David Stockman, Ronald Reagan's budget director speaks out - Page 2 - Politics and War Forum

Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.
Re: David Stockman, Ronald Reagan's budget director speaks out
Friday, November 12, 2010 5:23 AM on j-body.org

Quote:

ive never suggested the rich shouldn't pay taxes, nor would i
I never said you did. I did say "Hey X company got to where they are at because of the tax fee and service provided for them. Let see them make the same progress where taxes doesn't exist and you got to do everything on your own; like in Somalia."
In other words, they don't want to pay in the resource they use, lets see the government pave the way for them then. And with our minuscule contribution that we put in because we don't make the millions, billions that the other do, good luck continuing running smooth.

again you seem to think im saying lets not tax the rich or lets not tax anyone at all im inferring that from the bolded part above. your saying how far will they get if they dont pay taxes. i'll say it one more time then im done with the conversation the VIDEO that YOU posted showed washington wanting to ADD TAXES TO THE RICH ONLY, my stance is that they should tax the middle class as well and spread the burden around if they really need the money that badly. you posted the video, i responded about the video. and you keep wanting to turn this into a debate about the country. my replies are based OFF OF YOUR VIDEO.

because we dont make millions and billions? You watched the video right? they said (im going off memory here) that if you make 500,000 a year (im sure there are alllllot of people in that range that work for companies but dont own companies)you'd be taxed on that first 100,000 and be taxed a wopping 5000 i believe it was. okay so those people making the miniscule amount. you mean like the people making 400,000 a year who could be taxed on the first 80,0000 (figuring 20% of income ) they could pay 4000 in taxes boy 5000 and 4000 seem not to far off. 4 grand doesnt seem miniscule to me. then you work that down to people making 100,000 a year would be taxed on there first 20,000 and pay a wopping 1000 dollars. so basically 5 people at that rate is equal to 1 of these super rich as you call them. that is not miniscule. the average income for the country i want to say is in the 50,000 range. so this means if you take it down to 100,000 the burden is more spread around and the average household is still not affected.

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

Re: David Stockman, Ronald Reagan's budget director speaks out
Friday, November 12, 2010 7:21 AM on j-body.org
And apparently you ignoring me on the specifying of David Stockman and "him speaking the truth," in regards to a host of issues in raising taxes just went over your head just as the second link did as well. too. That's what troubled you, hence the ignoring of it all. Hey, I understand the anger, especially when the architect of the fu<k-up is out right strongly suggesting to do differently to what he did.


THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.

Re: David Stockman, Ronald Reagan's budget director speaks out
Friday, November 12, 2010 7:44 AM on j-body.org
i dont think i ever posted once on saying he wsan't speaking the truth, i brought up a point about the diffrent in money now versus then, you responded that he probalby figured in for inflation and such and i never argued that point at all. i just brought up the point about washington and why they are trying to only tax the rich and you started taking it into the entire country.

as for ignoring your second links. what was needed for me to respond? i said if they came up with a better fairer plan and you posted links to some plans that are partiall in the works. how is that over my head or making me angry? i never really questioned stockman. i questioned what washington was doing. why should i try and agrue you about something i didnt disagree with you on from the start?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
Re: David Stockman, Ronald Reagan's budget director speaks out
Friday, November 12, 2010 8:52 AM on j-body.org
Quote:

i dont think i ever posted once on saying he wsan't speaking the truth,
Yep, you avoided the title, my comment, main reason of this thread. I could careless on Washington since it doesn't pertain to me, if I did, I would've commented. But I understand the ignoring, it goes against your philosophy, it hurts more coming from him.
Quote:

as for ignoring your second links. what was needed for me to respond? i said if they came up with a better fairer plan and you posted links to some plans that are partiall in the works. how is that over my head or making me angry?as for ignoring your second links. what was needed for me to respond? i said if they came up with a better fairer plan and you posted links to some plans that are partiall in the works. how is that over my head or making me angry? i never really questioned stockman. i questioned what washington was doing. why should i try and agrue you about something i didnt disagree with you on from the start?
Second link reinforces the reason for this thread. As for: "why should i try and agrue you about something i didnt disagree with you on from the start?" You tell me... this just solidifies that you just bitch for the sake of bitching.


THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.

Re: David Stockman, Ronald Reagan's budget director speaks out
Friday, November 12, 2010 11:24 AM on j-body.org
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:

Quote:

i dont think i ever posted once on saying he wsan't speaking the truth,
Yep, you avoided the title, my comment, main reason of this thread. I could careless on Washington since it doesn't pertain to me, if I did, I would've commented. But I understand the ignoring, it goes against your philosophy, it hurts more coming from him.
Quote:

as for ignoring your second links. what was needed for me to respond? i said if they came up with a better fairer plan and you posted links to some plans that are partiall in the works. how is that over my head or making me angry?as for ignoring your second links. what was needed for me to respond? i said if they came up with a better fairer plan and you posted links to some plans that are partiall in the works. how is that over my head or making me angry? i never really questioned stockman. i questioned what washington was doing. why should i try and agrue you about something i didnt disagree with you on from the start?
Second link reinforces the reason for this thread. As for: "why should i try and agrue you about something i didnt disagree with you on from the start?" You tell me... this just solidifies that you just bitch for the sake of bitching.


