Did you vote today?

Created by Rick on Jun 8, 2010

5,979 votes

Click on an option to vote

Yes

No

Other (explain below)

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

Washington DC

#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

Washington DC

#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.

Since: Dec 10

Washington DC

#19018 Dec 5, 2012
dont know nothin wrote:
<quoted text>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 ..
Good Point,,,,,,,,,,

"For instance, the Department of Interior’s new controls on deep-water oil drilling may cost the industry $180 million, but one oil spill like that caused by Deepwater Horizon could cost the industry $16.3 billion. Some of the administration’s rules, like those governing coal ash, will actually help create thousands of jobs."

Since: Dec 10

Washington DC

#19019 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?
"In the last 12 months through the end of September, the cost range of new regulations is estimated to be $8 billion to $9 billion, a decrease from 2010, according to non-partisan Government Accountability Office reports analyzed by Bloomberg…"

"The record [cost of regulations] came in 1992 under George H.W. Bush when that total hit $20.9 billion in current dollars. In the last year of Ronald Reagan’s term it was $16 billion in today’s dollars".
dont know nothin

Yakima, WA

#19020 Dec 5, 2012
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
Good Point,,,,,,,,,,
"For instance, the Department of Interior’s new controls on deep-water oil drilling may cost the industry $180 million, but one oil spill like that caused by Deepwater Horizon could cost the industry $16.3 billion. Some of the administration’s rules, like those governing coal ash, will actually help create thousands of jobs."
thanks, just trying to talk some common sense to some people is worse than pulling teeth, i honestly do not see how some people think the world is ran or the government is ran the way they do... i mean it amazes me every single time i read one of their posts... and just when you think they get the point they are farther away then when you first started the conversation...you would think after what george bush did people would wake up to the world and be tuned in to what is going on in the world around them not just what is going on in their town... because i for one would not want to be one left in the dark again.

Since: Dec 10

Washington DC

#19021 Dec 5, 2012
dont know nothin wrote:
<quoted text>thanks, just trying to talk some common sense to some people is worse than pulling teeth, i honestly do not see how some people think the world is ran or the government is ran the way they do... i mean it amazes me every single time i read one of their posts... and just when you think they get the point they are farther away then when you first started the conversation...you would think after what george bush did people would wake up to the world and be tuned in to what is going on in the world around them not just what is going on in their town... because i for one would not want to be one left in the dark again.
Indeed, you would think.
Reality Check

Conway, AR

#19022 Dec 5, 2012
dont know nothin wrote:
<quoted text>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
The "they" is the millionaires in America. The UK has, in the past few years, raised the tax rate on millionaires to 50%. The result? The number of millionaires in the UK went from 16000 to 6000 and the revenue the UK gets is less than they had before the new tax rate. This might be a new concept to you but people will protect their financial well being by doing whatever it takes. Even if it means moving to another country that is more tax friendly. If you think it won't happen in America, your crazy. The argument that companies will just stay in America and let the goernment tax them to death simply because they are patriotic sounds great but reality and the P&L statements won't allow it. I had this argument with Barney so you can go back and look at that but, in short, we consumers are the reason any company moves over seas. You look at two "identical" items, one made in the USA (the more expensive) and the other in China (the less expensive). The moment you choose to buy the cheaper one you have told both manufacturers that the most important factor in your decision is price so you shouldn't be suprised when the American companies moves some or all of it's manufacturing operations overseas. They are simply giving you what you asked for. A cheaper price. If every consumer bought American made products, no matter what, then you couldn't produce enough space for all the companies that would try to get into our country so they could sell products with the "Made in the USA" sticker on them.
BarneyIII

Jonesboro, AR

#19023 Dec 6, 2012
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
your EIC versus my actual payments wouldn't be a march.
Redd

Little Rock, AR

#19024 Dec 6, 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.
Funky feet and smelly shoes can lead to a lack of friends and a huge social hurdle that can alienate you whether you like it or not. So form a plan of attack to freshen smelly shoes so that you can save yourself the constant expense of replacing your footwear and replacing friends.
Redd

