Occupy protesters disrupt West Coast ports

[QUOTE="Ace6301"]Shouldn't a message be more important than who is saying it?airshocker

Not necessarily.

At any rate, the Tea party we have now is not the same as the Boston tea party.

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]

well im comparing them to the boston tea party, what does the current year have to do with anything?

airshocker

Because they're not the same movements? Do you know anybody who was part of the Boston tea party that's alive?

what the hell is wrong with you? i am COMPARINGthe movements? did i say they were the exact same? can you read? and also, you oppose the payroll tax cut? Haha excuse my while i rofl. Mr fuk the government and taxes over here saying that he wants to raise taxes on the middle class just because republicans say they want to "pay" for the tax cut? I thought you guys say tax cuts pay for themselves? Also, you dont have to extract it from social security, if you raised taxes on millionaires, but i guess you wouldnt want to harm your millionaire overlords?

BossPerson

What is there to compare? Spell it out for me. Show me the inner workings of your mind.

The payroll tax cut doesn't do a damn thing for my paycheck that I couldn't live without. As I said, not worth the harm that's being done to SS. Not to mention it's temporary. If it was permanent, then we could talk.

When did I say tax cuts pay for themselves? If you're talking about the fact that there is a correlation between lowering taxes and getting increased revenue, that's absolutely true. It's called the Laffer curve.

I don't want to raise taxes on anybody. I honestly don't believe the payroll tax is doing anything, considering we don't pay that much into SS to begin with.

My millionaire overlords are doing quite well, by the way. They're paying for my job, after all. I would prefer they remain millionaires.

OWS has a few legitimate concerns...... Then they do/say something outrageous like this, and it destroys their credibility.

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]

what the hell is wrong with you? i am COMPARINGthe movements? did i say they were the exact same? can you read? and also, you oppose the payroll tax cut? Haha excuse my while i rofl. Mr fuk the government and taxes over here saying that he wants to raise taxes on the middle class just because republicans say they want to "pay" for the tax cut? I thought you guys say tax cuts pay for themselves? Also, you dont have to extract it from social security, if you raised taxes on millionaires, but i guess you wouldnt want to harm your millionaire overlords?

airshocker

What is there to compare? Spell it out for me. Show me the inner workings of your mind.

The payroll tax cut doesn't do a damn thing for my paycheck that I couldn't live without. As I said, not worth the harm that's being done to SS. Not to mention it's temporary. If it was permanent, then we could talk.

When did I say tax cuts pay for themselves? If you're talking about the fact that there is a correlation between lowering taxes and getting increased revenue, that's absolutely true. It's called the Laffer curve.

I don't want to raise taxes on anybody. I honestly don't believe the payroll tax is doing anything, considering we don't pay that much into SS to begin with.

My millionaire overlords are doing quite well, by the way. They're paying for my job, after all. I would prefer they remain millionaires.

The payroll taxcuts saves families on average 1000 a year, thats a statistic. debate that if you want

the taxcut can pay for itself, if the bush taxcuts are over and done with

also, arent you a cop? since when do rich people pay for your job? I find it funny how your always against government and spending but you get paid by the government. Law enforcement is always under the knife for republicans. heck, look at this..

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2011/11/smithfield-n-c-police-to-cut-back-on-911-responses-cites-budget-woes/

how would you feel if this was your force?

OWS has a few legitimate concerns......

Then they do/say something outrageous like this, and it depositories their credibility.Mafiree

"depositories their credibility"? I don't quite flavor what you mean.

This thread should is also abortion-worthy.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]

what the hell is wrong with you? i am COMPARINGthe movements? did i say they were the exact same? can you read? and also, you oppose the payroll tax cut? Haha excuse my while i rofl. Mr fuk the government and taxes over here saying that he wants to raise taxes on the middle class just because republicans say they want to "pay" for the tax cut? I thought you guys say tax cuts pay for themselves? Also, you dont have to extract it from social security, if you raised taxes on millionaires, but i guess you wouldnt want to harm your millionaire overlords?

BossPerson

What is there to compare? Spell it out for me. Show me the inner workings of your mind.

