Comments
1,461 - 1,480 of 52,069 Comments Last updated 2 min ago
move on

Clayton, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1550
Dec 6, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Bigdave1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry Dude, but I am not impressed with a big mouthed old man that claims he is a hotshot. Believe me nobody cares who you are or anything about you. Frankly I don't believe a word that you had in your thread except that you are a Democrat and have no idea of what a fascist really is. It is business owners that can't compete with other outsourced products because of high taxes, government regulations, and union wages that American jobs are being sent out of this country. If your company is doing so well then you aren't furnishing good if any health insurance, you are paying very low wages, and you have few if any real job benefits.
BTW how do you know which employee's voted for Romney? What a great guy you are for not firing them for voting for whom they thought was best. I think it is time for you to look in the mirror and take some stock with yourself before your time comes. That is if you believe in God.
Dude you have NO idea what it takes to open and run a business. The government is the least of your problems. The government can actually help with a lot of programs to get one started and get employees to work. The government only becomes a problem when the business succeeds. At that point nobody wants to pay taxes, what a hoot.

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1551
Dec 6, 2012
 
Aggie23 wrote:
And here is the difference between Bush and Iraq and Obama and Benghazi.
Bush relied on intelligence that we now know was incorrect and in some cases from informants who lied. However, there was plenty of reason to believe in it's accuracy. Hussein had used chemical weapons against the Kurds in the 80's and was KNOWN to be pursuing biological WMD and developing a nuclear program. After the Persian Gulf War, Iraq was ordered to destroy it's chemical and biological stockpiles. One result of Wikileaks is that is now known that chemical agents were found in 2004 and 2007. During Clinton's presidency, the threats of Iraqi WMD was taken very seriously:
"We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." Clinton 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has 10 times since 1983." Sandy Berger, National Security Advisor 1998
...
+1

It's interesting that all of those wanting to be critical of Bush (BTW, I wasn't a fan) "forget".

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1552
Dec 6, 2012
 
move on wrote:
<quoted text>
Dude you have NO idea what it takes to open and run a business. The government is the least of your problems. The government can actually help with a lot of programs to get one started and get employees to work. The government only becomes a problem when the business succeeds. At that point nobody wants to pay taxes, what a hoot.
(breaking my policy of not responding to unregistered posters)

Actually, depending on the type of business you open and run, you are quite mistaken. Been there and done that.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1553
Dec 6, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

Doo wrote:
Republican hate never stops does it? And they call themselves the party of Christains? Real Christains don't hate their neighbors and fellow man for helping others. What a shame and disgrace.
Please elaborate on your statements, they are so vague it is hard to know to what you are referring. Are you referring to that fact that, in general, Republicans believe that giving to the needy should be a personal choice so that we can be more confident that the money goes to those truly in need and is not wasted by a bureaucracy or given to those who, though able, CHOOSE not to support themselves and their families. I have never heard a Republican say they wished to deny assistance to those who TRULY cannot help themselves. But I have heard Republicans say that creating a permanent underclass by stripping people of their self respect and initiative by setting forth policies that stifle the work ethic is wrong. We see how well the War on Poverty has worked: billions have been spent and the poverty level has not decreased, instead, more people than ever are in government programs. We see couples refuse to marry so that the woman and their illegitimate children can receive more money. The illegitimacy rate among women between the ages of 20-30 has now reached 51%. We see parents trying to get their children labeled with learning disabilities in order to qualify for more money, despite the downward track that places those children on.
Liberals somehow believe that compassion is measured by your willingness to have the government take your hard earned money and waste it on programs that do not help those they claim to want to help - it only keeps them in a state of dependency -(which frankly seems to be the true goal) But if liberals are so compassionate, why is it that study after study does not bear that claim out? Arthur C Brooks, a registered Independent and professor at Syracuse University, studied the claims and published "Who Really Cares: the Simple Truth about Compassionate Conservatism." He found that while liberal households on average make 6% more than conservative households, conservative households contribute 30% more to charity. They also donate more of their own time and even more of their blood. Nicholas Kristof, a professed liberal, went to The Catalogue of Philanthropy to study the same and followed with "Bleeding Heart Tightwads", which came to the same conclusion. Those who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of 4 times more than those who favor income redistribution.(They want to redistribute income all right, just not their own.) His article was an appeal to his fellow liberals to do better. No one is stopping Democrats (who love taxes) from contributing more if they feel so lead. But just look at the tax returns of leading Democrats - their contributions are a joke.
So in conclusion, do not get so sanctimonious about Republicans, who do tend to profess that they are Christians, and claim they do not care about their fellow man. We just put our money where your mouth is.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1554
Dec 6, 2012
 
