Did you vote today?

Created by Rick on Jun 8, 2010

6,227 votes

Click on an option to vote

Yes

No

Other (explain below)

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#18997 Dec 4, 2012
BarneyIII wrote:
<quoted text>
I was referring to your self gratification when I mentioned beating a dead horse. If it takes jumping through a few hoops to help your comprehension, I am willing to make the sacrifice, I am a compassionate conservative and if anyone ever needed compassion it is you.
NO, you "jumping through a few hoops" did not do a thing for my "comprehension". As long as it took to get you to do what I wanted you to do, evidently it did not do a hell of a lot for yours either.

What it did prove, I whistle and you dance..........

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#18998 Dec 4, 2012
BarneyIII wrote:
<quoted text>
I was referring to your self gratification when I mentioned beating a dead horse. If it takes jumping through a few hoops to help your comprehension, I am willing to make the sacrifice, I am a compassionate conservative and if anyone ever needed compassion it is you.
BTW, Barney III, I noticed your IP was Camden Ar. not Jonesboro.

"give me the post number and the IP address from whence it originated"

Maybe I should name the type of device it was posted by also.
dont know nothin

Yakima, WA

#18999 Dec 4, 2012
Old Army wrote:
<quoted text>
No Ma'am, you don't make a lick of sense.
i'm sorry i don't understand 2nd grade hillbilly giberish.
BarneyIII

Little Rock, AR

#19000 Dec 5, 2012
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
BTW, Barney III, I noticed your IP was Camden Ar. not Jonesboro.
"give me the post number and the IP address from whence it originated"
Maybe I should name the type of device it was posted by also.
Please give the type of device, I have never been to Camden. If whistling and dancing will help you, heck I will do that, anything to enlighten you. You have problems and the Topix community would like to help. We would like to see you get off government assistance and stand on your own and with a little help and a lot of remedial training, Barney you can so it.
Deniece

United States

#19001 Dec 5, 2012
Vote

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#19002 Dec 5, 2012
BarneyIII wrote:
<quoted text>
Please give the type of device, I have never been to Camden. If whistling and dancing will help you, heck I will do that, anything to enlighten you. You have problems and the Topix community would like to help. We would like to see you get off government assistance and stand on your own and with a little help and a lot of remedial training, Barney you can so it.
Give it up son, you cannot whistle and dance at the same time.
Reality Check

Warren, AR

#19003 Dec 5, 2012
I was thinking about the tax argument the other day. If you tax the rich to death, they are going to mover their money out of the economy. If they move their money out of the economy, the expected revenues won't be there to meet the spending demands. If the spending demands aren't met the government will have to either borrow more money or tax those that are left at a higher rate. If you borrow more money you will need more revenue to pay for it so the rates will go up anyway. Either way, America needs as many millionaires as it can get it's hands on so those that don't make as much won't have to be burdened with a tax rate that leaves them unable to feed their families. Make the environment so that millionaires want to live in America. The best way to do that is a flat tax with no deductions that applies to everyone from Warren Buffett down to welfare recipients. People would be taxed at, lets say, 10% on their working income, domestic investment income, retirement income, overseas investment income, or basically anything that gives a person more money than they had. This way we can stop making taxes a social issue and start climbing out of this hole we are in. If Warren Buffett total combined income is $62 million per year and his secretary makes only $30,000, Mr. Buffett's tax bill would be $6.2 million and his secretary's bill would be $3,000. It would also encourage investors to invest here in America and not overseas because investing overseas would be subject to the tax in the country in which the investment was made plus the 10% U.S. tax. It's a win win situation. Not to mention the fact that prices on goods would not only come down but also stabilize because there would be near 100% certainty of how much a given company's tax burden would be. That certainty would then cause more intense competition for consumers between like companies driving prices lower as well making each dollar able to go farther on the goods we buy. If there is a downside to this, I can't find it.

