Stoner's views on Barack Obama as President

Johnnyorganic · Dec 23, 2010

UncleBuck said:
it is not dishonest to call this a tax cut for millionaires and billionaires, as 1,000,000+ > $250,000. a little lazy, sure. but honest enough.

it is a little dishonest to say we are 'putting this on the national credit card' like i do. you are correct, letting someone keep more of their own money is not spending. but it is also a little dishonest to say we are simply 'preventing a tax increase', because what we are doing is simply 'delaying a planned lapse to pre-tax cut levels'. and just as if a family were to lose a planned source of revenue and has to buy stuff on the credit card, the country has lost a planned source of revenue and will now have to put certain items on the national credit card.

as for the 9/1 responders, i think doc said it best. i am not sure how many of them were 'provided for' already, but they were misled about the safety of the air around ground zero by no less than the epa. and when they go to seek care for some exotic illness caused by such conditions, who do you think the insurance company will believe, john the firefighter, or the ep fucking a?

and i'm not so sure letting the tax cuts expire for the top earners would have been so monumentally disastrous. these tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires and two-hundred-fifty-thousand-aires are projected to generate almost ZERO job growth, reducing unemployment by 0.00% - 0.1% over the next two years.

we used to tax 9 out of every 10 dollars for the top earners and had a booming economy. not so sure what the big stink is about moving back to 39.6% from 35%.

Buck, the reason why coppers and firefighters make good salaries with generous retirement packages and receive Cadillac health care plans is because the job is hazardous.

Someone had to go in regardless of the conditions and those guys were well paid to do it.

Why not go to the source of 911 for reparations? A 911 Tax levied against every Mosque should do the trick.

Okay, that's me being facetious.

We're not talking about cutting taxes. We are talking about keeping them at the same rate.

A sunset on tax cuts does not change the fact that once they expire the taxes increase. Calling it a tax increase is calling it exactly what it is.

Even Obama said that raising taxes now would be the wrong thing to do for the economy.

I don't know where you got your figures, but I suspect we'll see unemployment reduced more than that over the next two years. Although I am sure that you will say it had nothing to do with the absence of a tax increase.

klmmicro · Dec 23, 2010

How long have we been trying to get a Fair Tax to be considered seriously. I have heard politicians talk about it while campaigning, but then they toss the idea once they are at their seat of power. They will NEVER vote to limit their power...never. The entire "tax cut" argument was just for show anyway. Over the past 40 years, they have found the upper limit of what they can steal from us. They know where the too far point it. Both parties used this as a scare tactic...the standard Joe citizen was like, "Oh crap...my taxes are going to increase." Along comes the politician..."We are here for you Mr. Citizen. We feel your pain and are working for you!" Mr. Citizen is happy thinking that he has dodged a bullet when they were never going to expire in the first place.

We need a viable third party to make sure that collusion becomes impossible for these ass clowns in DC.

Johnnyorganic · Dec 23, 2010

TheDemocrat said:
The only way a federal tax would work would be if that was the only tax.

Incomes taxes are both state and federal in most states now. Anyway it's irrelevant because the Fair Tax would be invisible.

All but nine states have state income taxes. Seven of those nine lead the census in terms of population growth. The other two lead population growth in their regions.

I wonder why that is?

TheDemocrat said:
But, what about local taxes? Would you still have property tax?

State and local taxes would still be under the control of the individual states, as it should be. If you have property taxes now you would have them under the Fair Tax.

But the beauty of the Fair Tax is that the 23% would be factored in before you purchased the product. The federal taxes would be included in the price just as they are with gasoline. What you see is what you pay before the state taxes would be added. Invisible.

TheDemocrat said:
I paid $452 the other day to renew my dealer tags.

Dealer tags would fall under the category of fees rather than taxes. Possibly linked to the dealer license as well. But I don't know Tennessee law so I am just speculating. But fees are not taxes.

beardo · Dec 23, 2010

DelSlow said:
Gays can now serve openly in the military. I think that's a step forward for the country and it also re-energizes Obama's base.

