So who won the stupid debate?

Quote: bobbartop

This time it's different, though. This is not just a game being played, this is the end nearing of a 200+ year agenda to usher in world government. The only thing that has stood in the way all these years is a free United States. It's not about money. It's about a New World Order, a FINAL New World Order. With Hillary in, there probably will be no turning back. I'm not saying she'll be the "queen of the world" within four years, but she/they will be able to put the finishing touches into place. We've all heard the saying that it will get worse before it gets better. If she/they win, it will get worse and NEVER get better.

may 1, 1776

Care to describe what will actually happen if Hillary/"they" win? Let me know and let's make some bets? =)

Everyone said if Obama got elected it would be the end of the world, literally. Bomb shelters and doomsday preppers went through the roof... Only to open the door to their shelters to find the world hadn't really changed all that much the next day.

New national Rasmussen poll for Sept 26-28:

Clinton 42
Trump 41
Johnson 7

Last week's Rasmussen poll:

Trump 44
Clinton 39
Johnson 8

Tell me again how Trump won the debate??

Quote: ams288

I think we can definitively say AZDuffman is wrong now, can't we? (Well, more wrong than he usually is...)

Has he seen the actual scientific polls (not the online ones)? Clinton won them all by a wide margin. Seriously, can anyone find a scientific poll conducted by an actual polling company that has Trump winning the debate?

Now Trump is furious that his people are acknowledging he lost:

Trump angry at allies conceding he lost debate



Sounds like AZDuffman may have been on that call....

The best Trump solution
Hire Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf aka Baghdad Bob aka Comical Ali
The over the top Iraq Information minister
Now that he is done extolling the invincibility of the Iraqi Army and the permanence of Saddam's rule
He can now move on to team trump :-)

Quote: ams288

New national Rasmussen poll for Sept 26-28:

Clinton 42
Trump 41
Johnson 7

Last week's Rasmussen poll:

Trump 44
Clinton 39
Johnson 8

Tell me again how Trump won the debate??

All within the margin of error I would say! (as would all the Trumpers).

I haven't been on the forum for awhile, surprised by AZ's rhetoric of calling Clinton a baboon.

I remember when people said that Obama would become a dictator and would remove his presidential term limits and that everyone would be praying to Allah or smoking peace pipes and that there would be suppression on Freedom of Press and Rush and Hannity would be off the air, and that the Yuan or Gold would be the world's currency.

While the country has become a lot more progressive (Gay marriage, marijuana legalization in several states, transsexual protections) despite the balance of SCOTUS, not much has changed. I can still enter the country freely and go to the Christian church of my choosing. FoxNews and Rush still exist. There is even substantial job growth. The US Stock market is booming, and the dollar is fine. Ohio's unemployment rate is 4.7% down from 10+% in 2008.

And yes there is racial tension caused (depending on what you want to believe on poor policing or blacks not following direction). Gun violence is up (depending on what you what you believe fill in the reason). Terrorist attacks are more frequent and less deadly as ISIS' strategy changes to the lone wolf attacks targeted to the disenfranchised. The latest spate of attacks seems to be all perpetrated by naturalized children of immigrants which any immigration policy change won't stop. There are still plenty of reasons to be fearful. Trump being elected would only add to those fears.

Quote: Romes

What, huh? Obama wants to tax people that make over $250,000/year... Has given small business tax breaks... Hillary's tax plan is closing more loopholes and attempting to make the wealthy actually pay their fare share while providing things like FREE college education and lowering the debt of college... Accountable for their actions? Yes, the 1% might actually be held accountable for things like making $650 million and not paying a dime in Federal Taxes, which trump admitted to on national TV...

...keeping in line with the debate and the fact that this is the debate thread... This was ALL said in the debate and on TV (except perhaps Obama's tax plan which he laid out exactly the same when he was running).

Jesus, how do people really think like this? Tinfoil?

There you go with that typical liberal "Fair Share: nonsense. Isn't the fairest way everyone pays the exact same dollar amount? Or how about the same rate from dollar #1. Isn't that fair? How is it fair that your rate goes UP when you make more? I will never understand how liberals have changed to discussion about what is fair.