The payroll tax cut doesn't do a damn thing for my paycheck that I couldn't live without. As I said, not worth the harm that's being done to SS. Not to mention it's temporary. If it was permanent, then we could talk.

When did I say tax cuts pay for themselves? If you're talking about the fact that there is a correlation between lowering taxes and getting increased revenue, that's absolutely true. It's called the Laffer curve.

I don't want to raise taxes on anybody. I honestly don't believe the payroll tax is doing anything, considering we don't pay that much into SS to begin with.

My millionaire overlords are doing quite well, by the way. They're paying for my job, after all. I would prefer they remain millionaires.

The payroll taxcuts saves families on average 1000 a year, thats a statistic. debate that if you want

the taxcut can pay for itself, if the bush taxcuts are over and done with

also, arent you a cop? since when do rich people pay for your job? I find it funny how your always against government and spending but you get paid by the government. Law enforcement is always under the knife for republicans. heck, look at this..

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2011/11/smithfield-n-c-police-to-cut-back-on-911-responses-cites-budget-woes/

how would you feel if this was your force?

[QUOTE="Mafiree"]OWS has a few legitimate concerns......

Then they do/say something outrageous like this, and it depositories their credibility.Oleg_Huzwog

"depositories their credibility"? I don't quite flavor what you mean.

you can compare their frustration of "taxation without representation" for one. If u dont see this, then god be with you.

The payroll taxcuts saves families on average 1000 a year, thats a statistic. debate that if you want

the taxcut can pay for itself, if the bush taxcuts are over and done with

also, arent you a cop? since when do rich people pay for your job? I find it funny how your always against government and spending but you get paid by the government. Law enforcement is always under the knife for republicans. heck, look at this..

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2011/11/smithfield-n-c-police-to-cut-back-on-911-responses-cites-budget-woes/

how would you feel if this was your force?

BossPerson

Their frustration over taxation without representation. ROFL. How can you be taxed if you don't work?

The Bush tax cuts save more money than this payroll tax cut. Now we see who actually wants to raise taxes on folk.

Rich people pay the most in taxes in my state. And it's going up, along with property tax rates. Shows how much you actually know. As for spending, cops in my area make way too much money. I would rather take a collective pay-cut than see taxes be raised on anybody else.

I would say first that that city needs to cut social programs, and if that's not enough to cover the budget shortfall, then Police officers should take a pay cut.

well, no answer?

well, no answer?

BossPerson

Some people have other things to do besides sit in front of the computer all day.

Apparently you don't.

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]

you can compare their frustration of "taxation without representation" for one. If u dont see this, then god be with you.

The payroll taxcuts saves families on average 1000 a year, thats a statistic. debate that if you want

the taxcut can pay for itself, if the bush taxcuts are over and done with

also, arent you a cop? since when do rich people pay for your job? I find it funny how your always against government and spending but you get paid by the government. Law enforcement is always under the knife for republicans. heck, look at this..

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2011/11/smithfield-n-c-police-to-cut-back-on-911-responses-cites-budget-woes/

how would you feel if this was your force?

airshocker

Their frustration over taxation without representation. ROFL. How can you be taxed if you don't work?

The Bush tax cuts save more money than this payroll tax cut. Now we see who actually wants to raise taxes on folk.

Rich people pay the most in taxes in my state. And it's going up, along with property tax rates. Shows how much you actually know. As for spending, cops in my area make way too much money. I would rather take a collective pay-cut than see taxes be raised on anybody else.

I would say first that that city needs to cut social programs, and if that's not enough to cover the budget shortfall, then Police officers should take a pay cut.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]

you can compare their frustration of "taxation without representation" for one. If u dont see this, then god be with you.

The payroll taxcuts saves families on average 1000 a year, thats a statistic. debate that if you want

the taxcut can pay for itself, if the bush taxcuts are over and done with

also, arent you a cop? since when do rich people pay for your job? I find it funny how your always against government and spending but you get paid by the government. Law enforcement is always under the knife for republicans. heck, look at this..

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2011/11/smithfield-n-c-police-to-cut-back-on-911-responses-cites-budget-woes/

how would you feel if this was your force?

