Paul Ryan: Attack dog

[obarry]

OregonSUX wrote:

<quoted text>
"Aida Jimenez-Esquilin
Oak Hill, WV
So now we see you admit who you are. I am glad you are doing what you claim. I also am forwarding again, as I have in the past, all your slanderous comments to the people you have posted about on these forums so they can also contact lawyers or whatever they may wish to do with them.
So glad you have admitted to what you have been doing for months now. Oh, and as for deleting comments like you posted earlier, not all of them dear. You left hundreds. The evidence is stacked heavily against you. Thanks for making it easy. "

That has been you, oregonsux posting that stuff? Now we know what is going on. Oregonsux is accusing others of posting under different names, and its her all along. Shame on you! you are a slanderous liar, oregonsux. I did not realize you did those things. All of topix should watch for your signature from now on.

[OregonSUX]

obarry wrote:

<quoted text>
That has been you, oregonsux posting that stuff? Now we know what is going on. Oregonsux is accusing others of posting under different names, and its her all along. Shame on you! you are a slanderous liar, oregonsux. I did not realize you did those things. All of topix should watch for your signature from now on.

obarry:
"
Aida Jimenez-Esquilin wrote:
<quoted text>
The karma will be for her too, how many post in the past months has she harassed Ros and others? I am sure if she is so upset, she can complain, of course that will mean her internet records of her harassment will be shown to the ones she harassed. Wonder how that will play out? Karma huh? Yes. Isn't it a biotch. LMAO!

She has not harassed anybody once. How stupid will you feel when this is revealed in court? Will you still be focused on falsely incriminating her, or will you actually then take a moment to wonder who the REAL culprits are? Ros actually named a couple of them in a now deleted post.

YOU, on the other hand, have established a serious record of harrassment. You are one of the "bad guys".

[obarry]

OregonSUX wrote:

<quoted text>
obarry:
"
Oregonsux wrote:
<quoted text>
The karma will be for her too, how many post in the past months has she harassed Ros and others? I am sure if she is so upset, she can complain, of course that will mean her internet records of her harassment will be shown to the ones she harassed. Wonder how that will play out? Karma huh? Yes. Isn't it a biotch. LMAO!
She has not harassed anybody once. How stupid will you feel when this is revealed in court? Will you still be focused on falsely incriminating her, or will you actually then take a moment to wonder who the REAL culprits are? Ros actually named a couple of them in a now deleted post.
YOU, on the other hand, have established a serious record of harrassment. You are one of the "bad guys".

Spam this often enough and you will believe it. Is this yet another of your aliases?

[xnutmegger]

OregonSUX wrote:

<quoted text>
Paul Ayn Rand Ryan is a pathetic dork. He is such a pretender that he is actually painful to watch.
He lies about something as silly as his marathon time as he tries to make himself look better than he is. This applies to his posturing as a policy wonk when he is incapable of 3rd grade math. Even Republiscum call him an economic crank.
Did you get a load of him being taken out to the woodshed by George Stephanopoulos who could not believe how idiotic Ryan's answers were.
How pathetic is the dork called Paul Ryan?
- lies about his marathon time
- lies about his political philosophy coming from Ayn Rand
- lies about asking Obama for stimulus money
- lies about Simpson Bowles
- lies about the defense budget
- lies about Janesville
- lies about rating agencies
- lies about the $716B in Medicare savings
- lies about the National Debt
- etc.

Hey SUCKS

Ayn Rand views.
* Pro-abortion
* Staunch Atheist
* pro-euthanasia
* Pro-individualism
* Anti-collectivism
* Pro-capital punishment
* Laissez faire

Ryan said he bought into her war of politics theory of " Indivualism " vs. " Collectivism "

What's SUCKS opinions on Ayn Rand's stands on issues ?

Plus other LEFTIES should also comment.

[flbadcatowner]

Cat74 wrote:

Democrats are scared to death og Paul Ryan. He will take their glandular vote. He is young, handsome, smarter then any Democrat running, and you know how their women never cast an intelligent vote they go for good lookers. So funny. Biden only appeals to alcoholics.

Whatwver he may have gained among women who vote only for the best looking men is more than offset by his low overall approval ratings by the electorate, especially the all important block of infependent voters.

Let me reveal a little secret to you. Women as a whole are not as affected by one's looks as men are by the opposite sex. They also tend to focus more on how something is said rather than what is said and it won't take many of them long to figure out that Ryan just is not for them simply by his arrogsnt demeanor and uncaring attitude for women's issues.

