John Boehner is dead wrong.

[Avatar4321]

Let me clarify.

FUCK THAT!

We do not have a revenue problem. The US took in $2.5 trillion last year, which is more money than Bush spent in 2008 when the Democrats were complaining about two wars being run on a credit card.

We NEED to cut spending.

Seriously, I don't see why it would be difficult to take the government back to 2007 level spending. I don't think it's enough. But I highly doubt the world would end if we did that. Heck, I don't see how the world would end if we took the government back down to 2001 spending.

Bill Clinton and the Republican Congress seemed to be able to run the country alright during the 90s. The left says that Bill Clinton was a great President and things were great during the 90s. So why not shift the spending levels back to Clinton era spending. It wasn't that long ago.

And since Obama is claiming credit for ending the war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, we don't have spending on those to worry about indefinitely.

Honestly, I don't give a damn if Obama takes all the credit for fixing our finances if they are actually fixed or at least improved. It's amazing what you can get done when you don't care who gets the credit. Let's just fix the damn problem.

And please excuse my language, it's just a topic im passionate about.

I would give Obama the credit if he took spending down to Clinton levels. I might even get behind a drive to repeal the 22nd Amendment.

I wouldn't. The only drive I would get behind would be one to repeal the 17th amendment and restoring power back to the States. But I know that's a long shot and not expecting to see it in my lifetime.

I dont think it would be something Id press if I had any sort of political power.

 

[auditor0007]

If for example I'm willing to risk thousands or millions of dollars on a job-creating venture with no guarantee of a single dollar returned, you can bet your ass I expect special treatment under the Tax Code. Fuck the majority of taxpayers, they aren't the ones risking capital.

You don't have to risk your capital. You can just buy government bonds if you are afraid to invest your money. Oh yea, about that idea.....

Sorry, but you don't deserve or require any special treatment because you are choosing to put your money at risk. What the Hell else are you going to do with it, put it under your mattress? I really have no clue where this idea came up that investors should be given preferential treatment in the tax code. Throughout history, those with money have invested with the idea of making more money, always knowing that their money was at risk. That never stopped them before, why would it now? You guys think we should be stroking every investor because they are doing us such a big favor. Sorry, they are doing fine without all the free passes.

 

[Votto]

A significant reduction in spending is a mere fantasy. So is a change to the tax code.

Both parties have seen to it that things are the way they are, even though they may demagogue to the contrary.

I'm pretty much done with both parties in this respect. Nothing will ever change except the deterioration of the standard of living in the US as both parties attempt to blame each other for it.

It would be a difficult effort. But i dont think it would be impossible. it would just take a lot of work. it would take alot of education on the matter.

If I were running for President in 2016. I would make fixing our financial problems the biggest priority. I would encourage the American people to follow suit. We need to get our financial house in order. The longer it's out of order, the less we can be confident in the stability of the economy.

I disagree. These clowns never scale back. Why should they? No one is out there in either party with a plan to cut spending substantively.

In the end, they will quibble over a few billion dollars which is not even a drop in the bucket and be done with it. Then those that fought for those cuts will be demonized for leaving people to die in the streets and out the next election cycle.

It's like clockwork.

 

[Votto]

Seriously, I don't see why it would be difficult to take the government back to 2007 level spending. I don't think it's enough. But I highly doubt the world would end if we did that. Heck, I don't see how the world would end if we took the government back down to 2001 spending.

Bill Clinton and the Republican Congress seemed to be able to run the country alright during the 90s. The left says that Bill Clinton was a great President and things were great during the 90s. So why not shift the spending levels back to Clinton era spending. It wasn't that long ago.

And since Obama is claiming credit for ending the war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, we don't have spending on those to worry about indefinitely.

Honestly, I don't give a damn if Obama takes all the credit for fixing our finances if they are actually fixed or at least improved. It's amazing what you can get done when you don't care who gets the credit. Let's just fix the damn problem.

And please excuse my language, it's just a topic im passionate about.

I would give Obama the credit if he took spending down to Clinton levels. I might even get behind a drive to repeal the 22nd Amendment.

I wouldn't. The only drive I would get behind would be one to repeal the 17th amendment and restoring power back to the States. But I know that's a long shot and not expecting to see it in my lifetime.

I dont think it would be something Id press if I had any sort of political power.

Wut? I'm waiting for the GOP to completly destroy itself so that the DNC can call a Constitutional Convention and rewrite the entire Constitution and do away with things like the second amendment.

