Scratch

Mokat wrote:

zubblewu wrote:

MoreGamesNow wrote:

Warren Buffet and Bill Gates have no morals?  What evidence do you have?  Keep personal attacks to a minimum please.

That's not what I said is it? I didn't specifically say everyone in the top 1% has no morals, just that the only people who would benefit from Romney is the top 1% at the expense of everyone else. Most people in the top one percent want to vote for money because they're greedy (again, not saying everyone in the top 15 is greedy.)

Most people who are in the top 1% aren't greedy, in fact, most of them are quite generous and donate some of their riches to charity.

MOST, but Mitt isn't one of them.

jvvg wrote:

You are thinking a bit too much on the bright side here. For every rich guy who donates lots of money to charity, there are probably 3 who donate little to none.

You seriously cannot say that, unless you have a source.
However, I do believe that people who are a part of the 1% (>$500k/yr) live more extravagantly than they need. If they truly were "job creators," then their bank accounts wouldn't be so full and their houses might not be so mansion-ish.

Nice to see Obama call out Romney's tax plan. To paraphrase, he said that those are the policies that caused the Great Recession that his policies are currently reversing. 

16Skittles wrote:

I won't comment on the above posts, but those with Swiss and Cayman bank accounts as well as taking heavy advantage of tax loopholes are clearly greedy.

Solution: new law.
All money earned by a person who has a current residence in the United States shall have their income, capital gains, etc. shall be taxed by the US government.

laptop97 wrote:

jvvg wrote:

16Skittles wrote:

I won't comment on the above posts, but those with Swiss and Cayman bank accounts as well as taking heavy advantage of tax loopholes are clearly greedy.

Solution: new law.
All money earned by a person who has a current residence in the United States shall have their income, capital gains, etc. shall be taxed by the US government.

Sounds like a brilliant idea. (link) (link) (link)

Bigger government isn't the answer and never will be.

Bigger government actually is the answer to quite a bit of problems.
There is quite a bit of business fraud nowadays, and making the government smaller would make there be less, right? WRONG! Anyone who thinks that smaller government would solve that problem needs to repeat first grade.
Remember the great depression? Hoover's strategy was to decrease the size of the government, and what do you know, he kind of caused extreme problems for America. Then, Roosevelt came along and used the strategy of bailing businesses out and then helping out the citizens in need of money. That helped a lot more.
Do you need me to give me more examples of how your "point" there is totally wrong? If so, I'd love to, but I think you'd get tired reading them after a few pages.

Also, my solution doesn't put any more taxes on people, it just makes people that make money in the US actually have to pay taxes on it.

In other words, in your face.

Last edited by jvvg (2012-10-19 21:13:09)

soupoftomato wrote:

laptop97 wrote:

jvvg wrote:

Solution: new law.
All money earned by a person who has a current residence in the United States shall have their income, capital gains, etc. shall be taxed by the US government.

Sounds like a brilliant idea. (link) (link) (link)

Bigger government isn't the answer and never will be.

I don't think "taxing all citizens equally" and "insane tea taxes for a specific group of people" really are the same thing.

So the poor should pay the same amount as the rich?

jvvg wrote:

laptop97 wrote:

jvvg wrote:

Solution: new law.
All money earned by a person who has a current residence in the United States shall have their income, capital gains, etc. shall be taxed by the US government.

Sounds like a brilliant idea. (link) (link) (link)

Bigger government isn't the answer and never will be.

Bigger government actually is the answer to quite a bit of problems.
There is quite a bit of business fraud nowadays, and making the government smaller would make there be less, right? WRONG! Anyone who thinks that smaller government would solve that problem needs to repeat first grade.
Remember the great depression? Hoover's strategy was to decrease the size of the government, and what do you know, he kind of caused extreme problems for America. Then, Roosevelt came along and used the strategy of bailing businesses out and then helping out the citizens in need of money. That helped a lot more.
Do you need me to give me more examples of how your "point" there is totally wrong? If so, I'd love to, but I think you'd get tired reading them after a few pages.

