More class warfare with this "corporate jet" nonsense

[bigrebnc1775]

littledebFascist, you are a drunk, poorly educated, a racist, and rather illiterate. You know that, I know that.

you're a blathering idiot, because you post shit with no proof.

 

[Neotrotsky]

you're a blathering idiot, because you post shit with no proof.

Don't mind Jake
There is some issue going on with him
It is quite sad.

The amount of irrational hate
coming from his posts is so extreme as of late.
Full of false accusations and invoking the Godwin Rule.

To hear him go on an on with excuses after excuses
It does appear to be a case of " The lady doth protest too much "
One would almost think he has a bad case of OCD the way he rambles on.
Really, he has become a bit of a bore of late.

He seems to have really lost it when we asked him for actual
proof/links of his false claims. Delusional people are often
reactive when forced to face reality.

It is sad; I mean his postings have become
so obtuse and sophomoric, more than usual.
They lack any originality now

It appears, as well, he has a hard time accepting
that the US voters reject his extreme views

Check out the link I have to some of them
- pretty out there
He thinks statism exist nowhere in the world
Let's tell that to the North Koreans


I do hope for Jake
He gets better soon

 

[Foxfyre]

NeoFacist babbles on . . . and on . . . and on . . . and on.

His little mind can't handle that he and his very few likethinkers on the far fascist right don't have the numbers to dictate to the rest of us how to live.

That is his tough luck.

What we are seeing from the rich is a flow of their money out of this country, and into safer places. We are watching them counter the unions by moving production to China, or Mexico.
So in the end, the guy on the bottom, is going to find himself even lower, with no chance of a job.
And mooching left just does not have the power to stop this. that is their tough luck.

George H.W. Bush, in the success of Desert Storm, enjoyed one of the highest approval ratings any President has enjoyed in his country. Until he broken his 'no new taxes' pledge to 'raise revenues' when the Democratically controlled Congress pledged to cut $2 in spending for every $1 in new taxes. You would have thought he would have learned when Reagan got suckered into the same deal.

They got their new taxes. The spending cuts never seemed to materialize.

Are you paying attention raising the debt ceiling advocates? The spending cuts never seem to materialize.

But anyway, Papa Bush signed the new taxes into law that included taxes on luxury items - private planes, private yachts, high value jewelry.

Result? The dometic private plane and boat building industires were decimated when the rich went elsewhere to buy their 'toys'. More than 50,000 lost and we still haven't regained all the manufacturing jobs lost. A very prosperous high value jewelry industry moved off shore to places like Grand Cayman to escape the taxes. More jobs lost. Bush lost his re-election bid.

Bush didn't learn from Reagan's history.

And nobody seems to be paying any attention to Bush's history.

But some seem to want to just hand them over more and more power and bigger allowances to spend.

 

[Neotrotsky]

What we are seeing from the rich is a flow of their money out of this country, and into safer places. We are watching them counter the unions by moving production to China, or Mexico.
So in the end, the guy on the bottom, is going to find himself even lower, with no chance of a job.
And mooching left just does not have the power to stop this. that is their tough luck.

George H.W. Bush, in the success of Desert Storm, enjoyed one of the highest approval ratings any President has enjoyed in his country. Until he broken his 'no new taxes' pledge to 'raise revenues' when the Democratically controlled Congress pledged to cut $2 in spending for every $1 in new taxes. You would have thought he would have learned when Reagan got suckered into the same deal.

They got their new taxes. The spending cuts never seemed to materialize.

Are you paying attention raising the debt ceiling advocates? The spending cuts never seem to materialize.

But anyway, Papa Bush signed the new taxes into law that included taxes on luxury items - private planes, private yachts, high value jewelry.

Result? The dometic private plane and boat building industires were decimated when the rich went elsewhere to buy their 'toys'. More than 50,000 lost and we still haven't regained all the manufacturing jobs lost. A very prosperous high value jewelry industry moved off shore to places like Grand Cayman to escape the taxes. More jobs lost. Bush lost his re-election bid.

Bush didn't learn from Reagan's history.

And nobody seems to be paying any attention to Bush's history.

But some seem to want to just hand them over more and more power and bigger allowances to spend.