[Mykro]

obarry wrote:

<quoted text>
Glad you are so focused on Ryan, at least he won't put you back in chains like Biden.

Of course not. With Ryans plan, you won't be able to afford the chains. All your money would go to paying your medical bills.

[Imhotep]

OregonSUX wrote:

obarry is an unemployed racist who constantly changes her name so that it appears someone is actually talking to her.
obarry is an anti-black troll who blames her unemployment in Beckley, WV on black people.
obarry is a psychotic freak, whiner and general purpose POS.
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/beckley-wv/TS...
Notice how many different names she hides behind. Oh yes, she is not only racist but a homophobe...aka a closeted lesbian.
obarry has been trolling these threads with her nasty racist comments since I outted her. She used one of her many, many, many aliases by mistake on these threads.
What a pathetic, unemployed, unemployable lunatic.

There you go again... Sugar coating it!

<chuckle>

[Le Jimbo]

Billy Ringo wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually, this pretty much says it all..........
http://www.electoral-vote.com/

Well your fake polls didn't last long cupcake.

POLL: RACE TIGHT AS OBAMA EDGE NARROWS TO 2 PTS...

SWING STATE DAILY TRACKING: O 46%, R 45%...

CNN: OBAMA +6...

POLLED MORE DEMS?

ABCNEWSWASHPOST LIKELY VOTERS: O 49% R 48%...

... SURVEYED 33% DEMOCRATS, 23% REPUBLICANS

GALLUP FLASHBACK: MONDALE TOPS REAGAN...

[CunningLinguist]

xnutmegger wrote:

<quoted text>
Hey SUCKS
Ayn Rand views.
* Pro-abortion
* Staunch Atheist
* pro-euthanasia
* Pro-individualism
* Anti-collectivism
* Pro-capital punishment
* Laissez faire
Ryan said he bought into her war of politics theory of " Indivualism " vs. " Collectivism "
What's SUCKS opinions on Ayn Rand's stands on issues ?
Plus other LEFTIES should also comment.

This could be a RECORD!
Actual facts posted by YOU! I am stunned!

What are those facts...?
TRUE!

Ayn Rand views.
* Pro-abortion I agree
* Staunch Atheist I am agnostic/humanist/secularist
* pro-euthanasia I agree
* Pro-individualism I agree
* Anti-collectivism I agree
* Pro-capital punishment Never
"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind." - Gandhi.
* Laissez faire I agree

and for those, lacking knowledge of Laissez faire, which I suspect is more than 65% of the posters I've seen.

A) An economic doctrine that opposes governmental regulation of or interference in commerce beyond the minimum necessary for a free-enterprise system to operate according to its own economic laws.

B)Noninterference in the affairs of others.

Ryan is a lying hypocrite.
Ayn represents almost all Paulie is against, yet somehow, she is his HERO? Can it get any more ridiculous? And... look how our ignorant public eats this BS up!

Sorry folks... This does not compute.

It is not only illogical but a determined lie to an extremely gullible general population.

Which is WHY I rigidly follow this simple policy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

[Don Joe]

Imhotep wrote:

<quoted text>
Here is newer plan
http://www.heritage.org/research/factsheets/2...
Old one I referred to...suggested by Milton Freedman long ago
However... Russia uses it
http://rense.com/general36/flat.htm
Also BULGARIA IMPLEMENTS 10 PERCENT FLAT TAX RATE
http://rspruk.blogspot.com/2007/07/bulgaria-i...
PS: my take... Flat % on ALL earned income -this includes Exxon profits down to a coal miners or teacher salary.
Being back enheritance tax
Fair share period- NO deductions one tax law, pay your % or IRS will conciscate your assets.
Both Willia Nelson and Redd Foxx found out the hard way.
Wesley Snipes still in jail.

??? Did you read the link to the new Flat Tax? It is a tax on working, but lets rich people pay nothing

Take two examples, person one makes $100,000 annually from working. Person 2 makes $10,000,000 annually from investments. Currently person one makes enough money to buy whatever he wants and ends up paying about 16% in taxes. Person 2 also makes enough to buy whatever he wants and pays 10% in taxes. Person one pays $16,000 and person two pays $1,000,000.

As to the comment it would increase business investment because those investments would be tax free, all the money is already tax free so this would reduce business investments. Now if you would increase taxes so that they paid a lot unless they invested, then investments would be an advantage. This method just takes money out of the economy.

With your new scheme, person one has his taxes increase to $28,000, almost triple. Person two has all his taxes eliminated.

Clearly this is a scheme to shift the tax burden from the idle rich to those who work. This is not fair in any way, it is a scam.