"if they feel so led" not "lead"
Doo

Dalton, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1555
Dec 6, 2012
 
Synergy wrote:
<quoted text>
It's truly amazing how you libs place ALL the hate on republicans JUST BECAUSE republicans don't jump lock step behind Obama. Have you read ANY of the posts regarding democrat hate? All you are doing is spewing more democrat rhetoric..... Anyone who doesn't blindly support that renegade, Obama, is just full of hate.
Grow a brain.
I think you've got me mixed up with yourself freind. Obama won the election and all your hate keeps on spewing everyday. Take a back seat where you belong because you did not win and let the winner doo his job. I have a brain which is much more than you have. Fox has ruined yours.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1556
Dec 6, 2012
 
Doo wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you've got me mixed up with yourself freind. Obama won the election and all your hate keeps on spewing everyday. Take a back seat where you belong because you did not win and let the winner doo his job. I have a brain which is much more than you have. Fox has ruined yours.
And once again, disagreeing with policy equals hate in the eyes of the Democrats. Just because you lose an election does not mean you check your values and principles at the door. If you truly believe this country is going down the road to losing the things that made this country great, you have an obligation to try and get people to open their eyes and see the mistakes that are being made.
I will quote (again) Hillary Clinton from 2003 "I am sick and tired of people that say if you debate and disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration." Somehow I doubt you said she was full of hate when she said this. So please either support your posts with facts and substance or quit wasting the space.
Doo

Dalton, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1557
Dec 6, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Aggie23 wrote:
<quoted text>
And once again, disagreeing with policy equals hate in the eyes of the Democrats. Just because you lose an election does not mean you check your values and principles at the door. If you truly believe this country is going down the road to losing the things that made this country great, you have an obligation to try and get people to open their eyes and see the mistakes that are being made.
I will quote (again) Hillary Clinton from 2003 "I am sick and tired of people that say if you debate and disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration." Somehow I doubt you said she was full of hate when she said this. So please either support your posts with facts and substance or quit wasting the space.
I truly know that they are sorry lazy people that do not take responsibility for their lives. There always have been these type as long as mankind has existed. I'm just saying that Obama got electee again by a rather large majority simply because most Americans don't think only the rich should have affordable health care or groceries and medicine. The middle class has fallen on hard times due to the bad economy World wide. What angers me is that the Republicans still want to give the rich tax breaks when they already have plenty while the working class struggles to make their bills every week. America is in deep debt with the deficit and the wealthy seem to want to tack most taxes on the working class. We all need Affordable Health Care and most now can't even afford it. Thank goodness in 2014 there will be better coverage for all Americans and not just the ones that have lots of money. No Republican in office that I can remember has stopped the lazy that wont work or the ones that have abortions either.

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1558
Dec 6, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

"A large majority"?

Nope, although it probably depends on your subjective definition. I posted elsewhere that 330,000 votes TOTAL (I don't know, or care, if the numbers have been finalized), in four states (OH, FL, VA, CO), would have given the electoral college to Romney, even though BO got 50.6%(I think) of the overall vote. Majority? Yes. But it was a lot closer than people think, even though the electoral college was 332-206. 4 states, 330,000 votes of over 120 million (around .25% of total votes cast) and we have a different winner, even though BO was ahead by around 4 million or so in the popular vote.