Also, my solution doesn't put any more taxes on people, it just makes people that make money in the US actually have to pay taxes on it.

In other words, in your face.

Please read again

His plan was to increase taxes and make bigger government.

I don't get what's with all this "increase taxes for rich people" stuff
THey should lower taxes for everyone if anything.

jvvg wrote:

laptop97 wrote:

jvvg wrote:

Bigger government actually is the answer to quite a bit of problems.
There is quite a bit of business fraud nowadays, and making the government smaller would make there be less, right? WRONG! Anyone who thinks that smaller government would solve that problem needs to repeat first grade.
Remember the great depression? Hoover's strategy was to decrease the size of the government, and what do you know, he kind of caused extreme problems for America. Then, Roosevelt came along and used the strategy of bailing businesses out and then helping out the citizens in need of money. That helped a lot more.
Do you need me to give me more examples of how your "point" there is totally wrong? If so, I'd love to, but I think you'd get tired reading them after a few pages.

Also, my solution doesn't put any more taxes on people, it just makes people that make money in the US actually have to pay taxes on it.

In other words, in your face.

Please read again

His plan was to increase taxes and make bigger government.

I need to pay more attention in history class.    I took US history 2 years ago and forgot significant amounts of what I learned in that class.
Anyway, reading that, his plan was to spend madly and increase taxes crazily. Big government wasn't the problem there, it was poorly organized government. I also am a lot more certain that FDR's plan that involved bigger government did work pretty well.

false.
FDR did not pull America out of the Great Depression, the 2nd World War did.
http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20110701/discuss/707019701/
FDR also put lots of communists in his cabinet, kinda makes you wonder what his plan for that was, hm?

Mokat wrote:

I don't get what's with all this "increase taxes for rich people" stuff
THey should lower taxes for everyone if anything.

I think too many people see taxes as "that thing that takes my money away >:("
when in reality, it's all going back to helping the country run smoothly and really, really necessary to have.

Last edited by soupoftomato (2012-10-19 21:38:36)

jvvg wrote:

backspace_ wrote:

jvvg wrote:

I need to pay more attention in history class.    I took US history 2 years ago and forgot significant amounts of what I learned in that class.
Anyway, reading that, his plan was to spend madly and increase taxes crazily. Big government wasn't the problem there, it was poorly organized government. I also am a lot more certain that FDR's plan that involved bigger government did work pretty well.

false.
FDR did not pull America out of the Great Depression, the 2nd World War did.
http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20110701/discuss/707019701/
FDR also put lots of communists in his cabinet, kinda makes you wonder what his plan for that was, hm?

His plan was pretty simple: keep America running, give money to people who need it, and put America to work!
So, his solution was to give money to citizens and create a lot of government projects to put people to work. World War II just helped him out some.

Now while that graph of yours is cute, it is also deceptive because of its large scale size. You will see here that Herbert Hoover's massive debt had gone down by the time his term was coming to a close, and debts were at a low point for the Depression years. But once Roosevelt gets elected, the debt again begins to increase, all the way to World War II, which eventually did pull us out of FDR's mess.

obfuscate wrote:

personally I find that engaging politics distracts me from my larger goal of loving everyone and loving life

Okay.

obfuscate wrote:

personally I find that engaging politics distracts me from my larger goal of loving everyone and loving life

I don't have very many friends, so I don't really need to worry about that, and politics is at least a way to use my mind. think on my feet and sometimes to vent my anger for me.

16Skittles wrote:

Let's lower taxes for everyone. Sure, we can't afford to pay for teachers, police, firefighters, or making sure the poor don't go hungry, but if the rich people have even MORE money they'll create jobs, right? While we're at it why don't we start more trillion dollar wars that we can't pay for? That'll get the economy going and reduce the deficit. -- Romney/Ryan Plan

I'm glad someone sees logic and will actually accept facts rather than just beliefs with no backing.