[Mykro]

Don Joe wrote:

<quoted text>
??? Did you read the link to the new Flat Tax? It is a tax on working, but lets rich people pay nothing
Take two examples, person one makes $100,000 annually from working. Person 2 makes $10,000,000 annually from investments. Currently person one makes enough money to buy whatever he wants and ends up paying about 16% in taxes. Person 2 also makes enough to buy whatever he wants and pays 10% in taxes. Person one pays $16,000 and person two pays $1,000,000.
As to the comment it would increase business investment because those investments would be tax free, all the money is already tax free so this would reduce business investments. Now if you would increase taxes so that they paid a lot unless they invested, then investments would be an advantage. This method just takes money out of the economy.
With your new scheme, person one has his taxes increase to $28,000, almost triple. Person two has all his taxes eliminated.
Clearly this is a scheme to shift the tax burden from the idle rich to those who work. This is not fair in any way, it is a scam.

When you cut out all the smoke and mirrors, you realize that all the flat tax REALLY does is eliminate the concept of progressivity. All it REALLY means is that the rich will pay taxes at the same rate as everyone else. Now, is that going to help everyone else, or is that going to help the rich? The real purpose is to destroy the present system and to introduce the concept of the flat tax, which must ultimately mean higher taxes for everyone except the wealthy.

"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise." --Thomas Jefferson to J. Madison, 1785

[CunningLinguist]

Don Joe wrote:

<quoted text>
??? Did you read the link to the new Flat Tax? It is a tax on working, but lets rich people pay nothing
Take two examples, person one makes $100,000 annually from working. Person 2 makes $10,000,000 annually from investments. Currently person one makes enough money to buy whatever he wants and ends up paying about 16% in taxes. Person 2 also makes enough to buy whatever he wants and pays 10% in taxes. Person one pays $16,000 and person two pays $1,000,000.
As to the comment it would increase business investment because those investments would be tax free, all the money is already tax free so this would reduce business investments. Now if you would increase taxes so that they paid a lot unless they invested, then investments would be an advantage. This method just takes money out of the economy.
With your new scheme, person one has his taxes increase to $28,000, almost triple. Person two has all his taxes eliminated.
Clearly this is a scheme to shift the tax burden from the idle rich to those who work. This is not fair in any way, it is a scam.

I read many of these flat tax proposals because I need to see all the options on the table,

My original concept, which I developed, back in the 70;s,
is TOO SIMPLE to understand.

Let's review shall we?

Person 1 pays 10k of 100k salary PERIOD
Person 2 pays $1,000,000 on investments of $10,000,000 PERIOD

What is SO HARD to understand about the words PROFIT, INCOME, EARNINGS, in short ANY person, company or corporation, acquires during any given year.

Flat 10% PERIOD, NOT one exception for anything.
Cash n Carry. We/They produce cash/profits and the IRS takes their 10% of it.

No long tax form but something the size of a common postcard will suffice as a 'tax return'.

1. Total Earning for year 20xx?
2. 10% submitted y/n/

3. Due 4/15 - on 4/16 IRS confiscation begins, doors are chained shut.

Ask your self what the average family of 4 is paying vs anyone earning in excess of 250k. Almost 28%

Is there even one millionaire paying this %?

[Chicagoan by Birth]

Mykro wrote:

<quoted text>When you cut out all the smoke and mirrors, you realize that all the flat tax REALLY does is eliminate the concept of progressivity. All it REALLY means is that the rich will pay taxes at the same rate as everyone else. Now, is that going to help everyone else, or is that going to help the rich? The real purpose is to destroy the present system and to introduce the concept of the flat tax, which must ultimately mean higher taxes for everyone except the wealthy.
"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise." --Thomas Jefferson to J. Madison, 1785

Thank Goodness, everybody pays, nobody gets a free ride? Micro, charity is for the Church to dispense, not Giverment. So what if it helps "The Rich"? The present system is an albatros? In trying to 'even out' the tax code the Giverment discriminates against those that provide the jobs?

[CunningLinguist]

Don Joe wrote:

<quoted text>
??? Did you read the link to the new Flat Tax? It is a tax on working, but lets rich people pay nothing
Take two examples, person one makes $100,000 annually from working. Person 2 makes $10,000,000 annually from investments. Currently person one makes enough money to buy whatever he wants and ends up paying about 16% in taxes. Person 2 also makes enough to buy whatever he wants and pays 10% in taxes. Person one pays $16,000 and person two pays $1,000,000.
As to the comment it would increase business investment because those investments would be tax free, all the money is already tax free so this would reduce business investments. Now if you would increase taxes so that they paid a lot unless they invested, then investments would be an advantage. This method just takes money out of the economy.
With your new scheme, person one has his taxes increase to $28,000, almost triple. Person two has all his taxes eliminated.
Clearly this is a scheme to shift the tax burden from the idle rich to those who work. This is not fair in any way, it is a scam.