"Republicans still want to give the rich tax breaks"?

Oh, you mean the people that pay the most taxes? You can find for yourself many links that show who pays what in taxes, around half the country doesn't pay any income taxes. If you believe the rich don't pay (more than) their "fair share" you need to define "fair share" and realize that there is no Santa Claus...

Q. What do you call "tax breaks" for someone who doesn't pay any income taxes?

A. Wealth redistribution.
Doo

Dalton, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1559
Dec 6, 2012
 
Bill in Dville wrote:
"A large majority"?
Nope, although it probably depends on your subjective definition. I posted elsewhere that 330,000 votes TOTAL (I don't know, or care, if the numbers have been finalized), in four states (OH, FL, VA, CO), would have given the electoral college to Romney, even though BO got 50.6%(I think) of the overall vote. Majority? Yes. But it was a lot closer than people think, even though the electoral college was 332-206. 4 states, 330,000 votes of over 120 million (around .25% of total votes cast) and we have a different winner, even though BO was ahead by around 4 million or so in the popular vote.
"Republicans still want to give the rich tax breaks"?
Oh, you mean the people that pay the most taxes? You can find for yourself many links that show who pays what in taxes, around half the country doesn't pay any income taxes. If you believe the rich don't pay (more than) their "fair share" you need to define "fair share" and realize that there is no Santa Claus...
Q. What do you call "tax breaks" for someone who doesn't pay any income taxes?
A. Wealth redistribution.
Mitt Romeny and most rich people pay around 14% which is very cheap. Mine is way higher than that. Warren Buffet tells the truth about taxes and no one wants to hear him. Some rich people don't mind paying their fair share but most really resent paying at all. Loopholes and write offs need to be stopped along with capital gains breaks. I don't know anyone that don't pay income taxes.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1560
Dec 6, 2012
 
Doo wrote:
<quoted text>
Mitt Romeny and most rich people pay around 14% which is very cheap. Mine is way higher than that. Warren Buffet tells the truth about taxes and no one wants to hear him. Some rich people don't mind paying their fair share but most really resent paying at all. Loopholes and write offs need to be stopped along with capital gains breaks. I don't know anyone that don't pay income taxes.
No, no, no, no - please educate yourself about income tax versus capital gains tax rates, they are not the same. Almost all of Romney's 2010 income was from capital gains - that is the earnings from investments made with income that has already been taxed once, it is not the same as the income derived from a salary and you cannot compare the two. And please define fair share, how many times has it been shown that those who make $200,000 and up already pay 52.2% of income taxes, how is that fair?

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1561
Dec 6, 2012
 
The problem with our budget and deficit is not that the "rich" do not pay their "fair share" - though they don't, they pay MORE than their fair share. The problem is and will probably remain the spending. There is so much waste and redundant spending that the budget could easily be balanced if the government was forced to act like a business and spend no more than it brought in. Why are households expected to "live within their means", but the govt is not. There is no incentive for the various departments to save money. If they don't spend in one year what they were given, they aren't rewarded for being thrifty, they just get that much taken away from their next years budget - how stupid is that. And Obama isn't interested in raising taxes for the sake of more income to the govt, it is all about "fairness" in his mind and he admitted it in an interview with Charles Gibson. Gibson reminded Obama that cuts in capital gains taxes have ALWAYS resulted in MORE income coming into the govt, but Obama said "well, Charlie, it's about fairness" - well, who the hell does he think he is to be the arbiter of "fairness". If Democrats came to the table in good faith and seriously would attack the budget problem like adults and realize that cuts must be made and the entitlement bandwagon has got to be realistically reevaluated so that it is limited to those who TRULY need help, I and most Republicans I know would be willing to talk tax increases if they were truly needed. But that is the crux of the matter - tax increases are not the answer, they can't be - and Democrats know it, but it is all about power and until the majority of the American people realize that, this county will continue to spiral downwards.

