81% agree, raise taxes

[The Infidel]

I'll be 50 in May so I suppose I'm old enough, I was just wondering why so many want the government to take more when ultimately it get's passed to the poor anyway.

well, if you believe most libs on this board
the rich are the biggest benefactors of taxes
so i guess they want to raise taxes to help them more

Huh? They're the biggest benefactors of tax CUTS.

Because they put the most in... but nevermind the details right?

 

[DiveCon]

I'll be 50 in May so I suppose I'm old enough, I was just wondering why so many want the government to take more when ultimately it get's passed to the poor anyway.

well, if you believe most libs on this board
the rich are the biggest benefactors of taxes
so i guess they want to raise taxes to help them more

Huh? They're the biggest benefactors of tax CUTS.

and taxes. i did say if you believe the nutty libs

 

[DiveCon]

well, if you believe most libs on this board
the rich are the biggest benefactors of taxes
so i guess they want to raise taxes to help them more

Huh? They're the biggest benefactors of tax CUTS.

Because they put the most in... but nevermind the details right?

that too
if you give an across the board tax cut then the people(or entities) that pay in the most will get the most back
thats only logical

 

[MaggieMae]

no, that graph actually is on the amount added to the debt each year
but it is used(dishonestly) to try and claim it went down

Yep, that was my point.

The left is an "integrity free zone."

Added debt due to two wars never appeared on official graphs, which were NEVER part of annual budgets, by the way. I guess the BA just thought those would be paid for out of some mystical contingency fund. Please don't claim "integrity" as yours.

 

[johnrocks]

I'll be 50 in May so I suppose I'm old enough, I was just wondering why so many want the government to take more when ultimately it get's passed to the poor anyway.

Ya think?

Not talking about the services, talking about the erosion of their savings and purchasing power. I have a 90 year old Mother who was taking a drug that costs $20 that was banned by the FDA and was replaced by one that cost $160, that is $140 more out of her SS each month and those that have insurance will see an increase in premiums due to this ban which amounts to helping special interest out.

those taxes aren't eaten by Wall Street or other business interests , they are passed on to us peons weather we like it or not.

 

[MaggieMae]

Who the hell has started hiring again? I think you are promoting a myth.

Immie

No myth. Although businesses remain cautious, they ARE beginning to hire. I just think people expect some sort of explosion in hiring, and that isn't going to happen.

http://www.centralvalleybusinesstimes.com/stories/001/?ID=17687

For the first time since the recession took hold, the jobs market is expected to show significant gains this year. In fact, small businesses accounted for more than half (97,000) of the 187,000 private sector jobs created in January, according to the payroll services company ADP. But while many small businesses have reported that they expect to add jobs in 2011, the prevailing narrative among small business owners reflects a cautious approach in a slowly recovering economy.

Expected! Um, expected means hoped for not attained.

And, I am not finding your quote in the article you linked.

Immie

There are examples of hiring everywhere. I chose just one, but quoted material from another by mistake. Here's the link.

Is It Time to Hire Again?

Sigh...just search through these.

Are businesses beginning to hire again? - Google Search

 

[MaggieMae]

well, if you believe most libs on this board
the rich are the biggest benefactors of taxes
so i guess they want to raise taxes to help them more

Huh? They're the biggest benefactors of tax CUTS.

Because they put the most in... but nevermind the details right?

Revenue from taxes was nevertheless smaller than in years prior. Scroll down to the IRS tax table (Table 2. More Taxpayers, Less Revenue), here:

tax.com: So How Did the Bush Tax Cuts Work Out for the Economy?

 

[MaggieMae]

I'll be 50 in May so I suppose I'm old enough, I was just wondering why so many want the government to take more when ultimately it get's passed to the poor anyway.

Ya think?

Not talking about the services, talking about the erosion of their savings and purchasing power. I have a 90 year old Mother who was taking a drug that costs $20 that was banned by the FDA and was replaced by one that cost $160, that is $140 more out of her SS each month and those that have insurance will see an increase in premiums due to this ban which amounts to helping special interest out.

those taxes aren't eaten by Wall Street or other business interests , they are passed on to us peons weather we like it or not.

And you don't blame the obscenely profitable drug companies just a wee bit for the shocking rise in price for that drug? And why isn't your 90-year old grandmother on Medicare Part D? Her monthly Part D premium would be under $30.00 and she would be paying maybe a $1 to $3 co-pay for that drug every time she got it filled.

 

[johnrocks]

Ya think?

Not talking about the services, talking about the erosion of their savings and purchasing power. I have a 90 year old Mother who was taking a drug that costs $20 that was banned by the FDA and was replaced by one that cost $160, that is $140 more out of her SS each month and those that have insurance will see an increase in premiums due to this ban which amounts to helping special interest out.

those taxes aren't eaten by Wall Street or other business interests , they are passed on to us peons weather we like it or not.

And you don't blame the obscenely profitable drug companies just a wee bit for the shocking rise in price for that drug? And why isn't your 90-year old grandmother on Medicare Part D? Her monthly Part D premium would be under $30.00 and she would be paying maybe a $1 to $3 co-pay for that drug every time she got it filled.