I agree that his base is largely gay and I agree that we should send homosexuals overseas to fight our wars...maybe we could have a special homosexual draft and form gay battalions. No orphans...No widows

UncleBuck · Dec 23, 2010

beardo said:
I agree that his base is largely gay and I agree that we should send homosexuals overseas to fight our wars...maybe we could have a special homosexual draft and form gay battalions. No orphans...No widows

possibility #1: obvious troll is obvious.

possibility #2: hateful bigot it hateful.

no orphans? i guess you have never heard of adoption, dipshit.
no widows? i guess you have never heard of lesbians, dipshit.

whichever possibility is true, you have added nothing to this conversation. you're like a child that wanders into the middle of a movie...

[video=youtube;pqDhKFqDk34]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqDhKFqDk34&feature=related[/video]

beardo · Dec 23, 2010

UncleBuck said:
you're like a child that wanders into the middle of a movie...

[video=youtube;pqDhKFqDk34]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqDhKFqDk34&feature=related[/video]

Didn't just wander in ...I've been here watching the whole thing even the part with Jay-Z and Beyonce and the part with the 60 billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia and the part with the bank bail outs...I've got to say its a terrible picture hope I their won't be a sequel but I bet their will be.

UncleBuck · Dec 23, 2010

Johnnyorganic said:
I don't know where you got your figures, but I suspect we'll see unemployment reduced more than that over the next two years. Although I am sure that you will say it had nothing to do with the absence of a tax increase.

i will say it, and it will be true. :hump:

cbo gave the number.

NLXSK1 · Dec 23, 2010

UncleBuck said:
i will say it, and it will be true.

cbo gave the number.

CBO said that healthcare would save the government money.... Well, until the bill passed... Now CBO says it will not save any money...

CBO calculates whatever they are told to making assumptions that are simply not likely to happen.

Johnnyorganic · Dec 23, 2010

UncleBuck said:
i will say it, and it will be true.

I am certain you will say that. But....

Will it?

UncleBuck said:
cbo gave the number.

What will you say when the real-world costs of MessiahCare dwarf the CBO's projections?

I'm pretty sure I can predict your response: It was Republican meddling, obstructionism, and attempts at dismantling the program that resulted in the added costs.

Even if you will be partially-correct in that instance, the CBO does not factor those elements into it's prognostications. CBO factors it's estimates based on numbers compiled up to the time the projection is made. And it does not factor in any variables Congress does not direct it to track.

Meaning that the CBO is not infallible.

Not even close. :hump:

Johnnyorganic · Dec 23, 2010

NLXSK1 said:
CBO said that healthcare would save the government money.... Well, until the bill passed... Now CBO says it will not save any money...

CBO calculates whatever they are told to making assumptions that are simply not likely to happen.

Looks like you beat me to it.

That's what I get for not refreshing.

NLXSK1 · Dec 23, 2010

Maybe if enough of us say it then he will get it...

I am not hopeful.

UncleBuck · Dec 23, 2010

NLXSK1 said:
CBO said that healthcare would save the government money.... Well, until the bill passed... Now CBO says it will not save any money...

CBO calculates whatever they are told to making assumptions that are simply not likely to happen.

yeah, i never said the cbo was omniscient and infallible.

i was just saying where i got the 0.00% - 0.1% figure. full disclosure for you nice folks

based on the success (or lack of) to date with supply side economics, i would imagine it is right in the ballpark.

sounds like no one has a rebuttal to my claim that tax cuts for the wealthy will not create jobs and so choose to attack the cbo and move the focus to health care reform instead.

smooth, i almost didn't notice it.

back onto the topic at hand: the complete lack of empirical evidence that extending a tax cut that was designed to expire will create any significant amount of jobs.

NLXSK1 · Dec 23, 2010

back onto the topic at hand: the complete lack of empirical evidence that extending a tax cut that was designed to expire will create any significant amount of jobs.

You mean there were never any jobs created after a tax cut? Cause that is what (complete lack of empirical evidence) means... Worked for many people including Kennedy. You should read up on history...