Little Rock, AR

#19025 Dec 6, 2012
Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
The "they" is the millionaires in America. The UK has, in the past few years, raised the tax rate on millionaires to 50%. The result? The number of millionaires in the UK went from 16000 to 6000 and the revenue the UK gets is less than they had before the new tax rate. This might be a new concept to you but people will protect their financial well being by doing whatever it takes. Even if it means moving to another country that is more tax friendly. If you think it won't happen in America, your crazy.
Question, then why, given that the Bush tax cuts put taxes on the rich at a all time low, is this already happening in the good old USA?
BarneyIII

Jonesboro, AR

#19026 Dec 6, 2012
Redd wrote:
<quoted text>
Funky feet and smelly shoes can lead to a lack of friends and a huge social hurdle that can alienate you whether you like it or not. So form a plan of attack to freshen smelly shoes so that you can save yourself the constant expense of replacing your footwear and replacing friends.
I have found that your breath overcomes the odor of my feet, no one notices my feet when you are around. It has been stated that you smell like you have been chewing on someone's socks, never realized they were mine.
guest

Blytheville, AR

#19027 Dec 6, 2012
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
"In the last 12 months through the end of September, the cost range of new regulations is estimated to be $8 billion to $9 billion, a decrease from 2010, according to non-partisan Government Accountability Office reports analyzed by Bloomberg…"
"The record [cost of regulations] came in 1992 under George H.W. Bush when that total hit $20.9 billion in current dollars. In the last year of Ronald Reagan’s term it was $16 billion in today’s dollars".
Thanks for proving my point, once again.
It looks like you are both the liar and the sucker again...

Since: Dec 10

Washington DC

#19028 Dec 6, 2012
guest wrote:
<quoted text>Thanks for proving me wrong, once again.
It looks like you are correct, I am both a liar and the sucker again...
Your welcome..........

Since: Dec 10

Washington DC

#19029 Dec 6, 2012
BarneyIII wrote:
<quoted text>
your EIC versus my actual payments wouldn't be a march.
If that is what you believe, the odds are in your favor.

In the real world, with a response such as that, I would say my "EIC" and your "actual payments" are exactly the same

ZERO'


BarneyIII

Jonesboro, AR

#19030 Dec 6, 2012
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
If that is what you believe, the odds are in your favor.
In the real world, with a response such as that, I would say my "EIC" and your "actual payments" are exactly the same
ZERO'
That is the reason that I know you don't live in the real world, I am paying in excess of four hundred a week in federal income tax and you think I should pay more ( we is my wife and I combined ). I do believe that you want to penalize me because I am willing to work, have chose to make intelligent life choices and have invested wisely. I too worked at McD's but that was a temporary job in high school, didn't make a career out of it. I guess I just set my goals higher than you, but then I was raised to believe that I wasn't owed anything by anyone.
Redd

Little Rock, AR

#19031 Dec 6, 2012
BarneyIII wrote:
<quoted text>
I have found that your breath overcomes the odor of my feet, no one notices my feet when you are around. It has been stated that you smell like you have been chewing on someone's socks, never realized they were mine.
And here I suspected you were the one chewing my shit stained underwear, musta been your wife instead.

Since: Dec 10

Washington DC

#19032 Dec 6, 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?

"You really think the Bush tax cuts led to Obama's recession"

What was the date the "Obama's recession" begin?

The National Bureau of Economic Research, an independent group of economists, released a statement Monday saying economic data now clearly point to the economy turning higher last summer. That makes the 18-month recession that started in December 2007 the longest and deepest downturn for the U.S. economy since the Great Depression.

The NBER said it "did not conclude that economic conditions since that month have been favorable or that the economy has returned to operating at normal capacity." Rather, it decided that June was when the economy hit bottom, and that it has been slowly but steadily growing since then.

"Economic activity is typically below normal in the early stages of an expansion, and it sometimes remains so well into the expansion," said the NBER.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/20/news/economy/...

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.

Pocahontas Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
State prison in Randolph County (Aug '09) 17 min Cool man Luke 80
second chance 5 hr guest 23
Pocahontas City Attorney & $73,060 he stole 8 hr Hopeful 13
eric bibb 13 hr Naughty 5
Satan's Craziest New Trend: WICCA (Apr '11) 16 hr guest 31
Minimum Wage . Raise or not ? Sun Yes No Maybe 19
Dogs running loose Sun Poky Gal 2
Pocahontas Dating
Find my Match

Pocahontas Jobs

Pocahontas People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Pocahontas News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Pocahontas

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]