Typical conservative with their head firmly in the sand.
I guess you prefer loopholes and inequality?

How well does the flat tax work?

Let's try some Economic Logic...

The debate about introducing a flat tax regularly flares up, but rarely is it based on a serious case study. The problem is that this debate is overly politicized and camps are formed on ideological lines, not an actual evaluation of the flat tax. Yet, there is data out there, as a flat tax has been introduced in Russia in 2001 and subsequently in six other Eastern European countries.

The flat tax in Russia was quite revolutionary. It is set at 13%, and replaced a system with marginal rates of 13%, 21% and 31%. So just looking at this, tax revenue has to decrease, yet it increased massively.

This is not due to a Laffer curve, but rather to a drastic reduction in tax evasion, argue Yurly Gorodnichenko, Jorge Martines-Vazquez and Klara Sabirianova.

Using micro data, they find that by measuring in a micro dataset tax evasion by the gap between reported income and expenses. They attribute most of the gain in tax revenue to changes in tax compliance, not to increases in economic activity.

Russia's GDP grew by 5% in 2001, nothing unusual for the period.

What does this mean for a flat tax in OECD countries?

First, the efficiency gains of such a reform do not seem to be that important.
Second, tax compliance is already relatively high, for example in the US, which makes the gains less important in this respect.

In the case of the US, a flat tax has, however, still the merit of simplifying an incredibly complex tax system that is the bread and butter of too many accountants.

[CBOW]

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup... HERE IS ADVISE FROM A DEMOCRAT!

[Don Joe]

CunningLinguist wrote:

<quoted text>
I read many of these flat tax proposals because I need to see all the options on the table,
My original concept, which I developed, back in the 70;s,
is TOO SIMPLE to understand.
Let's review shall we?
Person 1 pays 10k of 100k salary PERIOD
Person 2 pays $1,000,000 on investments of $10,000,000 PERIOD
What is SO HARD to understand about the words PROFIT, INCOME, EARNINGS, in short ANY person, company or corporation, acquires during any given year.
Flat 10% PERIOD, NOT one exception for anything.
Cash n Carry. We/They produce cash/profits and the IRS takes their 10% of it.
No long tax form but something the size of a common postcard will suffice as a 'tax return'.
1. Total Earning for year 20xx?
2. 10% submitted y/n/
3. Due 4/15 - on 4/16 IRS confiscation begins, doors are chained shut.
Ask your self what the average family of 4 is paying vs anyone earning in excess of 250k. Almost 28%
Is there even one millionaire paying this %?

Your example is different that the flat tax proposal I responded to. Prior to my response I had asked questions about the definition of profit versus salary. For example, if I have a sales job and I make $100 per day, and I have to use my car to go to see customers, can I deduct the cost of my gas, and the depreciation of my car? Since I have to look nice, can I deduct the price of my clothes? Since I have to be well rested, can I deduct the cost of my shelter? Since I have to be fed to have enough energy to do my job, can I deduct the cost of all my food? Corporations get to deduct all expenses associated with earning the profit, so I ask can I deduct all those items from my salary?

It is hard to define the words profit, income, earnings. They mean different things to different people. A working person for example, counts all revenue coming in as earnings and pays taxes on them. A corporation deducts all expenses from revenue to reduce profit, then may or might not pay taxes on any profit.

Will there be equivalent taxes on stock market trades. If I buy stock at $1.00 per share and sell it 30 minutes later at 1.08, do I pay the tax on that gain? Does this tax fall on all transactions?

I am not trying to defend the current system, I just don't want to replace it with something worse. Unless those questions (and others like it) are answered properly it might not be better.

Is there one millionaire paying at this rate? No, because they have defined profit, earnings and salaries to their advantages and end paying next to nothing in taxes. Unless you can provide exact definitions of those terms and when to apply them, they will continue to pay nothing in taxes.