I actually blame the FDA for banning the $20 drug, it seems that they are "owned" by the pharmaceutical company that makes the $160 drug. That Medicare Part D is subsidized; you favor subsidizing these pharmaceutical/insurance companies with billions of dollars? What about the working 40 year old that was taking that $20 drug that can't get on Medicare Part D, what do you think United Healthcare Insurance Company and other insurance companies are going to do with their $5 co-pays;think they will just eat this $140 increase, fuck no they won't, they are going to raise their premiums to offset this $140 increase. Nothing is free and who takes it straight up the ass...Us peons.

 

[BolshevikHunter]

And a gallon of milk didn't cost as much as today. Everything's relative.

Actually mAGGIE, If you bring us on the subject of Milk, The Unions destroyed that industry as well or we would still be paying much lower amounts for it! Why do I know? Because my Uncle worked for Foster farms back in the 1970's. He became a member and he watched what it did to the entire enterprise. He ended up quitting and went into business for himself as a General contractor.

Yeah it's true. I remember many days working together while listening to the stories of how those bloodsuckers turned a great successful business into a never ending nightmare of appeasement that always fell back on the shoulders of the consumer. Course, I don't for one second hold my breath in order to believe that a mentally deranged Socialist like yourself can even recognize that 1 + 1 = 2. To people like you, 1 + 1 = 3, No matter how many times reality is in front of your faces. ~BH

I was born, raised and now I'm retired in a milk producing state, and I can tell you that unions had ZERO to do with the low cost of milk milk production. Family farms could not afford the high-speed technology required to keep competitive with the output of agri-farms. So that's the end of another one of your incorrect assumptions.

Next you're gonna tell us that you come from a family of Chicken farmers. You don't know what the hell you're talking about. I also think that you're a liar. ~BH

 

[BolshevikHunter]

I don't intend to read all posts before I say anything, so good luck trying out your Little Nikita bullshit on me. Plus, this thread is so ongoing, it's more of a chat so it's impossible to stay ahead of it, genius.

So very sorry I misunderstood your question. I'll bet you now can feel real smug since you finally won one.

Hey mAGGIE? I don't need a "smug" to get the jump on a chump of a basket case left-wing know-nothing like you. How you post, respond, twist and spin your way out of the holes that you dig yourself into is a daily circus side show here which is enough for those with a brain to make their own decisions for themselves concerning your mental status. To make it easier for you to understand, You're simply a nutcase who is stuck in her own world and nobody is pating attention and nor do most here care. ~BH

I've never posted anything that couldn't be backed up by facts. You might try actually READING what I say. It usually helps. You can read and understand what you read, I presume. Or do you follow along better if people post pictures expressing their views? Interesting you use a circus as your analogy, because frankly I usually wonder what carnival people like you worked for before discovering you got more attention on the Internet.

Yeah you do, and everyone here can see it who has a brain. What is funny about you is the fact that you get your ass handed to you here daily, yet instead of debating the issue when the issue is at hand, you choose to sneak back in during the wee hours of the night, because you don't have a job, to whatever thread it was that you got owned in earlier, so you can pretend that nobody noticed that you had nothing to back yourself up with prior to your return. Face it mAGGIE, You're a joke. ~BH

 

[BolshevikHunter]

All in a day's work. Sigh...

You act like you came in here and proved something? Are you off your meds again mAGGIE?

LMAO! I don't think you would know a days work if it came up and bit you on your lazy welfare collecting ass! The only time you break a swet is when you walk to the mailbox for your check, or from the taxi cab to the dope club. ~BH

Oooohh...looks like I started to really piss off the Big Guy With All The Balls!

You don't work mAGGIE. We all know that. Now go get winded while strolling out to your mail box where you collect your welfare check that you sucked off the rest of us productive individuals. ~BH

 

[BolshevikHunter]

well, all those evil corps got together and conspired to get republicans elected
if you believe maggies nonsense
LOL
forget that corps gave about equally to democrats in the last election

Maggie sure is delusional isn't she? I mean, I guess with all her superior Liberal knowledge, somehow her red diaper doper baby NYU professor left out of his marxist rantings the fact that anyone who gets elected in The United States of America, was backed by the corporations, just as well as her slimey Unions. WOW! Imagine that! Talk about stuck on stupid? She Gone!!! ~BH

Where did I unquestionably support unions and politics? Does making up shit make your balls fall off from laughing at your own crap? Good grief, they must be beyond repair at this point. I hope your health insurance covers scrotum prostheses.

I got healthcare Sister, I don't need to suck off of more successful people in order to get it. ~BH

 

[BolshevikHunter]

Got a link? Oh I guess if you did you would have provided it? Even if your percentage is true, which I doubt it is, Those other 19% are creating jobs.

Got a link? Oh, I guess if you did you would have provided it. Even if your percentage is true, which I doubt it is, those 19% AREN'T creating jobs, in case you haven't noticed.