How is it "fair" to me without kids that I don't get a deduction? How is it fair that people have figured out they actually get more than paid in back before of some nonsense like Earned Income Credit? How is it fair someone who made decisions in life that have cost them opportunities to make a better living is rewards with food stamps? Where is the fairness? Of course it's not there because life isn't.

I would expect someone like you who works for everything they get and is responsible for their own success would understand this. But you just come out with the tinfoil stuff. I thought you were better than that.

Quote: Romes

Care to describe what will actually happen if Hillary/"they" win? Let me know and let's make some bets? =)

Everyone said if Obama got elected it would be the end of the world, literally. Bomb shelters and doomsday preppers went through the roof... Only to open the door to their shelters to find the world hadn't really changed all that much the next day.

Yet we are 8 Trillion more in debt. Doesn't affect me but anyone out there with kids who actually cares about their future should be very worried. Not blaming it all on Obama, but he hasn't exactly been concerned with it either.

Quote: Boz

Yet we are 8 Trillion more in debt. Doesn't affect me but anyone out there with kids who actually cares about their future should be very worried. Not blaming it all on Obama, but he hasn't exactly been concerned with it either.

Doesn't that sort of have to happen? Spend now on healthcare, infrastructure, and education & reap the benefits of increased productivity later? It's like trickle down economics, but with the benefits passing through time instead of through income brackets.

Quote: rdw4potus

Doesn't that sort of have to happen? Spend now on healthcare, infrastructure, and education & reap the benefits of increased productivity later? It's like trickle down economics, but with the benefits passing through time instead of through income brackets.

And when has that ever happened?

Quote: Boz

And when has that ever happened?

It's trickling right into these politicians wallets!

Quote: Boz

And when has that ever happened?

All at the same time? The next time will be the first time. Conservatives keep Trumping it up.

Individually? Look at government funded highways and railways, land grants for universities, and government funded vaccine research & make an argument that those things didn't provide a better educated, higher paid, and more productive workforce...

Quote: Boz

Yet we are 8 Trillion more in debt. Doesn't affect me but anyone out there with kids who actually cares about their future should be very worried. Not blaming it all on Obama, but he hasn't exactly been concerned with it either.

If you're worried about the debt and you've seen the candidates' tax plans, whose do you prefer?

Quote: Boz

There you go with that typical liberal "Fair Share: nonsense. Isn't the fairest way everyone pays the exact same dollar amount?...

NO. This is literally NOT fair. If you make $10 this year, and you have to pay $5 in taxes, and I make $1,000,000 this year and I have to pay $5 in taxes, that will GREATLY impact the two of us VERY differently.

What's FAIR is everyone pays their fare PERCENTAGE OF INCOME. So no matter if you make $10 or $1,000,000 you pay 30%. So the person who only made $10 will pay $3 and the person who made $1,000,000 will pay $300,000. It's perfectly fair given the amount of income for each person to pay their fair percentage.

Let's again add on that... The 1% has so many corporate tax loopholes they often don't even pay federal tax... Hence Trump ADMITTING that on National TV. Way to contribute to our great country by contributing ZERO even though he 'supposedly' made $650,000,000 last year. Take take take and NEVER give back... Trickle down economics at its finest.

Quote: Boz

How is it "fair" to me without kids that I don't get a deduction? How is it fair that people have figured out they actually get more than paid in back before of some nonsense like Earned Income Credit? How is it fair someone who made decisions in life that have cost them opportunities to make a better living is rewards with food stamps? Where is the fairness? Of course it's not there because life isn't.

First and foremost it's democracy. We voted to give support and breaks to those who need it. Ever had a kid on a 'regular' salary? It could push most people to bankruptcy with the typical wages people make now days (and no I'm not for upping the minimum wage, I think that's idiotic). However, CEO/exec salaries are through the roof from 30 years ago where as their percentage in respect to their employees is an ever widening gap that continues to grow and grow... The rich get richer I believe is the start of that saying.

