ok. Flat tax, eh maybe. Elimination of some deductions, sure. There are lots of ways to improve the tax system, but we might not agree on how to best do it
Capital gains is the primary way that many millionaires make money. Capital gains should be treated like other income and taxed progressively IMO. A middle class guy could have some incentive to invest with lower capital gains tax, but multi millionaires who push buttons, makes trades and racks up millions should be taxed at the top rate for regular income. It is a myth that that kind of wealth generation is productive or helpful to the American economy. What would be helpful is to tax it appropriately.[/QUOTE]

Most people don't itemize which means they don't take the mortgage deduction; The wealthy get the deduction. In New Jersey middle class homeowners pay thousands of dollars per year in property tax for a modest house on an acre of land. Jon Bon Jovi owns a 100 acres estate next door and thanks to his farming deduction, he has a handful of beehives that produce "organic honey" so he pays less property tax than his neighbors. There shouldn't be deductions, pick a tax rate and everyone pays it regardless of their political connections. Barry hates oil subsidies and so do I but he loves green energy subsidies...I have no problem with capital gains being taxed as regular income as long as you eliminate corporate tax, you're double taxing people. It would not only create an incentive for corporations to invest in the United States it would create more wealth for all those union pension plans.


In law school I took personal income tax, partnership tax, and corporate tax while specializing in corporate law so I had unfortunately chosen a path that wasted a bunch of my time studying tax codes that shouldn't exist.

As far as wages are concerned, I have serious issues with ceo's running corporations into the ground and escaping with golden parachutes but it's disingenuous to claim workers are getting screwed and wages have been stagnant since the 1970's.

 

[Headholio]

There's plenty of evidence that taxes stifle the economy.

$1 that is confiscated by the government is $1 that can't be spent by private enterprise. That's direct evidence. Or are you going to argue that me taking $20 from you won't make you $20 poorer?

The only debate is whether you believe the government makes better decisions spending that $1 than the private sector does. And that should be an obvious answer.

This is truly funny. You apparently know nothing about economics, and teaching you would be quite tiresome, but you would probably learn a lot by reading this CBO report, especially page 29.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9967/01-27-StateofEconomy_Testimony.pdf#page=29

I hope a CBO report isn't too liberal a source for Bino .

Anyway, I have a friend who is a millionaire, who made his money starting a paving company, and now does 100% government jobs, paving military runways, and some highway projects. He's Republican as hell, and only gets irritated if I ask him about the rightie BS line about how the government can't create jobs.
He employs hundreds of people. Those people spend their money in private businesses. Those private businesses make profit and spend their money in other businesses. And it all started with Government dough. But, shit, here I go giving you economics 101 right after I said I wouldn't. Start reading the CBO document Plunkey.