Why should Obama keep Bush tax cuts? - Page 3 - Politics and War Forum

Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.
Re: Why should Obama keep Bush tax cuts?
Wednesday, September 15, 2010 8:11 PM on j-body.org
You didn't look up the definition of an egalitarian communist is, and as you read this, you still don't know what it means.....but lets dissect your last bit ' honey:

Is this the same gut that tells you that all black are thugs/welfare recipients and drive Dodge Magnums, or all Arabs are scathing terrorist, or every central American are illegal immigrants? So that's a new one; you open up your own business and be a leader and not dependent, now falls under a commie? Heh... when all else fails and it is the opposite of what you think...label them a Communist. Brilliant!
Then again this is Scotty, the one that believes that our president is not American and thinks he's a Muslim. What else can I expect? Heh, you remind me of this political cartoon, here's another thing to piss you off:


1) Never said all blacks are thugs or wellfare recipients. Nor did I say that all blacks drive dodge magnums. You can read the post again if you please. I asked people to see if they see a commonality among the drivers of said cars. Of course all blacks don't drive magnums. That's idiotic and i didn't say it. That being said, if you see a dodge magnum or especially a black 300c, unless you are living in wyoming, there is a high probability that the driver will be black. It is no more racist a statement than if I said, if you see a pair of skinny jeans, you can be nearly certain, a white kid is wearing them.

2) Why I continue to revisit your pinheadedness is a mystery to me. Find a single post where I said all arabs or muslims are terrorists, or even, where I said all terrorists are arabs or muslims are terrorists. Its not semantics or mincing words, thats what you are doing. My statement, was and still is, that most terrorists in the world today are muslims or arabs. The media outlets piss all over themselves with excitement whenever they can portray the muzzies as harbingers of tolerance and love. So don't blame the media.

3) I don't know where you are getting your info about me saying all illegal immigrants are central americans. Post the hyperlink please. However, due to the close proximity to our borders, most illegal immigrants in America are from Central/South America. Its just harder for Slovenians to lay hold to that title, due to the whole ocean thingy.

4) Where was it that I said BHO is a muslim? If he is, it explains a lot. Either way, I don't care. I doubt that he faked a birth certificate either. and btw, I never said or implied that he did.

These "gut" feelings you ascribe to me, are the products of your own mania. My use of the words "most" and "many" must make your skin crawl. However, it makes a liar and a fool out of you.


“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart

Re: Why should Obama keep Bush tax cuts?
Wednesday, September 15, 2010 8:15 PM on j-body.org
Take Back the Republican Party wrote:



And Scotta...don't fool yourself for one minute. You do not "pay" for disabled people. Your employer does. The money you think you "pay" was never in your possession in the first place.

s.



Then who EARNED it?

IF you did not have workers, your quarterly taxes would not be what they are Bill...

Chirs


"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."

Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry


Re: Why should Obama keep Bush tax cuts?
Wednesday, September 15, 2010 8:29 PM on j-body.org
And since right about now you are salivating over it, I know you didn't say that you want to abolish captialism. happy? Notice also, that I didn' accuse you of it either. Just that it was my hunch. Big diffy, stiffy.

.


“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart
Re: Why should Obama keep Bush tax cuts?
Wednesday, September 15, 2010 10:26 PM on j-body.org
Tisk-Tisk... What-'sa-matter Scotty, don't like the tables turned?

Kevin Trudeau wrote:

You didn't look up the definition of an egalitarian communist is, and as you read this, you still don't know what it means.

Fortunately I do know what communism is, which is why I said what I said before to you. Sorry for the confusion that Karl Marx's definition/belief does not coincide to what FOX news portrays (which is what you base off). But if you want to see an example of the truest form, pick up a bible or see how Israel works today, then pick up Marx's book and compare notes. I'm not going to the explain it for you, so your lazy ass will have to do something that you don't believe in: do something on your own,
Fortunately I do know what egalitarian is too. You, I and everybody on this board, mainly tea partiers, hell... even our forefathers too believed in it. How? Does the Constitution ring a bell? And the folks who believe in it. For starters: "We the people..." what does that sound to you?
Also say you and those "baby mamas," you called out on the other thread of yours, worked the same jobs that you love, worked the same amount of hours, days and started the same time too. You make $10 per hr, they make $18 per hr. Do you want to be at the same rate as "baby mamas," or would you be conform? Careful what you say, you may sound like something of what you accuse me of being.
As you find out how ignorant (not knowing about the subject...not JBO's definition of ignorant: stupid.) you are, you may want to sit down, as the fall might be damaging to that great mind of yours.