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1562
Dec 6, 2012
 
Doo: "Mitt Romeny and most rich people pay around 14% which is very cheap. Mine is way higher than that. Warren Buffet tells the truth about taxes and no one wants to hear him. Some rich people don't mind paying their fair share but most really resent paying at all. Loopholes and write offs need to be stopped along with capital gains breaks. I don't know anyone that don't pay income taxes."
Aggie23 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, no, no, no - please educate yourself about income tax versus capital gains tax rates, they are not the same. Almost all of Romney's 2010 income was from capital gains - that is the earnings from investments made with income that has already been taxed once, it is not the same as the income derived from a salary and you cannot compare the two. And please define fair share, how many times has it been shown that those who make $200,000 and up already pay 52.2% of income taxes, how is that fair?
Well stated, Aggie.

Mr. or Ms. Doo: do (no pun intended) some research on the difference (and rationale for) between capital gains and ordinary income.

"Some rich people don't mind paying their fair share but most really resent paying at all."

Oh, it's resentful to want to keep what you've earned? Particularly when so many take advantage of the government teat and so much spending is for the "wrong" reasons?

Actually, I know lots of people that pay lots of taxes, what they want is for everyone to participate, not just half the country.

"I don't know anyone that don't pay income taxes."

Quite doubtful, or, perhaps, you don't know very many people...

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1563
Dec 6, 2012
 
Bill in Dville wrote:
Doo: "

Actually, I know lots of people that pay lots of taxes, what they want is for everyone to participate, not just half the country.
"I don't know anyone that don't pay income taxes."
Quite doubtful, or, perhaps, you don't know very many people...
That is an excellent point you made. There was a quote that I think is appropriate:
"While increasing taxes on any group has negative economic effects, the reality of the current federal fiscal situation dictates that a balanced approach of spending cuts in tandem with rising rates and expanding the base of taxpayers is needed....since we are all in this together, EVERYONE (emphasis mine) must participate in funding federal government operations in some form, whether it includes a loss of some benefits at the lower end of the income spectrum, or middle and upper income individuals having to pay higher tax rates."

The most important components of that quote to me are spending cuts, expanding the base of taxpayers and the idea that (as you stated) everyone must participate. Currently almost half the country apparently couldn't care less about the budget crisis as long as they get their check. They don't seem to realize that this country cannot sustain its spending levels or we will be on the road to Greece and all the riots they are experiencing as they try and put their fiscal house in order by cutting their spending. The tax increases Obama is pushing CANNOT keep up with the spending (and in fact would run the govt for EIGHT DAYS) and will NOT lessen the deficit. Spending must be cut.

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1564
Dec 6, 2012
 
Aggie23 wrote:
<quoted text>
That is an excellent point you made. There was a quote that I think is appropriate:
"While increasing taxes on any group has negative economic effects, the reality of the current federal fiscal situation dictates that a balanced approach of spending cuts in tandem with rising rates and expanding the base of taxpayers is needed....since we are all in this together, EVERYONE (emphasis mine) must participate in funding federal government operations in some form, whether it includes a loss of some benefits at the lower end of the income spectrum, or middle and upper income individuals having to pay higher tax rates."
The most important components of that quote to me are spending cuts, expanding the base of taxpayers and the idea that (as you stated) everyone must participate. Currently almost half the country apparently couldn't care less about the budget crisis as long as they get their check. They don't seem to realize that this country cannot sustain its spending levels or we will be on the road to Greece and all the riots they are experiencing as they try and put their fiscal house in order by cutting their spending. The tax increases Obama is pushing CANNOT keep up with the spending (and in fact would run the govt for EIGHT DAYS) and will NOT lessen the deficit. Spending must be cut.
Yep. There are MANY people that don't know enough (or care) to realize we have a spending problem, there just isn't enough tax revenue available. That's why we're borrowing about 40% of what is spent.