BossPerson

Their frustration over taxation without representation. ROFL. How can you be taxed if you don't work?

The Bush tax cuts save more money than this payroll tax cut. Now we see who actually wants to raise taxes on folk.

Rich people pay the most in taxes in my state. And it's going up, along with property tax rates. Shows how much you actually know. As for spending, cops in my area make way too much money. I would rather take a collective pay-cut than see taxes be raised on anybody else.

I would say first that that city needs to cut social programs, and if that's not enough to cover the budget shortfall, then Police officers should take a pay cut.

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

Their frustration over taxation without representation. ROFL. How can you be taxed if you don't work?

The Bush tax cuts save more money than this payroll tax cut. Now we see who actually wants to raise taxes on folk.

Rich people pay the most in taxes in my state. And it's going up, along with property tax rates. Shows how much you actually know. As for spending, cops in my area make way too much money. I would rather take a collective pay-cut than see taxes be raised on anybody else.

I would say first that that city needs to cut social programs, and if that's not enough to cover the budget shortfall, then Police officers should take a pay cut.

Mafiree

since when do the bush tax cuts spend more money? if this is true, thats because it applies to a smaller part of the population. Also, who said these occupy guys dont work? Their either students, unemployed or making a sh*t salary. If your in the o'reilly camp of "they can take a shower and get a job" then you need to take your head out of your ass and learn about the GFC. Also,, i dont know how much cops make in ur area, but part of me feels your just an apologist for the rich up to the point where u'd sacrifice your own salary just so they can pay less taxes. your not even a republican with some smart responses like other people on this board. Your just throwing all the talking points that the brain dead palin/perry/cain supporters yell on abiut

BossPerson

You really need to take a look at what you write before you post. Your grammatical errors are making it difficult to understand what you're trying to say.

The Bush tax cuts save people MUCH more money than the payroll tax cut. The payroll tax cut takes 2% off your social security contribution(the payroll tax), the Bush tax cuts lower the federal income tax rates for everyone. The Bush tax cuts also cost the government more money. So yes, they do cost more than the pay roll tax cut, which should show you that it saves people more money.

Students don't pay very much in taxes either. In New York they don't pay any income tax unless they're working part-time. Care to rethink what you just said?

Oh my god. :lol: Everyone pays for the Police, chuckles. So when I say I would take a pay cut for taxes to be lowered, that affects EVERYONE in my county.

Which talking points am I using that belong to Palin, Perry and Cain? Last I checked they have nothing to do with New York State issues.

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]

since when do the bush tax cuts spend more money? if this is true, thats because it applies to a smaller part of the population. Also, who said these occupy guys dont work? Their either students, unemployed or making a sh*t salary. If your in the o'reilly camp of "they can take a shower and get a job" then you need to take your head out of your ass and learn about the GFC. Also,, i dont know how much cops make in ur area, but part of me feels your just an apologist for the rich up to the point where u'd sacrifice your own salary just so they can pay less taxes. your not even a republican with some smart responses like other people on this board. Your just throwing all the talking points that the brain dead palin/perry/cain supporters yell on abiut

airshocker

You really need to take a look at what you write before you post. Your grammatical errors are making it difficult to understand what you're trying to say.

The Bush tax cuts save people MUCH more money than the payroll tax cut. The payroll tax cut takes 2% off your social security contribution(the payroll tax), the Bush tax cuts lower the federal income tax rates for everyone. The Bush tax cuts also cost the government more money. So yes, they do cost more than the pay roll tax cut, which should show you that it saves people more money.

Students don't pay very much in taxes either. In New York they don't pay any income tax unless they're working part-time. Care to rethink what you just said?

Oh my god. :lol: Everyone pays for the Police, chuckles. So when I say I would take a pay cut for taxes to be lowered, that affects EVERYONE in my county.

Which talking points am I using that belong to Palin, Perry and Cain? Last I checked they have nothing to do with New York State issues.