Shit happens, and people end up to a point where they need help. Are you going to punish people for making mistakes? Are you going to punish people for not having a support system you did growing up pushing you towards better education/jobs/etc? Do you know anyone on food stamps? Their life is NOT lavish by any means. That doesn't mean they're homeless or in shambles, but you're putting them on this pedestal like "omg they get food stamps and I don't!" when you should really walk a mile in their shoes compared to your own... Then you'd more than likely think "yeah, that's probably okay... I have it a bit better off than them that's for sure." The added irony here is quite often it's the conservative population complaining about food stamps... and it's also the conservative population that preaches RELIGION and LOVING THY NEIGHBOR and VOLUNTEERING and HELPING one another. Then when it comes time to actually help they get greedy and pissed about what others less fortunate than them are receiving because it's "free." It's not free. Look at where they're at in life and that's the cost of the "free handout" you see in your eyes. Just another reason religious conservatives are so fake and religion is a joke... in my opinion.

I grew up and we had what we needed but we were NOT wealthy. Our "family vacation" once per year was a $100/night stay at a hotel that had a Jacuzzi. Now that I'm in a position where I have greater income than the average, I still see it my obligation to pay my fair share. While I'm no millionaire, I've certainly seen it from more than one angle... and I feel that gives me a pretty good perspective on things (which is ever changing with new experience/etc).

Obama hasn't been concerned about the deficit or the national debt? Really?

Obama hasn't been anywhere NEAR liberal enough for liberals. How do we know this? Because he proposed a 4-1 spending cuts to new revenue in the Grand Bargain negotiations, along with raising retirement ages and chained CPI for social security. All these things are very unpopular with his liberal base and have been CHAMPIONED by republicans for years, but now, all of a sudden, they were against them. Why? Why you ask? Because Obama was supporting them in an effort to do what's HARD, not what's POPULAR.

If you haven't been anywhere NEAR liberal enough for liberals, and the right make believe hates you for no reason, then you're probably doing a pretty damn good job as POTUS.

And by the way, the 1.3 or 1.4 trillion deficit that Bush handed to Barack Obama has been reduced by 1 trillion under his watch.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/deficit-shrinks-1-trillion-obama-era

What's the stupid facebook meme say? Thanks Obama?

And lol @ flat tax being "fair".

Quote: Boz

There you go with that typical liberal "Fair Share: nonsense. Isn't the fairest way everyone pays the exact same dollar amount? Or how about the same rate from dollar #1. Isn't that fair? How is it fair that your rate goes UP when you make more? I will never understand how liberals have changed to discussion about what is fair.

No. A progressive tax always makes sense. Every Western country uses a progressive tax and gives breaks to the poor. It's because not everyone is born equally with the same opportunity. Inheritance ensures that. I pay about a 40% marginal tax rate at my income bracket. My ex-wife pays a 0% tax rate on what she makes. I have absolutely no problem with "I am not going to tax you on the first 10,000 you make".

It's fair to tax more when your income goes up because (a) you used more taxpayer subsidized income to earn that money (aka, the education system) (b) the rich are able to invest/defer your income in tax breaks that lower your effective tax rate anyway (c) it costs a finite amount of money to actually survive which is a minimum amount and then the amount you earn above that amount afford you luxury which can be taxed at a higher rate.

37 countries in the world employ a flat tax, from great states like Saudi Arabia, Latvia, and Russia. And yes, boo hoo.

Quote: boymimbo

No. A progressive tax always makes sense. Every Western country uses a progressive tax and gives breaks to the poor. It's because not everyone is born equally with the same opportunity. Inheritance ensures that. I pay about a 40% marginal tax rate at my income bracket. My ex-wife pays a 0% tax rate on what she makes. I have absolutely no problem with "I am not going to tax you on the first 10,000 you make".

It's fair to tax more when your income goes up because (a) you used more taxpayer subsidized income to earn that money (aka, the education system) (b) the rich are able to invest/defer your income in tax breaks that lower your effective tax rate anyway (c) it costs a finite amount of money to actually survive which is a minimum amount and then the amount you earn above that amount afford you luxury which can be taxed at a higher rate.