Johnnyorganic · Dec 23, 2010

UncleBuck said:
yeah, i never said the cbo was omniscient and infallible.

i was just saying where i got the 0.00% - 0.1% figure. full disclosure for you nice folks

based on the success (or lack of) to date with supply side economics, i would imagine it is right in the ballpark.

sounds like no one has a rebuttal to my claim that tax cuts for the wealthy will not create jobs and so choose to attack the cbo and move the focus to health care reform instead.

smooth, i almost didn't notice it.

back onto the topic at hand: the complete lack of empirical evidence that extending a tax cut that was designed to expire will create any significant amount of jobs.

What tax cut?

Taxes have not been cut. The current rate has been merely stabilized for two more years.

The correlation between tax cuts and increased revenue collected by the government has already been established.

But again, there has been no tax cut!

So if the CBO is subject to mistakes, you concede the minuscule figure you presented could be invalid.

That's a markedly different from the tone you took when I asked you from where you got the numbers.

UncleBuck · Dec 23, 2010

Johnnyorganic said:
What tax cut?

Taxes have not been cut. The current rate has been merely stabilized for two more years.

The correlation between tax cuts and increased revenue collected by the government has already been established.

But again, there has been no tax cut!

So if the CBO is subject to mistakes, you concede the minuscule figure you presented could be invalid.

That's a markedly different from the tone you took when I asked you from where you got the numbers.

hmmm, i simply said 'cbo gave the numbers'.

i didn't get it a ball, i'm not renting it fucking shoes, i didn't buy it a fucking beer. he's not taking your fucking turn, dude.

and yes, it may be invalid. but even if it WILDLY EXCEEDED expectations, it would not make barely a dent.

if it worked so well, why has there been no net job gains since their enactment?

and i was referring to tax cuts for the wealthy in general, not this specific deal, but i could argue that when taxes are scheduled to go up but do not, it could qualify as a tax cut. after all, you are paying less than what you were scheduled to pay.... technically, a cut in taxes.

doc111 · Dec 23, 2010

UncleBuck said:
hmmm, i simply said 'cbo gave the numbers'.

i didn't get it a ball, i'm not renting it fucking shoes, i didn't buy it a fucking beer. he's not taking your fucking turn, dude.

and yes, it may be invalid. but even if it WILDLY EXCEEDED expectations, it would not make barely a dent.

if it worked so well, why has there been no net job gains since their enactment?

and i was referring to tax cuts for the wealthy in general, not this specific deal, but i could argue that when taxes are scheduled to go up but do not, it could qualify as a tax cut. after all, you are paying less than what you were scheduled to pay.... technically, a cut in taxes.

I think this is why the argument persists. It's very difficult to tell how many jobs were saved or created due to tax cuts, and it's equally hard to tell how many were created or saved through stimulus. The fact remains, neither has had the intended affect although I'm sure that both helped.............how do you quantify how much though? :-?

UncleBuck · Dec 24, 2010

doc111 said:
I think this is why the argument persists. It's very difficult to tell how many jobs were saved or created due to tax cuts, and it's equally hard to tell how many were created or saved through stimulus. The fact remains, neither has had the intended affect although I'm sure that both helped.............how do you quantify how much though?

do you really have to be so agreeable, dude?

we're trying to have a pointless argument here.

Big P · Dec 24, 2010

you guys are butt faces

there you happy

UncleBuck · Dec 24, 2010

Big P said:
you guys are butt faces

there you happy

how about a reach around, and then you ask me again?

Big P · Dec 24, 2010

heres an interesting fact, the government receives more tax money when taxes are low than they do when taxes are high

Stoner's views on Barack Obama as President

Your views on President Barack Obama

I voted for Obama, but regret it.

I voted for Obama, and im still glad.

I voted for Mccain, but Obama is doing good.

I voted for Mccain, why didn't you?

I didnt vote, but im glad Obama won

I didnt vote, but i wish Obama lost

I voted for Ron Paul, but Obama is doing good

I voted for Ron Paul, Why didn't you?

I didnt vote, and i could care less.

This poll is stupid, fuck the asshole who posted it.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member