Sounds like a brilliant plan. Bring the global economy to a grinding halt to screw over the top 1% along with everybody else. /sarcasm In all seriousness this movement needs to just die. It only furthers the idea that people are nothing but a bunch of sheep that follow any popular movement that claims to fight for the "average" person.Moriarity_

That's where I have to draw the line. I heard about this on NPR on the way in. The occupy people wanted the labor unions and dockworkers to join them, but they refused. Citing that if would hurt the local economoy and small businesses. Occupy people didnt care. People in this country have every right to protest and picket public places, but you cant prevent others from making a living. Just because you believe in certain things doesnt give you the right to force them on others. They should be picketting outside city hall not harassing port workers.

sonicare

That's where I have to draw the line. I heard about this on NPR on the way in. The occupy people wanted the labor unions and dockworkers to join them, but they refused. Citing that if would hurt the local economoy and small businesses. Occupy people didnt care. People in this country have every right to protest and picket public places, but you cant prevent others from making a living. Just because you believe in certain things doesnt give you the right to force them on others. They should be picketting outside city hall not harassing port workers.

sonicare

Yea I'm pretty lazy with punctuation online, deal with it. Just beause students dont pay taxes doesn't mean they don't have a right to protest? Let's assume that the mesage for the OWS is to eliminate corporate influence and the power of money in Washington (no matter how unrealistic this may be) would you be for OWS or against it?

BossPerson

I said grammar, not punctuation. Either be clear with what you say(people who don't have great punctuation can still be pretty clear most of the time), or be quiet. You can't argue with someone if the other person doesn't understand what you say. It's a common courtesy thing.

This has nothing to do with their rights to protest. You were making a comparison using the Boston Tea Party, citing the taxation without representation the Bostonians had a beef with the British over. I asked you how can you be taxed if you don't work. Why are they complaining about taxes when they are not paying them, or paying very little?

Now respond to the other points in my previous post before I answer your question. Fair is fair.

[QUOTE="Moriarity_"]Sounds like a brilliant plan. Bring the global economy to a grinding halt to screw over the top 1% along with everybody else. /sarcasm In all seriousness this movement needs to just die. It only furthers the idea that people are nothing but a bunch of sheep that follow any popular movement that claims to fight for the "average" person.BossPerson

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]

Yea I'm pretty lazy with punctuation online, deal with it. Just beause students dont pay taxes doesn't mean they don't have a right to protest? Let's assume that the mesage for the OWS is to eliminate corporate influence and the power of money in Washington (no matter how unrealistic this may be) would you be for OWS or against it?

airshocker

I said grammar, not punctuation. Either be clear with what you say(people who don't have great punctuation can still be pretty clear most of the time), or be quiet. You can't argue with someone if the other person doesn't understand what you say. It's a common courtesy thing.

This has nothing to do with their rights to protest. You were making a comparison using the Boston Tea Party, citing the taxation without representation the Bostonians had a beef with the British over. I asked you how can you be taxed if you don't work. Why are they complaining about taxes when they are not paying them, or paying very little?

Now respond to the other points in my previous post before I answer your question. Fair is fair.

that. Also, just because someone doesn't pay taxes, doesnt mean they don't have a legitiimate beef. All people pay some amount of tax, i doubt they are all on SS. Even if they payed 0 tax, can't they be mad that their elected officials dont serve them, but instead answer to lobbyists and corporations? Now answer my question.

im not to sure about the pros/cons of each tax as i dont know enough about each to compare them, so i'll give you

that. Also, just because someone doesn't pay taxes, doesnt mean they have a legitiimate beef. All people pay some amount of tax, i doubt they are all on SS. Even if they payed 0 tax, can't they be mad that their elected officials dont serve them, but instead answer to lobbyists and corporations? Now answer my question.

BossPerson

You missed some points. I assume you'll address them after I make this post?

You don't need to look at pros or cons. They're two different tax cuts. One deals DIRECTLY with the payroll tax that funds social security, the other deals with federal income taxes. One costs much more than the other(payroll tax costs less than the Bush tax cuts), thus we can reasonably conclude that the one that costs more, saves the most money for taxpayers.