The propoganda machine is just too powerful for the reverse to happen. In fact, when has any government limited its own power in any way? The Founders started that way, so that does not count.

 

[emptystep]

You want a low tax rate on capital gains?

Go out and create some capital gains. And dividends.

You think that shit grows on trees?

It's earned through the assumption of risk. You don't have to be a millionaire. Set aside a few bucks for investment. It'll grown. Reinvest, put risk capital back to work. Compound your earnings and dividends. Quit the low-life bitching, get your head out of your ass, and get on the bandwagon.

You know who shouldn't pay any taxes? House robbers. That's who. I mean you break into a house just think of all the risk you are taking on. You might only get a few bucks cash and some fake jewelry. What if you get busted before you get out of the house? Then all that work for nothing. That's why house robbers should not pay any taxes.

 

[Mr. H.]

If for example I'm willing to risk thousands or millions of dollars on a job-creating venture with no guarantee of a single dollar returned, you can bet your ass I expect special treatment under the Tax Code. Fuck the majority of taxpayers, they aren't the ones risking capital.

You don't have to risk your capital. You can just buy government bonds if you are afraid to invest your money. Oh yea, about that idea.....

Sorry, but you don't deserve or require any special treatment because you are choosing to put your money at risk. What the Hell else are you going to do with it, put it under your mattress? I really have no clue where this idea came up that investors should be given preferential treatment in the tax code. Throughout history, those with money have invested with the idea of making more money, always knowing that their money was at risk. That never stopped them before, why would it now? You guys think we should be stroking every investor because they are doing us such a big favor. Sorry, they are doing fine without all the free passes.

Are you serious? Or just seriously fucking stupid. Maybe it's a sarcastic jab. Either way it's a sick attempt and a big phat fail.

Government bonds... returning what - 30 years at 3%? So you put $10k in this sorry shit and tie up your capital for the next 3 decades. $100k? $1 million? No difference.

And to what end? Loan the government your money?

And what does that money do? Languish in bureaucritic morass?

Or you could take that money of yours and invest it in something that does something. Now. Think quick, fucker. Buy a rental property, open a pizza parlor, invest in a mutual fund and realizes *gasp* capital gains and/or dividends that are taxed at the magical "Romney" 15%.

You sick pimp, putting faith in such a usless nonproductive instrument as a government bond. Go buy something with your money. Buy something and use it to produce something of more worth. Christ you're a sorry ass.

 

[Avatar4321]

You want a low tax rate on capital gains?

Go out and create some capital gains. And dividends.

You think that shit grows on trees?

It's earned through the assumption of risk. You don't have to be a millionaire. Set aside a few bucks for investment. It'll grown. Reinvest, put risk capital back to work. Compound your earnings and dividends. Quit the low-life bitching, get your head out of your ass, and get on the bandwagon.

You know who shouldn't pay any taxes? House robbers. That's who. I mean you break into a house just think of all the risk you are taking on. You might only get a few bucks cash and some fake jewelry. What if you get busted before you get out of the house? Then all that work for nothing. That's why house robbers should not pay any taxes.

That analogy doesnt work. Burglars don't pay taxes on the money they steal in the first place. Why would they declare stolen money on their taxes? They dont want to go to jail.

Besides he is talking about people who produce more wealth. Not those who redistribute it through nefarious means.

 

[Votto]

You want a low tax rate on capital gains?

Go out and create some capital gains. And dividends.

You think that shit grows on trees?

It's earned through the assumption of risk. You don't have to be a millionaire. Set aside a few bucks for investment. It'll grown. Reinvest, put risk capital back to work. Compound your earnings and dividends. Quit the low-life bitching, get your head out of your ass, and get on the bandwagon.

You know who shouldn't pay any taxes? House robbers. That's who. I mean you break into a house just think of all the risk you are taking on. You might only get a few bucks cash and some fake jewelry. What if you get busted before you get out of the house? Then all that work for nothing. That's why house robbers should not pay any taxes.

How exactly is increasing taxes on the rich going to help anyone?

Hmmm?

The government will continue to spend the same amount regardless of money coming in, everyone knows that. If you are really worried about the mounting debt then you would not have voted for spend thrift Obama. The truth is, it just makes you feel better knowing that some rich guy is taxed a little more. Admit it.

 

[emptystep]

You want a low tax rate on capital gains?

Go out and create some capital gains. And dividends.

You think that shit grows on trees?