Indeed
James Pethokoukis makes some good points

Why are Republicans demanding a debt deal that has big spending cuts but no tax increases? (Besides, of course, the fact that spending is the problem and the last thing this weak economy needs is a tax hike?) Maybe it’s because the last time they agree to one of these “$2 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax hikes” agreements, they got snookered.
​

 

[edthecynic]

You do know, don't you, that this loophole was created by (drum roll please)...the stimulus bill?

That's right, Obama's own stimulus plan is where this "jet loophole" originiated, and now he's blaming it on the GOP?

Were in obied doodle/dims stimulus package. it was their own damn legislation..

oops and hardeeeeee har har har

Which party gave us the corporate jet tax loophole? Guess again

Ryan told Greta:

'It was in the stimulus package. None of us voted for the stimulus package. This was called accelerated depreciation. It's a tax policy that the president put into his stimulus package and passed. Now he's saying that it's a corporate jet loophole. It applies to lots of things, airplanes included. What I find interesting about this one particular issue was it never came up in our debt negotiations, it never came up in discussions. The first time I heard about a corporate jet loophole, which was in the stimulus package, was when he mentioned it six times in a press conference

What to Read Today: Which party gave us the corporate jet tax loophole? Guess again.

merged with existing thread on topic

From your own link:

The incentive -- first used to help plane makers recover from the 2001 terror attacks -- sharply reduces the up front tax bill for companies who buy assets like business planes.

oops and hardeeeeee har har har

What!!!! Does that mean Lyin' Ryan was lying to Getta Facelift?
Why YES, yes it does! That's why he's called Lyin'Ryan.

As your own link says the incentive was first used to help plane makers recover after Bush let the 2001 terror attacks happen. It was not called "accelerated depreciation," as Lyin' Ryan knows, it was called "bonus depreciation." It was passed in 2002 but retroactive to 9/11, 2001. The GOP voted for it in 2002, and again in 2003, and then again in 2005, and yet again in 2008, they didn't vote for it in 2009, but the GOP again voted for it in 2010 in extending the Bush tax cuts until 2012.

So let's recap, the GOP voted for the "Jet loophole" 4 times before they didn't vote for it in 2009, after requesting that it be put in the stimulus package during the negotiations, and then voted for it one more time after 2009, but that one time out of 6 that they didn't vote for it in 2009 allows them to deny all responsibility for the loophole!
That Lyin' Ryan rationalization is absolutely priceless!

 

[Foxfyre]

What we are seeing from the rich is a flow of their money out of this country, and into safer places. We are watching them counter the unions by moving production to China, or Mexico.
So in the end, the guy on the bottom, is going to find himself even lower, with no chance of a job.
And mooching left just does not have the power to stop this. that is their tough luck.

George H.W. Bush, in the success of Desert Storm, enjoyed one of the highest approval ratings any President has enjoyed in his country. Until he broken his 'no new taxes' pledge to 'raise revenues' when the Democratically controlled Congress pledged to cut $2 in spending for every $1 in new taxes. You would have thought he would have learned when Reagan got suckered into the same deal.

They got their new taxes. The spending cuts never seemed to materialize.

Are you paying attention raising the debt ceiling advocates? The spending cuts never seem to materialize.

But anyway, Papa Bush signed the new taxes into law that included taxes on luxury items - private planes, private yachts, high value jewelry.

Result? The dometic private plane and boat building industires were decimated when the rich went elsewhere to buy their 'toys'. More than 50,000 lost and we still haven't regained all the manufacturing jobs lost. A very prosperous high value jewelry industry moved off shore to places like Grand Cayman to escape the taxes. More jobs lost. Bush lost his re-election bid.

Bush didn't learn from Reagan's history.

And nobody seems to be paying any attention to Bush's history.

But some seem to want to just hand them over more and more power and bigger allowances to spend.

Indeed
James Pethokoukis makes some good points

Why are Republicans demanding a debt deal that has big spending cuts but no tax increases? (Besides, of course, the fact that spending is the problem and the last thing this weak economy needs is a tax hike?) Maybe it’s because the last time they agree to one of these “$2 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax hikes” agreements, they got snookered.
​

Not only that, but it is personally insulting when one of our fearless leaders looks straight into the camera and says we'll be cutting billions, trillions--name your figure it doesn't matter--over the next 10 years. These guys have responsibility until January 2013--that's 17 months--and then it will be the responsibility of a new Congress that can overturn today's game plan with a simple majority vote. Only a fool counts on future Congresses being any more willing to bite the bullet than the current one. And that is why I oppose a hike the debt ceiling until they put something ironclad out there that will balance the budget and can't be overturned.