I don't think they have a right to complain, but that's besides the point, they most certainly can complain about those things. So then why are you making a comparison with the Boston Tea Party? It was a different time, and a completely different issue.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]

what the hell is wrong with you? i am COMPARINGthe movements? did i say they were the exact same? can you read? and also, you oppose the payroll tax cut? Haha excuse my while i rofl. Mr fuk the government and taxes over here saying that he wants to raise taxes on the middle class just because republicans say they want to "pay" for the tax cut? I thought you guys say tax cuts pay for themselves? Also, you dont have to extract it from social security, if you raised taxes on millionaires, but i guess you wouldnt want to harm your millionaire overlords?

What is there to compare? Spell it out for me. Show me the inner workings of your mind.

The payroll tax cut doesn't do a damn thing for my paycheck that I couldn't live without. As I said, not worth the harm that's being done to SS. Not to mention it's temporary. If it was permanent, then we could talk.

When did I say tax cuts pay for themselves? If you're talking about the fact that there is a correlation between lowering taxes and getting increased revenue, that's absolutely true. It's called the Laffer curve.

I don't want to raise taxes on anybody. I honestly don't believe the payroll tax is doing anything, considering we don't pay that much into SS to begin with.

My millionaire overlords are doing quite well, by the way. They're paying for my job, after all. I would prefer they remain millionaires.

The payroll taxcuts saves families on average 1000 a year, thats a statistic. debate that if you want

the taxcut can pay for itself, if the bush taxcuts are over and done with

also, arent you a cop? since when do rich people pay for your job? I find it funny how your always against government and spending but you get paid by the government. Law enforcement is always under the knife for republicans. heck, look at this..

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2011/11/smithfield-n-c-police-to-cut-back-on-911-responses-cites-budget-woes/

how would you feel if this was your force?

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]

im not to sure about the pros/cons of each tax as i dont know enough about each to compare them, so i'll give you

that. Also, just because someone doesn't pay taxes, doesnt mean they have a legitiimate beef. All people pay some amount of tax, i doubt they are all on SS. Even if they payed 0 tax, can't they be mad that their elected officials dont serve them, but instead answer to lobbyists and corporations? Now answer my question.

airshocker

You missed some points. I assume you'll address them after I make this post?

You don't need to look at pros or cons. They're two different tax cuts. One deals DIRECTLY with the payroll tax that funds social security, the other deals with federal income taxes. One costs much more than the other(payroll tax costs less than the Bush tax cuts), thus we can reasonably conclude that the one that costs more, saves the most money for taxpayers.

I don't think they have a right to complain, but that's besides the point, they most certainly can complain about those things. So then why are you making a comparison with the Boston Tea Party? It was a different time, and a completely different issue.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/08/09/poll.aug10.pdf

Our politicians, dems and reps are bought. There is pretty much no denying that. Why can't people protest the erroding of their democracy? Just because someone pays less taxes means they have less a reason to protest?

Taxation without representation? People are being taxed without having their concerns represented. Look at any poll, most American's want to raise taxes on the rich, but it doesn't happen.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/08/09/poll.aug10.pdf

Our politicians, dems and reps are bought. There is pretty much no denying that. Why can't people protest the erroding of their democracy? Just because someone pays less taxes means they have less a reason to protest?

BossPerson

Man, you need to go back and retake history. We didn't have the same system of government that we had back then. We didn't have representatives like we have right now. It's NOT the same thing.

As for why it's not happening, it's because there is another side that doesn't want taxes raised on anybody.

I just answered your last question. Repeating it isn't going to get a different response.

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]

Taxation without representation? People are being taxed without having their concerns represented. Look at any poll, most American's want to raise taxes on the rich, but it doesn't happen.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/08/09/poll.aug10.pdf

Our politicians, dems and reps are bought. There is pretty much no denying that. Why can't people protest the erroding of their democracy? Just because someone pays less taxes means they have less a reason to protest?

airshocker

Man, you need to go back and retake history. We didn't have the same system of government that we had back then. We didn't have representatives like we have right now. It's NOT the same thing.

As for why it's not happening, it's because there is another side that doesn't want taxes raised on anybody.

I just answered your last question. Repeating it isn't going to get a different response.

Boss, just so you don't get concerned, I'm going to go play some Battlefield 3, and then have some sexy time with my wife. Okay? I'll respond to you later, perhaps tomorrow. I know you'll be devastated, but don't do anything drastic until I get back.