37 countries in the world employ a flat tax, from great states like Saudi Arabia, Latvia, and Russia. And yes, boo hoo.

+1, well said.

Quote: MathExtremist

If you're worried about the debt and you've seen the candidates' tax plans, whose do you prefer?

You either believe the economists who will go with Hillary, or you go with the unproven rhetoric that tax breaks for the rich and corporations will trickle down to the middle class, when it has been clearly shown that the wage gap continues to increase and will continue to increase when further tax breaks to the rich are given. You go with the gobbly-gook that less taxes is always good and that job growth will pay for it. Job growth does bring in more federal income and similarly reduces welfare rolls but job growth does not growth linearly with tax rates, just as prices do not rise linearly with minimum wage increases. There are more factors at play.

People will say, "well, it's complicated". Here's a good video that I believe simplifies it pretty nicely.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKCvf8E7V1g

Middle class consumers are the job creators in this country, NOT rich people.

I can't believe no math/economist expert hasn't just flat disproven this with real math. Like, there should be a way to easily estimate these 2 scenarios and come up with an "EV" for the federal income:

1) Everyone is taxed 30% (or whatever) and based off the median income, or if they're the government and KNOW peoples income then EV = $X...

2) Taxes are lowered to 15% (or whatever) and based off this we would project "Z" amount of jobs with a median salary of "Y" and add this to the others we can project figure out an EV = $X...

Then compare the two.

Seems to me it would be blatantly obvious even if more jobs were created it wouldn't be nearly enough to actually overcome the other... Then all your'e left with is rich people paying less and widening their gap over the other 99%.

RS Strategy:

1. They should give tax breaks to anyone who's (whom's?) income is less than $150,000 and have the money ONLY be available to play at a casino.

2. Casinos make lots of money.

3. Casinos offer better promotions, more comps & free-play, and other stuff that's good for us APs.

4. Profit.

Romes is on some commie bs. When I was a kid outside pulling weeds, and a nice car drove up the street, my father would say "look at that, son if you work hard and be smart with your money you can have a nice ride like that, too." Now we say "tax the dickens outta that douche!!!!"

What I don't understand is if we tax all the rich and successful business owners won't they just all leave the country and we'll just turn into Mexico? Oh... wait.

Taxes should work like a casino, the dumber you are the higher the house edge. Rich and successful people should pay less taxes.

Quote: Romes

First and foremost it's democracy.

First and foremost, I pledge allegiance to the flag, and the REPUBLIC, for which it stands, not the democracy. The word "democracy" does not appear anywhere in the Constitution, nor in the constitutions of any of the 50 states.

The 16th Amendment's main advocate in the Senate was Senator Aldrich. Senator Aldrich was Rockefeller's agent. In fact, Nelson's middle name was "Aldrich", named after the Senator. The income tax was actually painted as a scheme to tax the super rich. Do you think people like Rockefeller really desired an income tax they would be subjected to? Do you?

Quote: Wizardofnothing

What was he suspended for now? At his post rate he would surpass even bob in no time-
I was just about to up the mod offer to 100

Omg, he didn't even last two days. Do I owe anyone anything?

Quote: RogerKint

Romes is on some commie bs. When I was a kid outside pulling weeds, and a nice car drove up the street, my father would say "look at that, son if you work hard and be smart with your money you can have a nice ride like that, too." Now we say "tax the dickens outta that douche!!!!"

Couldn't be more wrong. 1... if you're smart and work hard you CAN in fact have that nice car. 2. The douches that pay no federal taxes (like Trump) and call for MORE tax breaks on themselves are in fact the douches that need to pay their fair share. Making money doesn't make you a douche... Not contributing back to the country you live in does.

Quote: RogerKint

What I don't understand is if we tax all the rich and successful business owners won't they just all leave the country and we'll just turn into Mexico? Oh... wait.