Quote:

These "gut" feelings you ascribe to me, are the products of your own mania. My use of the words "most" and "many" must make your skin crawl. However, it makes a liar and a fool out of you.

Remember what I wrote to Spike J: Found here.
You love to beat around the bush and imply what I bluntly tell you what you are. You choose you word carefully like OJ, but as you add to your portfolio of hatred with your multitude of racial or some sort religious related threads, only proves my point. I thank-you too.



THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.

Re: Why should Obama keep Bush tax cuts?
Thursday, September 16, 2010 3:21 AM on j-body.org
INFIDEL wrote:

Take Back the Republican Party wrote:



And Scotta...don't fool yourself for one minute. You do not "pay" for disabled people. Your employer does. The money you think you "pay" was never in your possession in the first place.

s.



Then who EARNED it?

IF you did not have workers, your quarterly taxes would not be what they are Bill...

Chirs

They never "earned" it. They never touched it, nor saw it, nor even created it. The Government took it from the company's profit well prior, and merely calculated the amount based upon the worker's wage. In doing do, our wonderfully benevolent government gives the worker some sense of "contribution", but it's a complete illusion.

Without the company, the cash flow and gross profit to pay the tax does not exist. The worker does not create this cash flow, the company's strength and capability does. The worker is a dependent who does not bear any actual stress or risk; all he or she has to do is be there at the prescribed time, and not screw off during that time. That's not a burden, nor in any way stressful. Clock out and go home.

You also are deluded (lol, as usual!) if you think any other account is actually true.





Re: Why should Obama keep Bush tax cuts?
Thursday, September 16, 2010 6:04 AM on j-body.org
goodwrench. im sure there are a few companies out there that may like to layoff. again it doesnt make any sence to like it. they may do it because they feel it is the best way to run there company. but no company thats goal is to earn money wants to layoff people because it means either A. they hired to many people and were wasting money that way. or that B. customers arn't buying enough product and you have to make cuts. neither is something a company wants. as for who gets cuts that just depends on the company.



Bill. if welfare comes out of federal taxes paid, and my check shows federal taxes taken out of it, then i have paid for that. not the company. if you paid me under the table and then claimed me on your taxes as an employee. who would the goverment go after for the taxes? they would come after me. not you. i would be paying for those taxes out of my own pocket. therefore. i as a worker do pay for welfare.


and sorry but your workers do allot more then just clock in and be there at the prescribed time. they are what is making your product for you to sell. they are your company. without good workers you wouldn't have the company you have now. no they don't bare the stress as the owner or the risk, but this is why the owner makes the most money. biggest investment, biggest return. a company is only as strong as the workers are


the worker is just as dependat on the owner as the owner is dependant on there customer. neither is independant. without the customer the company wouldn't be there to make money. no one is independant.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
Re: Why should Obama keep Bush tax cuts?
Thursday, September 16, 2010 6:22 AM on j-body.org
There there, don't be offended. No need to be "sorry", lol. This concept is a theoretical construct, an aspect of altering one's perception, a different way to understand the government revenue and worker dependency interactions. As such, I won't allow this discussion to be subverted into some "mean sinister employer who doesn't care about his employees" scenario. Please save that false sympathy for something else, as this is a discussion about Big Picture factors.

That being said, you are also QUITE mistaken about who's on the hook if I pay you under the table and the IRS gets wind of it. I can be highly fined, and even prosecuted, for doing that. You'd be a bit player in such an instance.

You don't pay for welfare. Your pay has been padded to pay for it. The business pays it. That's a fact, and it may hurt to hear, but it's the truth.









Re: Why should Obama keep Bush tax cuts?
Thursday, September 16, 2010 8:56 AM on j-body.org
This thread is thoroughly amusing. It has gotten so convoluted that it's only slightly still on topic.

Goodwrench, you've finally exposed where your corporate hatred comes from, and how you blanket the majority of corporations as being of the same stripe you claim your past employers are. I'll ask you a couple of simple questions, though, regarding your claims of how companies love to lay off, and never trim at the top:

1) When revenue is down, and the budget needs to be cut, does it make sense to cut out the people who are responsible for calling the shots, in order to retain the people who do the work?

2) Do you know for a fact that there were no pay cuts taken by people at the top, and/or that bonuses were not paid out as a result of revenue/profit targets not hit?