It's earned through the assumption of risk. You don't have to be a millionaire. Set aside a few bucks for investment. It'll grown. Reinvest, put risk capital back to work. Compound your earnings and dividends. Quit the low-life bitching, get your head out of your ass, and get on the bandwagon.

You know who shouldn't pay any taxes? House robbers. That's who. I mean you break into a house just think of all the risk you are taking on. You might only get a few bucks cash and some fake jewelry. What if you get busted before you get out of the house? Then all that work for nothing. That's why house robbers should not pay any taxes.

How exactly is increasing taxes on the rich going to help anyone?

Hmmm?

The government will continue to spend the same amount regardless of money coming in, everyone knows that. If you are really worried about the mounting debt then you would not have voted for spend thrift Obama. The truth is, it just makes you feel better knowing that some rich guy is taxed a little more. Admit it.

You have one single example of 'spend thrift Obama'?

 

[Votto]

You know who shouldn't pay any taxes? House robbers. That's who. I mean you break into a house just think of all the risk you are taking on. You might only get a few bucks cash and some fake jewelry. What if you get busted before you get out of the house? Then all that work for nothing. That's why house robbers should not pay any taxes.

How exactly is increasing taxes on the rich going to help anyone?

Hmmm?

The government will continue to spend the same amount regardless of money coming in, everyone knows that. If you are really worried about the mounting debt then you would not have voted for spend thrift Obama. The truth is, it just makes you feel better knowing that some rich guy is taxed a little more. Admit it.

You have one single example of 'spend thrift Obama'?

Seriously?

What was the debt and deficit before he took office and what is it today?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you may be blind, deaf, and mute.

 

[emptystep]

How exactly is increasing taxes on the rich going to help anyone?

Hmmm?

The government will continue to spend the same amount regardless of money coming in, everyone knows that. If you are really worried about the mounting debt then you would not have voted for spend thrift Obama. The truth is, it just makes you feel better knowing that some rich guy is taxed a little more. Admit it.

You have one single example of 'spend thrift Obama'?

Seriously?

What was the debt and deficit before he took office and what is it today?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you may be blind, deaf, and mute.

Please reread the question and try again.

 

[Votto]

You have one single example of 'spend thrift Obama'?

Seriously?

What was the debt and deficit before he took office and what is it today?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you may be blind, deaf, and mute.

Please reread the question and try again.

I see. So you want to put the blame on Congress? So be it, play the blame game. All I know is that Obama proposed a budget so absurd that no one from his own party voted for it, and he has no problem signing away the spending that Congress proposes. In fact, while the DNC controlled both Congress and the Executive they could not even pass a budget, let alone balance one.

Don't get me wrong, Congress is just as much to blame. May the whole lot of them burn in Hades.

 

[emptystep]

Seriously?

What was the debt and deficit before he took office and what is it today?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you may be blind, deaf, and mute.

Please reread the question and try again.

I see. So you want to put the blame on Congress? So be it, play the blame game. All I know is that Obama proposed a budget so absurd that no one from his own party voted for it, and he has no problem signing away the spending that Congress proposes. In fact, while the DNC controlled both Congress and the Executive they could not even pass a budget, let alone balance one.

Don't get me wrong, Congress is just as much to blame. May the whole lot of them burn in Hades.

I'm calling it a night but I will check back in the morning. Please go back a few posts, reread the question, and try again.

 

[Votto]

Please reread the question and try again.

I see. So you want to put the blame on Congress? So be it, play the blame game. All I know is that Obama proposed a budget so absurd that no one from his own party voted for it, and he has no problem signing away the spending that Congress proposes. In fact, while the DNC controlled both Congress and the Executive they could not even pass a budget, let alone balance one.

Don't get me wrong, Congress is just as much to blame. May the whole lot of them burn in Hades.

I'm calling it a night but I will check back in the morning. Please go back a few posts, reread the question, and try again.

Good night Helen Keller.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You know who shouldn't pay any taxes? House robbers. That's who. I mean you break into a house just think of all the risk you are taking on. You might only get a few bucks cash and some fake jewelry. What if you get busted before you get out of the house? Then all that work for nothing. That's why house robbers should not pay any taxes.

How exactly is increasing taxes on the rich going to help anyone?

Hmmm?

The government will continue to spend the same amount regardless of money coming in, everyone knows that. If you are really worried about the mounting debt then you would not have voted for spend thrift Obama. The truth is, it just makes you feel better knowing that some rich guy is taxed a little more. Admit it.

You have one single example of 'spend thrift Obama'?