Boss, just so you don't get concerned, I'm going to go play some Battlefield 3, and then have some sexy time with my wife. Okay? I'll respond to you later, perhaps tomorrow. I know you'll be devastated, but don't do anything drastic until I get back.

airshocker

alright, I see. You have no reasonable come-back because you know deep down that the beloved system you fight to defend is flawed, so you hope i forget by tomorrow and you never have to answer the question. Yeah, go play some conquest.

BossPerson

Check the time-stamps. Obviously I was posting that at the exact same time you were.

And Conquest is the best. Rush is for pansies. I plan on having another conquest later, if you catch my drift. ;)

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]

alright, I see. You have no reasonable come-back because you know deep down that the beloved system you fight to defend is flawed, so you hope i forget by tomorrow and you never have to answer the question. Yeah, go play some conquest.

airshocker

Check the time-stamps. Obviously I was posting that at the exact same time you were.

And Conquest is the best. Rush is for pansies. I plan on having another conquest later, if you catch my drift. ;)

yea sure w/e, just make sure you dont answer my question

BossPerson

You really are stupid, aren't you? :(

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]

yea sure w/e, just make sure you dont answer my question

airshocker

You really are stupid, aren't you? :(

why would you say that? you're the one not answering my question

BossPerson

Because for me, the time-stamps say the exact same thing. What other explanation do you have for that? Would I not have replied to that post if I had seen it? So you're either stupid for not seeing the connection, or yeah, that's about it. Either way, you are most assuredly a waste of my time.

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]

why would you say that? you're the one not answering my question

airshocker

Because for me, the time-stamps say the exact same thing. What other explanation do you have for that? Would I not have replied to that post if I had seen it? So you're either stupid for not seeing the connection, or yeah, that's about it. Either way, you are most assuredly a waste of my time.

Can someone remind me again what percentage of the growth has trickled down to the average worker since Reagan became president. The GDP has gone up immensely, while median wages have stayed relatively similar before you even account for inflation. The income gap has grown and the rich are simply too rich. Need I remind most people in this thread that the greatest years of the American economy(if there ever was such a thing) was during the 1950's when taxes were about 90% for the wealthy and that allowed the government to employ massive labor and build great civil projects such as the interstate highway system. Look at our infrastructure now; it's just rotting away. To me it seems like raising taxes on the financial institutions and funding infrastructure and other productive elements is a great way to tackle unemployment. This will put more money in the pockets of a greater amount of people which gives a greater chance for small businesses to start up and thrive. What's wrong with this picture?shakmaster13

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

What is there to compare? Spell it out for me. Show me the inner workings of your mind.

The payroll tax cut doesn't do a damn thing for my paycheck that I couldn't live without. As I said, not worth the harm that's being done to SS. Not to mention it's temporary. If it was permanent, then we could talk.

When did I say tax cuts pay for themselves? If you're talking about the fact that there is a correlation between lowering taxes and getting increased revenue, that's absolutely true. It's called the Laffer curve.

I don't want to raise taxes on anybody. I honestly don't believe the payroll tax is doing anything, considering we don't pay that much into SS to begin with.

My millionaire overlords are doing quite well, by the way. They're paying for my job, after all. I would prefer they remain millionaires.

The payroll taxcuts saves families on average 1000 a year, thats a statistic. debate that if you want

the taxcut can pay for itself, if the bush taxcuts are over and done with

also, arent you a cop? since when do rich people pay for your job? I find it funny how your always against government and spending but you get paid by the government. Law enforcement is always under the knife for republicans. heck, look at this..

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2011/11/smithfield-n-c-police-to-cut-back-on-911-responses-cites-budget-woes/

how would you feel if this was your force?

I think you need to retake history. People living in the 13 colonies had to pay British taxes while receiving no representation in british parliament. Where you sick that day? Do you not see any correlation? People paying taxes and receiving no ture representation in the legislature? The representatives you speak of now are nothing more than corporate sell puts who dont give a sh*t abou their constituents. And im not even gonna start with how I think you're insane for saying people who dont pay as much taxes as you don't have a reason to complain.