Bill, with regards to your statements about how a company pays for disability, and welfare, and not the employee, let's consider something here: all costs involved in having an employee, whether they are deducted from the employee's pay, or simply paid by the employer, are still part of the cost of the employee. When this is taken into account, any employer has an amount they can pay for an employee. What they actually can pay the employee is a function of deducting the additional costs from that amount. The result is that the employer could pay the employee more money for a job if they paid less into such things as disability. So the end result is that the employee does pay for that. The other option is that the customer pays for it as a result of the employer having to raise their prices. Given all of this, when the system is abused (and we all know how badly it gets abused), those costs go up, and something has to offset it. Since raising prices will almost always result in a decline in sales volume, it ends up coming out of the payroll in one form or another. So who really pays for it?

The really funny thing is this rant of yours:
Take Back the Republican Party wrote:

They never "earned" it. They never touched it, nor saw it, nor even created it. The Government took it from the company's profit well prior, and merely calculated the amount based upon the worker's wage. In doing do, our wonderfully benevolent government gives the worker some sense of "contribution", but it's a complete illusion.

Without the company, the cash flow and gross profit to pay the tax does not exist. The worker does not create this cash flow, the company's strength and capability does. The worker is a dependent who does not bear any actual stress or risk; all he or she has to do is be there at the prescribed time, and not screw off during that time. That's not a burden, nor in any way stressful. Clock out and go home.
This coming from the man who accused me of having disdain for the worker just a month or so ago. Sounds here like you place little value on the worker.


One final thought here. An argument seems to be made by our "centrist independent" friends here that workers are merely dependents of companies. The reality is that companies and workers are co-dependent, and that's a fact that will never change. Smart business owners do not try to get the most out of their workers for the least money, because even if they are as cold-hearted as some of you like to claim, the smart businessman knows that the better they can pay their workers, the better chance of retention and loyalty they have, which translates into a stronger company.







Re: Why should Obama keep Bush tax cuts?
Thursday, September 16, 2010 9:12 AM on j-body.org
You're missing the point.

You force me to reiterate that this is NOT about "mean, sinister employer vs. employees." It's as if you didn't even read my reply to Jason above. I'd hoped that if you saw that once, you'd take it to heart. Please give it up, it's a waste of yours and everyone else's time.

That being said, I again reiterate...it's all a construct, a unique perception, a way to shake the tree and discover new insights. It's an exercise, not an insight into my innermost attitudes regarding employees. I well realize that such 'outside the box thinking' is not your preferred M.O., but so be it...that's your problem, not ours. We're trying to explore the fringes of concept regarding the employer/employee/government relationship here, so PLEASE do not try to turn this into another "Quik disdains Bill and Goodwrench, and will patronize the topic just to play that disdain card ad nauseum" thread.

If you're willing to discuss the content and message, and avoid a repeat of 'attack the messenger' mode, I will continue. If not, please step back and let us continue our discussion.

What say you? I'm willing to address actual points in your post if you are willing to avoid the vitriol.








Re: Why should Obama keep Bush tax cuts?
Thursday, September 16, 2010 9:28 AM on j-body.org
Take Back the Republican Party wrote:

If you're willing to discuss the content and message, and avoid a repeat of 'attack the messenger' mode, I will continue...What say you? I'm willing to address actual points in your post if you are willing to avoid the vitriol.
LOL. Read my full post again, and then read this statement of yours. I made points in there, you just focussed on the part that was directly about your statement which I found humorous. I will remind you that the "attack the messenger" MO is that of you and Goodwrench, which is pretty much recognized here by everyone except yourself.






Re: Why should Obama keep Bush tax cuts?
Thursday, September 16, 2010 10:05 AM on j-body.org
Take Back the Republican Party wrote:

There there, don't be offended. No need to be "sorry", lol. This concept is a theoretical construct, an aspect of altering one's perception, a different way to understand the government revenue and worker dependency interactions. As such, I won't allow this discussion to be subverted into some "mean sinister employer who doesn't care about his employees" scenario. Please save that false sympathy for something else, as this is a discussion about Big Picture factors.

That being said, you are also QUITE mistaken about who's on the hook if I pay you under the table and the IRS gets wind of it. I can be highly fined, and even prosecuted, for doing that. You'd be a bit player in such an instance.