What difference does it make it we default this year or next year or the next except that if we kick the can on down the road we will have trillions of more debt on our backs.

And they aren't going to default. There are plenty of places to cut fat out of government to keep from defaulting on our obligations. All it requires is enough people with common sense and big enough cajones to get it done.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I agree this deal needs to be done. It requires eliminating the bush cuts, a cap on the ceiling for ten years, and massive reductions in spending. Do it this way, and we will be in good shape quickly. Both major parties are big government parties, and that has to stop. Where the Tea Party is for less spending, a fairly shared tax burden, and a cap, I will support it. Where it wishes to return American culture to the 1950s, I will oppose it.

 

[Synthaholic]

He is giving his money to the Gates Foundation.

Nice try, though.

I realize that is just an expression, but it's not a nice try, it's a pathetic, lame try. Warren Buffett should be taxed in accordance with the wealth that being an American has allowed him to achieve.
And this moron you are replying to should not get a free ride on the backs of patriotic, working Americans, just because he is a loser who thinks he is owed something.

Spoken like a true Statist.

No, spoken like an American who knows that the progressive income tax has been around for almost 100 years and has been ruled Constitutional.

Sucks for you, loser.

 

[Synthaholic]

He is giving his money to the Gates Foundation.

Nice try, though.

I realize that is just an expression, but it's not a nice try, it's a pathetic, lame try. Warren Buffett should be taxed in accordance with the wealth that being an American has allowed him to achieve.

And this moron you are replying to should not get a free ride on the backs of patriotic, working Americans, just because he is a loser who thinks he is owed something.

Truly moronic is one who thinks we have a tax problem and
not a spending problem. Well, someone like you I guess

You parrot those false talking points like a good little wingnut!

 

[Synthaholic]

I'm not the one attacking the break without even knowing what it is.
So why don't you use Google and tell us what the break is?
Be specific.

I just did.

No you didn't.
What tax break is enjoyed by the private jet owners but not by commercial airlines?
Actual numbers would be appreciated.

Are you saying that they are not getting a tax break? Come on - man up.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I just did.

No you didn't.
What tax break is enjoyed by the private jet owners but not by commercial airlines?
Actual numbers would be appreciated.

Are you saying that they are not getting a tax break? Come on - man up.

I'm saying you should tell me what break they're getting.
Then we can discuss it.
Assuming you can ever find the break they're getting.......

 

[Neotrotsky]

I realize that is just an expression, but it's not a nice try, it's a pathetic, lame try. Warren Buffett should be taxed in accordance with the wealth that being an American has allowed him to achieve.
And this moron you are replying to should not get a free ride on the backs of patriotic, working Americans, just because he is a loser who thinks he is owed something.

Spoken like a true Statist.

No, spoken like an American who knows that the progressive income tax has been around for almost 100 years and has been ruled Constitutional.

Sucks for you, loser.

An American who does not know their history (public school again)

Actually, income tax had to be put into the Constitution by The 16th amendment.
It was not "ruled", as you say.

Actually, direct tax by the Feds was ruled unconstitutional in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. (1895)
Our founding fathers had put limits on the Federal gov't and direct taxes on the people
Wonder why that would be?

As such, the gov't had to change the Constitution to collect tax

Also, there is no requirement in the amendment for it to be progressive.
The gov't could make it flat, if it wanted to

 

[JakeStarkey]

No you didn't.
What tax break is enjoyed by the private jet owners but not by commercial airlines?
Actual numbers would be appreciated.

Are you saying that they are not getting a tax break? Come on - man up.

I'm saying you should tell me what break they're getting.
Then we can discuss it.
Assuming you can ever find the break they're getting.......

One, they are getting tax breaks.

Two, this has been shown to you.

Three, you do not wish to accept the fact.

Four, you are entitled to your opinion but not to your own facts.

Five, thus, you are wrong.

 

[Synthaholic]

No you didn't.
What tax break is enjoyed by the private jet owners but not by commercial airlines?
Actual numbers would be appreciated.

Are you saying that they are not getting a tax break? Come on - man up.

I'm saying you should tell me what break they're getting.
Then we can discuss it.
Assuming you can ever find the break they're getting.......

I'm asking you is it true that they are getting a tax break? Yes or no?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Are you saying that they are not getting a tax break? Come on - man up.