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#19004 Dec 5, 2012
Reality Check wrote:
I was thinking about the tax argument the other day. If you tax the rich to death, they are going to mover their money out of the economy. If they move their money out of the economy, the expected revenues won't be there to meet the spending demands. If the spending demands aren't met the government will have to either borrow more money or tax those that are left at a higher rate. If you borrow more money you will need more revenue to pay for it so the rates will go up anyway. Either way, America needs as many millionaires as it can get it's hands on so those that don't make as much won't have to be burdened with a tax rate that leaves them unable to feed their families. Make the environment so that millionaires want to live in America. The best way to do that is a flat tax with no deductions that applies to everyone from Warren Buffett down to welfare recipients. People would be taxed at, lets say, 10% on their working income, domestic investment income, retirement income, overseas investment income, or basically anything that gives a person more money than they had. This way we can stop making taxes a social issue and start climbing out of this hole we are in. If Warren Buffett total combined income is $62 million per year and his secretary makes only $30,000, Mr. Buffett's tax bill would be $6.2 million and his secretary's bill would be $3,000. It would also encourage investors to invest here in America and not overseas because investing overseas would be subject to the tax in the country in which the investment was made plus the 10% U.S. tax. It's a win win situation. Not to mention the fact that prices on goods would not only come down but also stabilize because there would be near 100% certainty of how much a given company's tax burden would be. That certainty would then cause more intense competition for consumers between like companies driving prices lower as well making each dollar able to go farther on the goods we buy. If there is a downside to this, I can't find it.
Bush cut tax rates for the rich, decreased regulations, and we went from a budget surplus,(created under a higher tax rate) to the great rescission.

Now does that not impede your theory a bit, never mind, just tell me why you think it dose not.
Old Army

Greenbrier, AR

#19005 Dec 5, 2012
dont know nothin wrote:
<quoted text>i'm sorry i don't understand 2nd grade hillbilly giberish.
Everything I need to know about you, I learned in kindergarden. I'm sorry you failed kindergarden so many times. You should go try again.
guest

Blytheville, AR

#19006 Dec 5, 2012
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
Bush cut tax rates for the rich, decreased regulations, and we went from a budget surplus,(created under a higher tax rate) to the great rescission.
Now does that not impede your theory a bit, never mind, just tell me why you think it dose not.
Once again, the facts "impede your theory"

"Obama’s White House approved 613 federal rules during the first 33 months of his term, 4.7 percent fewer than the 643 cleared by President George W. Bush’s administration in the same time frame, according to an Office of Management and Budget statistical database reviewed by Bloomberg."

You really think the Bush tax cuts led to Obama's recession?
Then again, you do think that removing Billions in revenue doesn't hurt commerce.

Here we are again, Are you a sucker or a liar?
guest

Blytheville, AR

#19007 Dec 5, 2012
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
Give it up son, you cannot whistle and dance at the same time.
You've proven that over and over again...
Reality Check

Warren, AR

#19008 Dec 5, 2012
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
Bush cut tax rates for the rich, decreased regulations, and we went from a budget surplus,(created under a higher tax rate) to the great rescission.
Now does that not impede your theory a bit, never mind, just tell me why you think it dose not.
Because, if you limit deductions to 0 then you don't have to tax at a 35% rate because all of your income is taxed. If you take away deductions and still tax at 35%, the highest income earners will leave thus burdening those that can't afford the $16 trillion and climbing debt we currently have in this country. You also can't have half of America not paying any taxes. That is as unsustainable as your argument of the rich getting tax breaks. Under a flat tax system it would not matter how much in welfare a person got (to a degree) because they would always be giving back the flat tax rate. It would also get welfare recipients used to paying income taxes so they would be more likely to get off of welfare if a better income opportunity presented itself. I understand that given we have had this tax structure forever, this proposal seems extreme but it makes "paying your fair share" 100% spot on. America makes roughly $9.7 trillion in income every single year. We currently take in about $1.4 trillion in revenue. In order to equal that amount, everyones tax rate would have to be about 14.5% with no deductions. If you tax all entitlements that brings the total revenue to $11.2 trillion meaning that the tax rate for everyone would come down to 12.5%. The variable then becomes investment income. We know that Wall Street deals in trillions of dollars each year plus there are probably hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars invested overseas. Take whatever the tax rate is for everyone else and apply that to the profits off of interest in those investments, and you will add who knows how much to the total revenue. The final piece of the puzzle has to be controlled government spending. Under this equation, nobody can say that someone else doesn't pay their fair share be it the ultra wealthy or the entitlement sector. I think that there is room for upping the rate from what probably appears to be around 11%, all things considered, to maybe 15%. I can assure you that EVERYONE paying to support this great nation we live in would eliminate the wealthy trying to hide their money from our government. I understand that there will always be about 2% that are greedy and do it anyway but you can't alienate the entire country to go after that very small amount of people.
Why