Taxes should work like a casino, the dumber you are the higher the house edge. Rich and successful people should pay less taxes.

1, that's already happening. 2, the one thing I agree with Trump on is we need to tax imported goods to thwart people from taking their companies out of the US as it won't be cheaper then. 3, we're talking about taxing people with income over like $250,000 - $350,000... not businesses directly. So I don't care if you move overseas... if you live in the US you pay our taxes.

So you're saying people like Trump, and his kids, who inherited money are somehow smart because of this? Your analogy is seriously idiotic. So someone who's poor DESERVES a high house edge instead of studying, getting smarter, and playing with a lower house edge?

Quote: MathExtremist

If you're worried about the debt and you've seen the candidates' tax plans, whose do you prefer?

Although Hillery's plan increases the dept less than Donald's, she doesn't show any indication that she gives a damn about the dept we pass on to our children. I favor the plan of write in candidate Laurence Kotlikoff.
https://kotlikoff2016.com/

Quote: RS

RS Strategy:

1. They should give tax breaks to anyone who's (whom's?) income is less than $150,000 and have the money ONLY be available to play at a casino.

2. Casinos make lots of money.

3. Casinos offer better promotions, more comps & free-play, and other stuff that's good for us APs.

4. Profit.

hahaha. ok, so 1) that's awesome. 2) the government is pretty well desperate to find ways to get people to spend (and not save) tax refunds. Giving them as giftcards is an option from Turbotax & for a while there was a 10% kicker for taking them that way. Giving casino freeplay is even better! Benefits the industry, benefits APs, and people get to have fun with their "free money."

Quote: Romes

Care to describe what will actually happen if Hillary/"they" win? Let me know and let's make some bets? =)

Everyone said if Obama got elected it would be the end of the world, literally. Bomb shelters and doomsday preppers went through the roof... Only to open the door to their shelters to find the world hadn't really changed all that much the next day.

Romes, it looks like you've grabbed the topic of blackjack by the proverbials. You obviously REALLY know your subject matter. I'm sure it took a lot of study, practice, and thinking.

Some people, many people, like to specialize in one topic and really make a study of it. Unless a person is super smart, which I am not, it's tough to specialize in all topics. Some people know a lot about blackjack, other people know a lot about history. Perhaps you should stick with blackjack, Romes, it appears it was sitting there waiting for you. Very good.

By the way, just because "something" didn't happen under Obama, are you saying that is reason enough that it will not happen? Yes, stick with blackjack, Romes.

Another by the way, I don't understand why anyone would invest in bomb shelters, our enemies want to drive on these roads, not blow them up.

Quote: Romes

Couldn't be more wrong. 1... if you're smart and work hard you CAN in fact have that nice car. 2. The douches that pay no federal taxes (like Trump) and call for MORE tax breaks on themselves are in fact the douches that need to pay their fair share. Making money doesn't make you a douche... Not contributing back to the country you live in does.

What did the "douches" do before 1913?

Quote: MathExtremist

If you're worried about the debt and you've seen the candidates' tax plans, whose do you prefer?

If you're worried about the debt, you prefer spending cuts to go along with tax cuts. I assume they still teach that in school, or somewhere. Maybe not.

Could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the first income tax was installed by Lincoln to help pay for the Civil War.

But that was back when we raised taxes to help pay for our wars, not cut them. /sarcasm

Quote: bobbartop

If you're worried about the debt, you prefer spending cuts to go along with tax cuts. I assume they still teach that in school, or somewhere. Maybe not.

Explains why republicans were against the Grand Bargain which included a 4-1 spending cuts to new revenue. Wait, no it doesn't.

Quote: RogerKint

Romes is on some commie bs. When I was a kid outside pulling weeds, and a nice car drove up the street, my father would say "look at that, son if you work hard and be smart with your money you can have a nice ride like that, too." Now we say "tax the dickens outta that douche!!!!"

What I don't understand is if we tax all the rich and successful business owners won't they just all leave the country and we'll just turn into Mexico? Oh... wait.