I'm saying you should tell me what break they're getting.
Then we can discuss it.
Assuming you can ever find the break they're getting.......

One, they are getting tax breaks.

Two, this has been shown to you.

Three, you do not wish to accept the fact.

Four, you are entitled to your opinion but not to your own facts.

Five, thus, you are wrong.

Great, what is the break?
Be specific.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Are you saying that they are not getting a tax break? Come on - man up.

I'm saying you should tell me what break they're getting.
Then we can discuss it.
Assuming you can ever find the break they're getting.......

I'm asking you is it true that they are getting a tax break? Yes or no?

I hear all the libs talking about it, so it must be true.
Because they never lie.

I'm still waiting for one to tell me what the break actually is.
Will you be the first?

 

[Synthaholic]

Spoken like a true Statist.

No, spoken like an American who knows that the progressive income tax has been around for almost 100 years and has been ruled Constitutional.

Sucks for you, loser.

An American who does not know their history (public school again)

Actually, income tax had to be put into the Constitution by The 16th amendment.
It was not "ruled", as you say.

Actually, direct tax by the Feds was ruled unconstitutional in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. (1895)
Our founding fathers had put limits on the Federal gov't and direct taxes on the people
Wonder why that would be?

As such, the gov't had to change the Constitution to collect tax

Also, there is no requirement in the amendment for it to be progressive.
The gov't could make it flat, if it wanted to

Who gives a fuck if it was included by the founding fathers? It's a Constitutional amendment, that has been ruled Constitutional by the SCOTUS.

Sucks for you, loser!

 

[Synthaholic]

Spoken like a true Statist.

No, spoken like an American who knows that the progressive income tax has been around for almost 100 years and has been ruled Constitutional.

Sucks for you, loser.

An American who does not know their history (public school again)

Actually, income tax had to be put into the Constitution by The 16th amendment.
It was not "ruled", as you say.

Actually, direct tax by the Feds was ruled unconstitutional in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. (1895)
Our founding fathers had put limits on the Federal gov't and direct taxes on the people
Wonder why that would be?

As such, the gov't had to change the Constitution to collect tax

Also, there is no requirement in the amendment for it to be progressive.
The gov't could make it flat, if it wanted to

American stupidity has nothing to do with public schools, as I have already said.

Public schools do not teach that the Civil War was about States Rights, yet there are plenty of morons on the Right who have been brainwashed into believing that.

There are also plenty of wingnut morons who believe that voter fraud is rampant, yet the public schools don't teach that, either.

Now, a new wingnut meme is being born that claims that Black children were better off as slaves than they are today. Public schools don't teach that either, yet there will be plenty of losers like you who will gobble that shit up and believe it fully.

 

[Neotrotsky]

No, spoken like an American who knows that the progressive income tax has been around for almost 100 years and has been ruled Constitutional.

Sucks for you, loser.

An American who does not know their history (public school again)

Actually, income tax had to be put into the Constitution by The 16th amendment.
It was not "ruled", as you say.

Actually, direct tax by the Feds was ruled unconstitutional in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. (1895)
Our founding fathers had put limits on the Federal gov't and direct taxes on the people
Wonder why that would be?

As such, the gov't had to change the Constitution to collect tax

Also, there is no requirement in the amendment for it to be progressive.
The gov't could make it flat, if it wanted to

Who gives a fuck if it was included by the founding fathers? It's a Constitutional amendment, that has been ruled Constitutional by the SCOTUS.

Sucks for you, loser!

Indeed
the Left does tend to find the Constitution inconvenient at times


Speaking of losers
It is rather sad you do not know your basic history
which explains a lot about your postings.

Indeed, another "useful idiot" to
promote the Left's agenda

 

[Neotrotsky]

No, spoken like an American who knows that the progressive income tax has been around for almost 100 years and has been ruled Constitutional.

Sucks for you, loser.

An American who does not know their history (public school again)

Actually, income tax had to be put into the Constitution by The 16th amendment.
It was not "ruled", as you say.

Actually, direct tax by the Feds was ruled unconstitutional in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. (1895)
Our founding fathers had put limits on the Federal gov't and direct taxes on the people
Wonder why that would be?

As such, the gov't had to change the Constitution to collect tax

Also, there is no requirement in the amendment for it to be progressive.
The gov't could make it flat, if it wanted to

American stupidity has nothing to do with public schools, as I have already said.

No doubt,

in your case, it is all natural