Memphis, TN

#19009 Dec 5, 2012
Good for you
wormed

Memphis, TN

#19010 Dec 5, 2012
Why is this happening
wormed

Memphis, TN

#19011 Dec 5, 2012
Because, if you limit deductions to 0 then you don't have to tax at a 35% rate because all of your income is taxed. If you take away deductions and still tax at 35%, the highest income earners will leave thus burdening those that can't afford the $16 trillion and climbing debt we currently have in this country. You also can't have half of America not paying any taxes. That is as unsustainable as your argument of the rich getting tax breaks. Under a flat tax system it would not matter how much in welfare a person got (to a degree) because they would always be giving back the flat tax rate. It would also get welfare recipients used to paying income taxes so they would be more likely to get off of welfare if a better income opportunity presented itself. I understand that given we have had this tax structure forever, this proposal seems extreme but it makes "paying your fair share" 100% spot on. America makes roughly $9.7 trillion in income every single year. We currently take in about $1.4 trillion in revenue. In order to equal that amount, everyones tax rate would have to be about 14.5% with no deductions. If you tax all entitlements that brings the total revenue to $11.2 trillion meaning that the tax rate for everyone would come down to 12.5%. The variable then becomes investment income. We know that Wall Street deals in trillions of dollars each year plus there are probably hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars invested overseas. Take whatever the tax rate is for everyone else and apply that to the profits off of interest in those investments, and you will add who knows how much to the total revenue. The final piece of the puzzle has to be controlled government spending. Under this equation, nobody can say that someone else doesn't pay their fair share be it the ultra wealthy or the entitlement sector. I think that there is room for upping the rate from what probably appears to be around 11%, all things considered, to maybe 15%. I can assure you that EVERYONE paying to support this great nation we live in would eliminate the wealthy trying to hide their money from our government. I understand that there will always be about 2% that are greedy and do it anyway but you can't alienate the entire country to go after that very small amount of people.
Why
Memphis, TN
BarneyIII

Jonesboro, AR

#19013 Dec 5, 2012
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
Give it up son, you cannot whistle and dance at the same time.
And you'll never be productive and get off government assistance, given the choice, most would prefer to be in my shoes.
dont know nothin

Yakima, WA

#19014 Dec 5, 2012
guest wrote:
<quoted text>Once again, the facts "impede your theory"
"Obama’s White House approved 613 federal rules during the first 33 months of his term, 4.7 percent fewer than the 643 cleared by President George W. Bush’s administration in the same time frame, according to an Office of Management and Budget statistical database reviewed by Bloomberg."
You really think the Bush tax cuts led to Obama's recession?
Then again, you do think that removing Billions in revenue doesn't hurt commerce.
Here we are again, Are you a sucker or a liar?
yah he passed fewer stricter rules on regulation genius .. lets just not fine people or have an consequences for people dumping toxic waste in irrigation ditches and water sheds .. lol what a joke... he imposed fewer rregulations with stricter more broad consequences.. increased fines and regulations is better !! i mean why don't we just let every oil well be built like the one in the gulf that bp owned and let all the bad ones just blow... why inspect them ? i mean not like it's gonna dump millions of gallons of oil in the ocean.. but lets only fine them 5 billion on 100billion dollar industry lol get real more like 15 or 20 billion i think the number is actually somewhere around 16 or 17 but i think that's still to low.. i love your little post by bloomberg by the way lol should of read the whole column... and yes bush did collapse the economy with tax cuts and 2 wars and an unregulated wall street and banking system and then doesn't have the backbone to show his face for a duration of his last year in office.. yes bush did ruin the economy and every major credible analys, jounelist, specialist, economist, and a vast majority of republicans with a good head on their shoulder... unlike some ..
dont know nothin