Taxes should work like a casino, the dumber you are the higher the house edge. Rich and successful people should pay less taxes.

Because America has become a land of victims that are being cheated everyday. And there is nothing people can do to change it*

*Except make tough choices and accept personal responsibility for the decisions they make. Don't get the $200 Cable package, don't get the $200 Cell Phone Package, live with your I-Phone 5. Work a 2nd job, save a little, pack a lunch. All foreign concepts to so many people today in both parties.

Quote: MathExtremist

If you're worried about the debt and you've seen the candidates' tax plans, whose do you prefer?

It doesn't matter because neither of them will be able to get major changes in the tax code passed if elected. This comes up every 4 years and nothing is ever done about it. Only sure thing is the government will continue to spend more and both parties are guilty of it. Republicans say they are against spending increases until it hurts their area. Liberals need to spend more to keep their base happy. Will never change in my lifetime..

Land of victims? Geez.

I can only hope the conservative self-made path to victim-hood leads over a cliff next month. So sick of their apocalyptic view of our country, especially when it's completely without merit.

Median income just had its highest jump in 50 years. BUH-BUH-BUH....what about the labor force participation rate that has been declining for 15 years that we never talked about before the guy with big ears and the funny sounding name came along? What about that?

Ridiculous.

Quote: Boz

It doesn't matter because neither of them will be able to get major changes in the tax code passed if elected. This comes up every 4 years and nothing is ever done about it. Only sure thing is the government will continue to spend more and both parties are guilty of it. Republicans say they are against spending increases until it hurts their area. Liberals need to spend more to keep their base happy. Will never change in my lifetime..

It will if we vote the people out that have been standing in the way of progress in order to get a chance at sniffing the WH again...the republican party. They have put party before country for the entirety of Obama's presidency. Shameful.

This is what Bernie has been talking about. It's not enough to just vote for a president every 4 years. It's going to take a political revolution for a chance at real change, especially in the newly created republican era of the filibuster where NOTHING is done without 60 votes.

Quote: Steverinos

This is what Bernie has been talking about. It's not enough to just vote for a president every 4 years. It's going to take a political revolution.

And the stupid old fool is out there campaigning for the person who did everything possible to take that opportunity away from him. Sure she is better to him than Trump, but if he really believes in what he said, he would be sitting this one out like many of his voters are. His cause would be better served with a Trump victory if Trump will do what he says and then maybe his change could happen.

Meanwhile he will just relax in his new house and be considered a joke by both parties. Some leader of the revolution he is.

Quote: bobbartop

Romes, it looks like you've grabbed the topic of blackjack by the proverbials. You obviously REALLY know your subject matter. I'm sure it took a lot of study, practice, and thinking...

Appreciate the kind words... Since the cat is pretty much out of the bag from the radio interview, I've been doing a LOT more than blackjack for a WHILE now =). It's all about expanding and learning new information through experiences that we grow. Experience -> Knowledge -> Wisdom.

So you're saying because we aren't muslim slaves under Obama perhaps he set it up so we will be in the future? ::tinfoil::

Quote: Steverinos

Explains why republicans were against the Grand Bargain which included a 4-1 spending cuts to new revenue. Wait, no it doesn't.

I would say it explains why republicans are just as good at lying as democrats.

Is there really a difference? Is that why the Bush Crime Family is voting for Hillary?

Quote: bobbartop

I would say it explains why republicans are just as good at lying as democrats.

Is there really a difference? Is that why the Bush Crime Family is voting for Hillary?

Ah, one thing we can all agree on =)... The "two party" system is inherently BROKEN and there are liars/criminals on BOTH sides.

Quote: Romes

So you're saying because we aren't muslim slaves under Obama perhaps he set it up so we will be in the future? ::tinfoil::

Nope, didn't say anything about muslims.

Quote: Boz

Because America has become a land of victims that are being cheated everyday.

Well, you're claiming to be one of the victims aren't you?

Do you think all my tax dollars come back to me either?

Nope.

Quote: Romes

Ah, one thing we can all agree on =)... The "two party" system is inherently BROKEN and there are liars/criminals on BOTH sides.