it goes against my philosophy? it hurts me? i never disagreed with stockman did i? how can something i dont disagree with hurt me? i just brought up a comment about the taxing in washington wich was in the video. i avoided the title? who responds to the title. you respond to the subject matter. you know the VIDEO you posted. and if you could care less about washington why did you spend 2 pages arguing with me about it? if your attacking me for something i didnt even disagree with it sounds a little more like your bitching for bitching sake.


here's an idea, if you dont' care about washington which was the point i brought up. why not say "hey i dont care about washintong, what was your thoughts about what Stockman said" instead of getting into a 2 page debate on washington and then claim you dont care about it.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Friday, November 12, 2010 12:26 PM

http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
Re: David Stockman, Ronald Reagan's budget director speaks out
Friday, November 12, 2010 10:22 PM on j-body.org
Quote:

it goes against my philosophy? it hurts me? i never disagreed with stockman did i? how can something i dont disagree with hurt me?
Removing tax breaks and how damaging the breaks have been.
Quote:

i avoided the title? who responds to the title. you respond to the subject matter. you know the VIDEO you posted.

Right, titles have zero to do now. Next time I will put the mins where I'm focused on or get an edited video just so you can understand where I'm at.
Quote:

and if you could care less about washington why did you spend 2 pages arguing with me about it? if your attacking me for something i didnt even disagree with it sounds a little more like your bitching for bitching sake.
I was inline with removing the tax breaks like Stockman said. Hence the paying of infrastructure, trains examples not school examples like in the vid. What ever you are on, pass some here.
Quote:

here's an idea, if you dont' care about washington which was the point i brought up. why not say "hey i dont care about washintong, what was your thoughts about what Stockman said" instead of getting into a 2 page debate on washington and then claim you dont care about it.
Next time outline it.


THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.

Re: David Stockman, Ronald Reagan's budget director speaks out
Saturday, November 13, 2010 6:44 AM on j-body.org
bk3k wrote:

Some people who have made it and got theirs often don't care to keep the door open behind them. Then you have people like Bill Gates, Warren Buffet - richest men on the planet. They don't think the uber-rich pay NEARLY enough in taxes.
Actually, if you really look at what those two do, you'll see that they actually fall into the category of your first statement here. They've made theirs, and no level of taxes is going to affect their lifestyle. However, increasing the taxes on the people who are working their way up will make it harder for people are able to achieve that level, and reduce the opportunities for millions. No skin of their backs. Buffet talks a lot of sh!t on the matter of supporting higher taxes and higher federal spending. However, when push comes to shove, he donates to private sector charities, not the government. Seems just a little hypocritical to me, in spite of the fact that I think he made the right choice in what to do with his money. It would seem to indicate a lack of faith in the government's ability to wisely spend the money. And while we're on the subject of people not being what they seem, Microsoft earns net profits of approximately 30% each year. This means after all is said and done, taxes included, Gates sees 30 cents of every dollar they earn as pure profit. This is ten points above the industry average (which they greatly bring up, considering their market share), and well above most other industries, particularly those vilified on a regular bases. If Gates was truly the generous soul he claims to be, and that everyone sees him as, more of that money would be going to payroll, so that all the middle class people working for him could live better, or he could drop his prices by 15-20%, and let everyone who uses his products keep a little more of their hard-earned money. Also, this was a company who laid off thousands of workers during 2009 in spite of revenue growth during the periods. But Gates should be revered as a true man of the little people, right?
Just some food for thought.


bk3k wrote:

There is another aspect often ignored - where as many around here are awfully fond of following the founding father's "original intent" (or should I say what they perceive to be their original intent according to their own world view), somehow this doesn't translate to the current tax structure. If you want to know what the founders would have done - look at what THEY DID. Until FDR(Liberal savior and Conservative Satan), this nation was in every aspect financed EXCLUSIVELY through taxing the rich. The lower and middle class(or at least as much of one that existed) was not taxed one bit. I personally wouldn't go that far as to make the rich and uber-rich pay for everything, but that IS what the founding father DID DO.
However, look at the size of the federal government at the time, and what the money went to pay for. We're in an entirely different structure at this point. At the time only the rich were taxes, there wasn't an abundance of social programs to benefit the poor and middle class like there is now. Our culture has evolved into a mindset where too many people think that the rich should somehow provide for the poor and middle class. The notion of everyone working for what they have seems to be getting terribly diluted.

bk3k wrote:

There is so much complaining about taxes in this country, and so much misunderstanding about taxes in general. I recall recently, someone on JBO saying he was trying to not work too much so he didn't get taxed at a higher rate. That also is born of ignorance on tax rate structures. Paying taxes is unpleasant, but its VERY necessary. It is NOT tyranny. Next time someone wants to tell me how the rich pay too much, allow me to break out my tiny violin for them.
Funny you mention about someone saying they were trying not to work too much so avoid paying a higher tax rate. Although I don't recall this exact scenario, it would be indicative of a lack of understanding. However, I do recall instances of people saying they knew people personally who have cut hours to avoid losing benefits through entitlement programs. This is a severe problem. We wouldn't have nearly the budget issues we have if these scenarios weren't so common, as we would have more people working their way out of this level to better living, and to the point of being contributing members, rather than recipients. It is not hateful to want people to better themselves. And I don't recall anyone here suggesting that we don't pay taxes at all, or that taxes mean tyranny.






Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.

 

Start New Topic Advanced Search