You don't pay for welfare. Your pay has been padded to pay for it. The business pays it. That's a fact, and it may hurt to hear, but it's the truth.




im not offended at all bill. this is merely a discussion.

a fine is a payment for breaking the rules. complety seperate from the whole tax deal

i pay taxes. we get bounus at work every year, guess what, i have to claim that on my taxes and pay that money to the goverment every year. not to mention i can control how much comes out of my check for taxes. you don't have control over that. I do. i tell the goverment how much of my money i want them to take out. if i dont pay the taxes how do i have the ability to control how much of my paycheck they take for taxes.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography

Re: Why should Obama keep Bush tax cuts?
Thursday, September 16, 2010 10:20 AM on j-body.org
but its a con-struct, a perception, a way of thinking, a philosophy, the third side to an alternative reality coin,


“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart
Re: Why should Obama keep Bush tax cuts?
Thursday, September 16, 2010 10:37 AM on j-body.org
sndsgood wrote:

Take Back the Republican Party wrote:

There there, don't be offended. No need to be "sorry", lol. This concept is a theoretical construct, an aspect of altering one's perception, a different way to understand the government revenue and worker dependency interactions. As such, I won't allow this discussion to be subverted into some "mean sinister employer who doesn't care about his employees" scenario. Please save that false sympathy for something else, as this is a discussion about Big Picture factors.

That being said, you are also QUITE mistaken about who's on the hook if I pay you under the table and the IRS gets wind of it. I can be highly fined, and even prosecuted, for doing that. You'd be a bit player in such an instance.

You don't pay for welfare. Your pay has been padded to pay for it. The business pays it. That's a fact, and it may hurt to hear, but it's the truth.




im not offended at all bill. this is merely a discussion.

a fine is a payment for breaking the rules. complety seperate from the whole tax deal

i pay taxes. we get bounus at work every year, guess what, i have to claim that on my taxes and pay that money to the goverment every year. not to mention i can control how much comes out of my check for taxes. you don't have control over that. I do. i tell the goverment how much of my money i want them to take out. if i dont pay the taxes how do i have the ability to control how much of my paycheck they take for taxes.

Well, your nose seemed a bit out of joint Needless to say, I anticipated a severe blowback for this racical school of thought. As an aside, you were mistaken about who gets it in the hiney for under the table pay, and I corrected you.

I do agree, your view of employee taxes is the most simplistic and easiest to understand. I know you pay taxes for all these things, and I'm not suggesting you are a non-contributor. It's just that things are not always what they seem on the surface.

Let us consider...there was a time when payroll and income taxes did not exist. It wasn't actually all that long ago...the early part of the 20th century. By that time, the USA had been chugging along fine as a growing nation, yet "workers" were not "contributing" a dime of their "wages". It does paint a curious picture, does it not? How did we get 150 years into our glorious history...without payroll taxes?




Re: Why should Obama keep Bush tax cuts?
Thursday, September 16, 2010 7:27 PM on j-body.org
tarrifs, fees, etc. The way it should be. When woodrow wilson was president, the top earners paid about 7% of their income in taxes. I realize that may be about 68% less than what you'd prefer, but again, how did we get to this point?

;


“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart
Re: Why should Obama keep Bush tax cuts?
Thursday, September 16, 2010 9:40 PM on j-body.org
sndsgood wrote:

goodwrench. im sure there are a few companies out there that may like to layoff. again it doesnt make any sence to like it. they may do it because they feel it is the best way to run there company. but no company thats goal is to earn money wants to layoff people because it means either A. they hired to many people and were wasting money that way. or that B. customers arn't buying enough product and you have to make cuts. neither is something a company wants. as for who gets cuts that just depends on the company.

Sure they'd like it, it is another form to maximize profit. Place more of a workload on an individual, or a smaller group, while still managing to get the job done... if you don't agree, there will be hundreds of more people that will happily take your position. Best of all, it is not another salary or benefit to pay. From a business point of view, it is brilliant...no? Realistic sarcasm aside, it all depends on the company, because there will be some that work correctly (Lincoln Electric, Costco, Ben and Jerry's are a few), it is just unfortunate that it is becoming an endangered species. Like I said before, just because you didn't live through it or read/seen about it, doesn't mean these companies doesn't exist and if you do admit that they do exist... then there's really nothing more to discuss.

Take Back the Republican Party wrote:

You're missing the point.