The politicians exacerbate the problems by saying (in so many words), "Vote for me, I'll take stuff from the evil rich and give it to you". Isn't that class warfare? When people just want to know "what's in it for me?", you have an issue. Once something is given, it's quite difficult to reduce or take it away. I've yet to see anyone explain how everything will be paid for...
ChickenFlorentin e

Douglasville, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1565
Dec 6, 2012
 
Bill in Dville wrote:
<quoted text>
There are MANY people that don't know enough (or care) to realize we have a spending problem
Please explain what we are spending too much on. Which bills (let's leave the complications of ACA out of this) should not have been funded? I hear all the time that we're spending too much, but nobody ever seems to say what on. Maybe they'll mumble something about entitlements, but never specific programs.
Bill in Dville wrote:
<quoted text>
Isn't that class warfare?
Class warfare? It's already come and gone. The rich won.

http://politicsdecline.files.wordpress.com/20...

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1566
Dec 6, 2012
 
ChickenFlorentine wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Class warfare? It's already come and gone. The rich won.
http://politicsdecline.files.wordpress.com/20...
Our economy is not a zero sum game. It is not as though there is a finite amount of income available that must be divided among all the citizens. The rise or fall of the incomes of the wealthy have nothing to do with the rise or fall of the incomes of either the middle class or the lower class, that graph is meaningless in this context.
ChickenFlorentin e

Douglasville, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1567
Dec 6, 2012
 
Interesting subject - we're spending too much. All those poor people being lazy taking our money.

In 2010 JUST Exxon Mobil generated revenues of $383,000,000,000.00, up 35%, during the recession while most Americans were struggling. That same year they paid an effective tax rate of 17%.

In 2010 we spent about 409 Billion on oil subsidies.

In the 2010 Federal Budget we spent about 191 Billion (5.5%) on actual aid to the poor.
ChickenFlorentin e

Douglasville, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1568
Dec 6, 2012
 
Aggie23 wrote:
<quoted text>
Our economy is not a zero sum game. It is not as though there is a finite amount of income available that must be divided among all the citizens. The rise or fall of the incomes of the wealthy have nothing to do with the rise or fall of the incomes of either the middle class or the lower class, that graph is meaningless in this context.
Tell that to the 95% of America who hasn't seen an increase in earnings since 1979.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1569
Dec 6, 2012
 
ChickenFlorentine wrote:
<quoted text>
Please explain what we are spending too much on. Which bills (let's leave the complications of ACA out of this) should not have been funded? I hear all the time that we're spending too much, but nobody ever seems to say what on. Maybe they'll mumble something about entitlements, but never specific programs.
<quoted text>
It took five minutes to find the following information:
The Government Accountability Office has issued two reports identifying $400 billion in annual duplication and overlap in funds.
The 2012 Pig Book Summary includes these as just a sample:$255 million to upgrade the M1 Abrams tank - which is opposed by the Pentagon.$5,870,000 for the EastWest Center, a pet project of Daniel Inouye.$239,000,000 for peer reviewed cancer research, but $5.1 billion has already been provided for research in the Labor/HHS Appropriations Act of 2012.$50,000,000 for National Guard Counter Drug Programs, but again $2 billion has already been allocated to the Drug Enforcement Agency for the same thing.$9,500,000 for high energy cost grants to the Rural Utilities Service, but this is a duplication of the Dept of Agriculture's Electric Loan Program.
That is just a small sampling. There is plenty of waste, duplication and just sheer pork that can be cut from the budget before ever touching entitlements.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

5 Users are viewing the Brunswick Forum right now

Search the Brunswick Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Help in Woodbine!!!!!! Tue PepsiCo 5
Does anyone know Jason Carlin (Aug '13) Aug 16 marcuswade 5
Infowars.com banned from Facebook Aug 15 Jeb 1
Part 12 Guy Heinze Jr. (May '10) Aug 13 Get Over It 1,181
Did Morenos court order shut down Kingsland and... Aug 3 kazoo 3
Who runs the landscape shop in Woodbine? (Aug '08) Jul 31 magnola 24
What happened to Kim Devore Jul 22 Rumor 3
•••
•••
•••
Brunswick Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Brunswick Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Brunswick People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Brunswick News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Brunswick
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••