[Don Joe]

CunningLinguist wrote:

<quoted text>
Typical conservative with their head firmly in the sand.
I guess you prefer loopholes and inequality?
How well does the flat tax work?
Let's try some Economic Logic...
The debate about introducing a flat tax regularly flares up, but rarely is it based on a serious case study. The problem is that this debate is overly politicized and camps are formed on ideological lines, not an actual evaluation of the flat tax. Yet, there is data out there, as a flat tax has been introduced in Russia in 2001 and subsequently in six other Eastern European countries.
The flat tax in Russia was quite revolutionary. It is set at 13%, and replaced a system with marginal rates of 13%, 21% and 31%. So just looking at this, tax revenue has to decrease, yet it increased massively.
This is not due to a Laffer curve, but rather to a drastic reduction in tax evasion, argue Yurly Gorodnichenko, Jorge Martines-Vazquez and Klara Sabirianova.
Using micro data, they find that by measuring in a micro dataset tax evasion by the gap between reported income and expenses. They attribute most of the gain in tax revenue to changes in tax compliance, not to increases in economic activity.
Russia's GDP grew by 5% in 2001, nothing unusual for the period.
What does this mean for a flat tax in OECD countries?
First, the efficiency gains of such a reform do not seem to be that important.
Second, tax compliance is already relatively high, for example in the US, which makes the gains less important in this respect.
In the case of the US, a flat tax has, however, still the merit of simplifying an incredibly complex tax system that is the bread and butter of too many accountants.

There are big differences between Russia and the US. You make the argument that simplifying the tax code would result in significant gains. I agree. The current system is ridiculously bad and needs to be overhauled. Your statement that a flat tax has the merit of simplifying the tax code is correct. While admirable, simplicity is not the only goal of a tax system.

Perhaps it could even work, with proper definitions of the terms. If wealthy get to deduct expenses, then so should the poor. The problem then becomes how high the % needs to be to have enough money to operate the government. While some have indicated 32% might not be enough, I would suggest that 10% would not even be close, without other taxes introduced. I would suggest taxes like bringing back tariffs and go to the tax system prior to the 1900s. Go back to before income tax. Take the gains back from the federal reserve bank and we might be able to operate government without any of those taxes. I see no need to give the federal reserve banks billions (trillions) of dollars for nothing.

[Tony]

We now see Ryan is learning how to flip-flop from Romney.

[CunningLinguist]

Don Joe wrote:

<quoted text>
There are big differences between Russia and the US. You make the argument that simplifying the tax code would result in significant gains. I agree. The current system is ridiculously bad and needs to be overhauled. Your statement that a flat tax has the merit of simplifying the tax code is correct. While admirable, simplicity is not the only goal of a tax system.
Perhaps it could even work, with proper definitions of the terms. If wealthy get to deduct expenses, then so should the poor. The problem then becomes how high the % needs to be to have enough money to operate the government. While some have indicated 32% might not be enough, I would suggest that 10% would not even be close, without other taxes introduced. I would suggest taxes like bringing back tariffs and go to the tax system prior to the 1900s. Go back to before income tax. Take the gains back from the federal reserve bank and we might be able to operate government without any of those taxes. I see no need to give the federal reserve banks billions (trillions) of dollars for nothing.

I agree on the % amount. 10% was purely hypothetical.
But the concept appeals to me.

If there is ever to be TRUE equality in our tax system, major changes are necessary. Will they occur? NOT A CHANCE!

Mitt et.al. know exactly how to hide millions off shore, yet call themselves patriots. I call them greedy capitalists.

ME ME ME and much more of ME ME ME!
Is there ever enough money for these people?

And... although I find religion totally ridiculous, these cretins wrap themselves in the buybull, then practive exactly the opposite of it's alleged teachings!

What was that craptrap about "eye of a needle and a camel"?

[Le Jimbo]

CunningLinguist wrote:

<quoted text>
I read many of these flat tax proposals because I need to see all the options on the table,
My original concept, which I developed, back in the 70;s,
is TOO SIMPLE to understand.
Let's review shall we?
Person 1 pays 10k of 100k salary PERIOD
Person 2 pays $1,000,000 on investments of $10,000,000 PERIOD
What is SO HARD to understand about the words PROFIT, INCOME, EARNINGS, in short ANY person, company or corporation, acquires during any given year.
Flat 10% PERIOD, NOT one exception for anything.
Cash n Carry. We/They produce cash/profits and the IRS takes their 10% of it.
No long tax form but something the size of a common postcard will suffice as a 'tax return'.
1. Total Earning for year 20xx?
2. 10% submitted y/n/
3. Due 4/15 - on 4/16 IRS confiscation begins, doors are chained shut.
Ask your self what the average family of 4 is paying vs anyone earning in excess of 250k. Almost 28%
Is there even one millionaire paying this %?

hmmmmmmmmmmmm paying a tax on Investments........what if they don't pan out and you lose your investment....do you get the tax back or are you trying to kill investment?