BossPerson

Last I checked we don't have British overlords(no matter what they like to tell themselves) anymore.

We do have representation, and I don't think they're all sell outs. I think if you have a representative who doesn't work for you, you vote him out.

Can someone remind me again what percentage of the growth has trickled down to the average worker since Reagan became president. The GDP has gone up immensely, while median wages have stayed relatively similar before you even account for inflation. The income gap has grown and the rich are simply too rich. Need I remind most people in this thread that the greatest years of the American economy(if there ever was such a thing) was during the 1950's when taxes were about 90% for the wealthy and that allowed the government to employ massive labor and build great civil projects such as the interstate highway system. Look at our infrastructure now; it's just rotting away. To me it seems like raising taxes on the financial institutions and funding infrastructure and other productive elements is a great way to tackle unemployment. This will put more money in the pockets of a greater amount of people which gives a greater chance for small businesses to start up and thrive. What's wrong with this picture?shakmaster13

What happens when the money and the projects run out?

If you ask me, I'd rather go back to the late 80s under Reagan. I see no reason to go back to the 1950s when we have good growth much more recently in history.

[QUOTE="shakmaster13"]Can someone remind me again what percentage of the growth has trickled down to the average worker since Reagan became president. The GDP has gone up immensely, while median wages have stayed relatively similar before you even account for inflation. The income gap has grown and the rich are simply too rich. Need I remind most people in this thread that the greatest years of the American economy(if there ever was such a thing) was during the 1950's when taxes were about 90% for the wealthy and that allowed the government to employ massive labor and build great civil projects such as the interstate highway system. Look at our infrastructure now; it's just rotting away. To me it seems like raising taxes on the financial institutions and funding infrastructure and other productive elements is a great way to tackle unemployment. This will put more money in the pockets of a greater amount of people which gives a greater chance for small businesses to start up and thrive. What's wrong with this picture?airshocker

What happens when the money and the projects run out?

If you ask me, I'd rather go back to the late 80s under Reagan. I see no reason to go back to the 1950s when we have good growth much more recently in history.

Wouldn't that involve raising taxes and continuing to run a deficit? That seems to run counter to most of the current Republican stances.mattbbpl

Not as much as a 90% income tax. :lol: And Reagan didn't raise taxes much, he did what he had to do.

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"]Wouldn't that involve raising taxes and continuing to run a deficit? That seems to run counter to most of the current Republican stances.airshocker

Not as much as a 90% income tax. :lol: And Reagan didn't raise taxes much, he did what he had to do.

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]

I think you need to retake history. People living in the 13 colonies had to pay British taxes while receiving no representation in british parliament. Where you sick that day? Do you not see any correlation? People paying taxes and receiving no ture representation in the legislature? The representatives you speak of now are nothing more than corporate sell puts who dont give a sh*t abou their constituents. And im not even gonna start with how I think you're insane for saying people who dont pay as much taxes as you don't have a reason to complain.

airshocker

Last I checked we don't have British overlords(no matter what they like to tell themselves) anymore.

We do have representation, and I don't think they're all sell outs. I think if you have a representative who doesn't work for you, you vote him out.

I'm not referring to Reagan actually raising taxes (although he did after the initial cuts). I'm referring to actual tax rates under Reagan (which were higher than what they are today) and referring to the act of deficit spending which he engaged in (which is also an economic expansionary tool).

If we're going to use Reagan as an example of how to grow an economy, let's look at his actual policies and actions, rather than just the anti-tax mythology that has developed around his memory.mattbbpl

Obviously things will not be exactly like they were under Reagan. No one would accept that. But I think it's far preferable than taxing some people more than half of their income.

you still fail to see any parallels. I never said Americans are still under British rule, but the concpet of "taxation without representation" is still at play here. Also, the voting out is not the suffieicient when most voters dont care to look behind the canidates' commercials. And "not all sellouts," c'mon man now you're just refuting the facts. I dont have to tell you there are dozens, hundreds of cases of politicians being in bed with big business

BossPerson

That's your own damn fault. I have to deal with stupid voters as well. You have no facts, you have broad generalizations. I simply disagree with you on the scope of the problem.