Cash for Clunkers
PPACA
ARRA

Wait, you said one. It is a bit like Lays potato chips, no one can stop at one.

 

[AVG-JOE]

If for example I'm willing to risk thousands or millions of dollars on a job-creating venture with no guarantee of a single dollar returned, you can bet your ass I expect special treatment under the Tax Code. Fuck the majority of taxpayers, they aren't the ones risking capital.

Do what you feel is appropriate with your assets and capital, Mr. H... I'll do the same with mine.

One rate / One deduction.

It's unfair for congress to assume the power to tax you differently from the way they tax me. The complicated tax code of deductions and favoritism for some business and ways of earning a living gives congress way to fucking much power and creates a culture of corruption.

Monkeys lookin' stupid from space.

 

[AVG-JOE]

You want a low tax rate on capital gains?

Go out and create some capital gains. And dividends.

You think that shit grows on trees?

It's earned through the assumption of risk. You don't have to be a millionaire. Set aside a few bucks for investment. It'll grown. Reinvest, put risk capital back to work. Compound your earnings and dividends. Quit the low-life bitching, get your head out of your ass, and get on the bandwagon.

Imagine one low rate for EVERYTHING!


Fair and simple taxes, public budgets that are balanced by law, transparency in all things politics.

Follow that up with education, education and then a little more education and then watch your children reach for the stars.

It ain't rocket science, y'all.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Fuck that.

Obama wants a balanced approach, he got his tax hikes, it is time to cut the fucking spending.

Spending is a very valid discussion and certainly needs to be addressed. That's not the point of this thread. Neither is Obama.

The thesis here is that the revenue discussion is far from closed. The tax code remains way to complicated and full of favoritism. It's bullshit.

Let me clarify.

FUCK THAT!

We do not have a revenue problem. The US took in $2.5 trillion last year, which is more money than Bush spent in 2008 when the Democrats were complaining about two wars being run on a credit card.

We NEED to cut spending.

I never said we don't NEED to cut spending. On the contrary, I often advocate for public budgets that are balanced by law. The thesis of this thread however is that the revenue discussion is far from over and Boehner is just plain wrong.

How much is being collected is also not the point. The point is that giving congress the power to customize the tax code for some is unfair.

How stupid does it makes us look to spend the BILLION$ we do on the fucking paperwork required to work in this country?!? Google Search: tax preparation services USA



Fair and simple taxes. The fewer pages in the tax code the better. One rate / One deduction for all personal income, regardless of source. And of course, business needs to be able to deduct the costs of production.

 

[AVG-JOE]

You want a low tax rate on capital gains?

Go out and create some capital gains. And dividends.

You think that shit grows on trees?

It's earned through the assumption of risk. You don't have to be a millionaire. Set aside a few bucks for investment. It'll grown. Reinvest, put risk capital back to work. Compound your earnings and dividends. Quit the low-life bitching, get your head out of your ass, and get on the bandwagon.

You know who shouldn't pay any taxes? House robbers. That's who. I mean you break into a house just think of all the risk you are taking on. You might only get a few bucks cash and some fake jewelry. What if you get busted before you get out of the house? Then all that work for nothing. That's why house robbers should not pay any taxes.

How exactly is increasing taxes on the rich going to help anyone?

Hmmm?

The government will continue to spend the same amount regardless of money coming in, everyone knows that. If you are really worried about the mounting debt then you would not have voted for spend thrift Obama. The truth is, it just makes you feel better knowing that some rich guy is taxed a little more. Admit it.

It's not about increasing or decreasing taxes on anyone in particular. It's about simplifying tax law and making it more fair.

Will fairness in the tax code change things for some? I hope so... if things don't need changing for some of us, they're fine. I think we can all agree that things at this moment, especially with regards to the US Tax Code, are far from 'fine'.

 

[AVG-JOE]

How exactly is increasing taxes on the rich going to help anyone?

Hmmm?

The government will continue to spend the same amount regardless of money coming in, everyone knows that. If you are really worried about the mounting debt then you would not have voted for spend thrift Obama. The truth is, it just makes you feel better knowing that some rich guy is taxed a little more. Admit it.

You have one single example of 'spend thrift Obama'?

Cash for Clunkers
PPACA
ARRA

Wait, you said one. It is a bit like Lays potato chips, no one can stop at one.

Spending is not the issue here. That said, prove that the cash for clunkers program wasn't the difference between the auto industry repaying it's loans ahead of schedule and clunking itself.