I didn't say the two party system is inherently broken. What's broken is that the electorate is uninformed.

Quote: bobbartop

I didn't say the two party system is inherently broken. What's broken is that the electorate is uninformed.

You got that right.

Quote: Boz

It doesn't matter because neither of them will be able to get major changes in the tax code passed if elected. This comes up every 4 years and nothing is ever done about it. Only sure thing is the government will continue to spend more and both parties are guilty of it. Republicans say they are against spending increases until it hurts their area. Liberals need to spend more to keep their base happy. Will never change in my lifetime..

But it must change. What is the alternative? The alternative is that we lose our country and our freedom.

Remember, all appropriations bills must originate in the House. A Senator cannot do it. The Executive Branch cannot do it. Only the House. And that is why the terms for House members are only two years. Essentially, it is built-in term limits. If the electorate doesn't like what their congressman votes for, they can vote him out in just two years, which is a lot easier that recalls or impeachments, etc. All three branches were not created equal. The House is the most important. That's why it comes first.

Quote: bobbartop

I didn't say the two party system is inherently broken. What's broken is that the electorate is uninformed.

Do you actually think there's a snowball's chance in hell that an informed electorate would elect Donald Trump? I think an informed electorate would notice the lack of details pretty quickly...and/or the lack of sentence structure.

Quote: rdw4potus

Do you actually think there's a snowball's chance in hell that an informed electorate would elect Donald Trump? I think an informed electorate would notice the lack of details pretty quickly...and/or the lack of sentence structure.

I think people need to pay attention to what the issues are and to how their congressman votes.

Many congressmen throughout my life have sent "updates" to my home to show me how they have been conducting themselves in Washington. Funny thing, when I went through the trouble of reading the actual Congressional Record, I found that many congressmens' newsletter differs substantially from how they actually vote on legislation.

The House of Representatives is the key to saving our nation. And they do control the purse strings. Appropriations bills must originate in the House. I know I am repeating myself, but that last part needs repeating.

Quote: RogerKint

Romes is on some commie bs. When I was a kid outside pulling weeds, and a nice car drove up the street, my father would say "look at that, son if you work hard and be smart with your money you can have a nice ride like that, too." Now we say "tax the dickens outta that douche!!!!"

What I don't understand is if we tax all the rich and successful business owners won't they just all leave the country and we'll just turn into Mexico? Oh... wait.

Taxes should work like a casino, the dumber you are the higher the house edge. Rich and successful people should pay less taxes.

I don't know when you were a kid, but if you assume that that driver was in the top income bracket, the tax rate on the top rate was 91% (1946-63), 70% (1965-1981), and 50% (1982 - 87). It's only been under 40% since then. So, if you were pulling weeds, the tax payer driving the rich car was getting the tax dickens out of him and driving the car nonetheless. By your logic, commie BS was in vogue during what most Republicans would say were the glory years in America (1950s and 60s).

Even Trump's dad was getting taxed at 70% and succeeded nonetheless.

Quote: boymimbo

I don't know when you were a kid.

2006 jk. Never argued for republicans or democrats. Just saying punishing people for bring successful and rewarding lazy bums, like me, seems like a really bad idea. Romes wants to start an nba team of short uncoordinated players. Giving them the title of NBA player will make them expert bballers. But why stop there? Why not post every advantage play one knows about all over these forums? I mean you worked hard and scouted it. I should reap the rewards by sitting at a green light and reading it on my phone. Oh, I know why because 10+ years of government schools have us thinking that those advantage plays should be first filtered through a gigantic beaurocracy and pooped out the other end.

Quote: boymimbo

By your logic, commie BS was in vogue during what most Republicans would say were the glory years in America (1950s and 60s).

The Supreme Court was totally commie in those days. So was our State Department.

And several of the commies had 'Rs' by their name. Earl Warren, for instance. He was a republican, and one of the biggest commies in our history.

Quote: Boz

.

I'm surprised you and Romes are not getting along considering you own a bar and he loves bars.