You force me to reiterate that this is NOT about "mean, sinister employer vs. employees." It's as if you didn't even read my reply to Jason above. I'd hoped that if you saw that once, you'd take it to heart. Please give it up, it's a waste of yours and everyone else's time.
That being said, I again reiterate...it's all a construct, a unique perception, a way to shake the tree and discover new insights. It's an exercise, not an insight into my innermost attitudes regarding employees. I well realize that such 'outside the box thinking' is not your preferred M.O., but so be it...that's your problem, not ours. We're trying to explore the fringes of concept regarding the employer/employee/government relationship here, so PLEASE do not try to turn this into another "Quik disdains Bill and Goodwrench, and will patronize the topic just to play that disdain card ad nauseum" thread.
If you're willing to discuss the content and message, and avoid a repeat of 'attack the messenger' mode, I will continue. If not, please step back and let us continue our discussion.
What say you? I'm willing to address actual points in your post if you are willing to avoid the vitriol.

Some people here carry that theory of: "Either with us or against us!" And when you are NOT with "them" and think outside of the box, be prepared for all the twists, go off-topic, go by pettiness, forgetting, or just can't read... all in the name of being cynical as their defense. What can you do, some have to result to that.

Kevin Trudeau wrote:

tarrifs, fees, etc. The way it should be. When woodrow wilson was president, the top earners paid about 7% of their income in taxes. I realize that may be about 68% less than what you'd prefer, but again, how did we get to this point?

Yes, and that 7% was 7 times more then what the poor and middle class of that time paid in. Can you imagine the top earners paying 7x more then the lowest income? Gasp! In your defensive chant for the rich, that is not good, nor fair, the outrage! Or was that to egalitarian for you?



THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.

Re: Why should Obama keep Bush tax cuts?
Friday, September 17, 2010 5:02 AM on j-body.org
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote "Sure they'd like it, it is another form to maximize profit. Place more of a workload on an individual, or a smaller group, while still managing to get the job done... if you don't agree, there will be hundreds of more people that will happily take your position. Best of all, it is not another salary or benefit to pay. From a business point of view, it is brilliant...no? Realistic sarcasm aside, it all depends on the company, because there will be some that work correctly (Lincoln Electric, Costco, Ben and Jerry's are a few), it is just unfortunate that it is becoming an endangered species. Like I said before, just because you didn't live through it or read/seen about it, doesn't mean these companies doesn't exist and if you do admit that they do exist... then there's really nothing more to discuss."


most companies are in business to maximise profit. if i realise i can do the same amount of work with 8 people versus 10 i also have to look at the fact i have been paying 10 people to do the work that 8 can do. meaning i was paying money for people i obviously didn't need. now if you own your company and realised that you didn't need someone, would you want to keep them? most owners i think would choose to let someone go because they just arn't needed. when your the person at the top. esp a public company. your job allot of times is to try and make the most money. and sometimes that just means you get rid of people you don't need.



HAHN WROTE "Well, your nose seemed a bit out of joint Needless to say, I anticipated a severe blowback for this racical school of thought. As an aside, you were mistaken about who gets it in the hiney for under the table pay, and I corrected you.

I do agree, your view of employee taxes is the most simplistic and easiest to understand. I know you pay taxes for all these things, and I'm not suggesting you are a non-contributor. It's just that things are not always what they seem on the surface.

Let us consider...there was a time when payroll and income taxes did not exist. It wasn't actually all that long ago...the early part of the 20th century. By that time, the USA had been chugging along fine as a growing nation, yet "workers" were not "contributing" a dime of their "wages". It does paint a curious picture, does it not? How did we get 150 years into our glorious history...without payroll taxes?"



no, its very rare that i ever get upset in the war forum. i expect those i respond with to have an opposite viewpoint or it wouldnt really be worth my time talking to someone that just agreed with my views. i actually come in here more to hear the opposite view and how others thing on a subject matter versus trying to get someone to change there minds,


i wasn't mistaken about who gets it in the hiney for under the table pay. if i was paid under the table the goverment would come after me. would they come after you as the company? yes they would. but because they also come after me to pay taxes on the money i earned. it shows that i am responsible for paying those taxes personally. they would come after both of us. because both of us are responsible for paying taxes. as for you second part about the past. i would say that the goverment is just adding more ways to generate money. im sure $150years ago you didnt have to pay to get permits to build buildings, or pay money to have yard sales. or pay money for a liscence for your dog or your car or any number of things. taxes have been added in fee's permit costs etc.etc. thruought the years to increase the money the goverment locally and nationally generates.











http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.

 

Start New Topic Advanced Search