Yakima, WA

#19015 Dec 5, 2012
Reality Check wrote:
I was thinking about the tax argument the other day. If you tax the rich to death, they are going to mover their money out of the economy. If they move their money out of the economy, the expected revenues won't be there to meet the spending demands. If the spending demands aren't met the government will have to either borrow more money or tax those that are left at a higher rate. If you borrow more money you will need more revenue to pay for it so the rates will go up anyway. Either way, America needs as many millionaires as it can get it's hands on so those that don't make as much won't have to be burdened with a tax rate that leaves them unable to feed their families. Make the environment so that millionaires want to live in America. The best way to do that is a flat tax with no deductions that applies to everyone from Warren Buffett down to welfare recipients. People would be taxed at, lets say, 10% on their working income, domestic investment income, retirement income, overseas investment income, or basically anything that gives a person more money than they had. This way we can stop making taxes a social issue and start climbing out of this hole we are in. If Warren Buffett total combined income is $62 million per year and his secretary makes only $30,000, Mr. Buffett's tax bill would be $6.2 million and his secretary's bill would be $3,000. It would also encourage investors to invest here in America and not overseas because investing overseas would be subject to the tax in the country in which the investment was made plus the 10% U.S. tax. It's a win win situation. Not to mention the fact that prices on goods would not only come down but also stabilize because there would be near 100% certainty of how much a given company's tax burden would be. That certainty would then cause more intense competition for consumers between like companies driving prices lower as well making each dollar able to go farther on the goods we buy. If there is a downside to this, I can't find it.
how do you suppose they would move their money out of the economy and just who are you calling rich exactly? in other words who is "they" in your sentence.... and your illogical way of thinking is nowhere close to how the economy works...so from past your i beleive 3rd sentence up there is irrelevant because you have not given enough specifics of to how this would be done ... but i can tell you that we can turn tax cuts for exporting into tax cuts for importing... we can cut tax rates on corporations, and tax those at a higher rate that profit off of those corporations, and we can keep our current taxes for people under 250,000 the same ... like i said a marginal tax rate allows people to be taxed at different rates as profit levels progress through those brackets... so get out of here with this nonsense.. i mean it's a good "thought" that you had but it doesn't make any sense when you start asking the question.. why would united states based corporations suddenly betray their country in revolt?... people will just go elsewhere and never by from that company again and guess who is the number one importer in the world .. you guessed it the united states... but do you really think americans will buy from a corporation who wants to take it's headquarters over seas to avoid paying american taxes?... samsung is the only national brand that consumers here in america buy that has it's headquarters stationed in south korea from which it originated... and is the only company that is currently trading with iran while others in the UN are in sanctions not to sell to iran .. so with that being an exception and the reason why i don't buy samsung lol ... now why doesn't every other national brand that was started here in the united states just take their headquarters overseas and transfer not only their factories but the way they do business? samsung practially owns and runs south korea .. which is what the republicans want

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#19016 Dec 5, 2012
BarneyIII wrote:
<quoted text>
And you'll never be productive and get off government assistance, given the choice, most would prefer to be in my shoes.
If you are so sure of which you speak, let's you and I trade tax liabilities for 2012 right here and now, I know of a capable attorney to draw up the contract.

Want to put your money where your mouth is?

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#19017 Dec 5, 2012
guest wrote:
<quoted text>Once again, the facts "impede your theory"
"Obama’s White House approved 613 federal rules during the first 33 months of his term, 4.7 percent fewer than the 643 cleared by President George W. Bush’s administration in the same time frame, according to an Office of Management and Budget statistical database reviewed by Bloomberg."
You really think the Bush tax cuts led to Obama's recession?
Then again, you do think that removing Billions in revenue doesn't hurt commerce.

Here I go again, am I a sucker or a liar?
You frigging Idiot, reducing specific regulations, such as those on Wall Street Traders, and issuing fewer regulations to any Government agency are two different things.

To answer the above,

It is a trick question, you are both.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form 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.

El Dorado Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
shooting in calion 44 min missing 19
Whats up walmart closing numerous stores 1 hr Duck lover 36
Where is the best place to Dine out in this town? 2 hr OMG 20
Divorce 2 hr OMG 12
Joann Davis snapped 4 hr toni 19
Camden's Hospital Ranked with a dismal 'D' Grad... 6 hr Annual Hospital S... 1
Morgan Florist 7 hr Perfect 9
More from around the web

El Dorado People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]