Hey noobster? Nobody really cares. Now go back to your bath house forum where they actually pay attention. Dork. ~BH

 

[BolshevikHunter]

hey, just heard from that same poll that 34% were self identified conservatives and 26 or 28% were self identified democrats.

Majority of Republicans polled agree with raising taxes on the rich...

No link = Talking out of your asshole. ~BH

When you post your first "link," I think I'll fall over.

A link for what? LMAO! I guess if someone just started reading the thread, that would make sense. However, most people here are smarter than you. You're a basket case eh? I bet you're divorced? Probably drove the guy to suicide? ~BH

 

[BolshevikHunter]

Nah, newby's a moron, and you're a moron by extension.

Suck rope pal.

Another hyper-intelligent response I see...

Obviously you prefer BH's "intelligent" responses.

Ooooooooooo, I guess I got to you eh? LMAO! You're so easy to manipulate you leftist puke you. A lonely leftist puke I should say. ~BH

 

[Immanuel]

No myth. Although businesses remain cautious, they ARE beginning to hire. I just think people expect some sort of explosion in hiring, and that isn't going to happen.

http://www.centralvalleybusinesstimes.com/stories/001/?ID=17687

Expected! Um, expected means hoped for not attained.

And, I am not finding your quote in the article you linked.

Immie

There are examples of hiring everywhere. I chose just one, but quoted material from another by mistake. Here's the link.

Is It Time to Hire Again?

Sigh...just search through these.

Are businesses beginning to hire again? - Google Search

Thank you,

I figured you had done that very thing. It is not like you are the only one to have done that.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

No myth. Although businesses remain cautious, they ARE beginning to hire. I just think people expect some sort of explosion in hiring, and that isn't going to happen.

http://www.centralvalleybusinesstimes.com/stories/001/?ID=17687

Expected! Um, expected means hoped for not attained.

And, I am not finding your quote in the article you linked.

Immie

There are examples of hiring everywhere. I chose just one, but quoted material from another by mistake. Here's the link.

Is It Time to Hire Again?

Sigh...just search through these.

Are businesses beginning to hire again? - Google Search

Examples every where?

Have you been trying to get a job for the last year?

No? Well, when you have been, come see me then.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

They aren't "fixed" if that's what you mean. Polling organizations have their reputations to protect, like any other business, and they'd soon be closing up shop if they started fixing polls to attract people to a particular agenda.

I said biased and I meant biased.

And yes, all are biased and most are fixed.

Have you ever taken one of their calls and had it go something like this? I have and I suspect most of us have.

Pollster: "Hello, Mr. __________________ (believe me my name is pronounced just as it is read, but they all screw it up) do you have approximately five minutes in order to give your very important opinion on a subject?"

Me: "Five minutes? Um, sure, I can do that.

Third question (45 seconds) into the poll:

Pollster: "Now, can you tell me if you are registered as a Democrat or a Republican."

Me: answering this as it was before I switched to having no affiliation: "Republican."

Pollster: "Thank you for you time. Good night." Click!

So we are 50 seconds into a five minute poll and they ended the call because I told them I was registered as a Republican? Hmm, do you really think those kinds of polls are not fixed?

Also, listen to how they try to wrangle you to the answers they choose by the way they word the questions. They word the questions in ways that get you to answer in a manner they want you to answer.

"Do you think it is feasible to raise taxes on everyone in order to reduce the deficit?"

"Yes".

"Do you think that raising taxes on the rich will help?"

"Yes".

What question do you think gets published?

The hell they are not fixed. Who is going to prove them wrong in such questions.

I believe this is the poll that had 806 respondents. You don't think they only called 806 people do you? How many were eliminated with a question like, "Are you a registered Democrat or Republican?"

Immie

Since you're the one making the allegation, Immie, I think it's up to you to prove it. I stand by my assertion that they would be foolish to blatantly fix a poll to get desired results. Who is going to prove them wrong? If a lot of people questioned the outcome as being completely distorted from other public opinions found elsewhere, such a polling group would definitely at the very least get a whole lot of publicity and it wouldn't bode well for confidence in them ever again. This is why Rasmussen gets called on all the time. Their methodology appears to be skewed toward Republicans. On the other hand, an NBC/WSJ poll would appear to almost anyone to be credible and fair because those are two [allegedly] opposing political animals.

They play with the data all the time. It is all in how you ask the questions and present the data.

Immie

 

[BolshevikHunter]

Expected! Um, expected means hoped for not attained.

And, I am not finding your quote in the article you linked.

Immie

There are examples of hiring everywhere. I chose just one, but quoted material from another by mistake. Here's the link.

Is It Time to Hire Again?

Sigh...just search through these.

Are businesses beginning to hire again? - Google Search

Examples every where?

Have you been trying to get a job for the last year?

No? Well, when you have been, come see me then.

Immie

She sucks off the system bro. That's why she defends Government hand outs like it's her last vicodin that she sucked off of the same system. Or maybe she ordered them online from her hero Canada? I dunno. ~BH