PDA

View Full Version : The Ghost of Ronald Reagan



mikesilvia
07-14-2012, 12:10 AM
The ghost of Ronald Reagan is about to haunt President Obama. If Mitt Romney has any political savvy at all, he will begin channeling the late president and introduce his ghost into the economic debate forthwith.Back in...

More... (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/BillOReilly/2012/07/14/the_ghost_of_ronald_reagan)

Wickabee
07-14-2012, 12:56 AM
Mostly it looks like he's angry Obama wants to raise taxes on those who can afford it (like O'Reilly) instead of those who can't.

MadMan1978
07-14-2012, 09:37 AM
Comment removed....

MadMan1978
07-14-2012, 09:38 AM
Mostly it looks like he's angry Obama wants to raise taxes on those who can afford it (like O'Reilly) instead of those who can't.

Dont forget Buffet and Murdock in that...

duane1969
07-14-2012, 11:57 AM
Mostly it looks like he's angry Obama wants to raise taxes on those who can afford it (like O'Reilly) instead of those who can't.

So person A should pay more in taxes because they are wealthy while person B should pay no taxes? Income tax should not be a flexible thing that is applied subjectively. If someone is a part of society then they should contribute to it. Making some people who have worked hard to get where they are pay more in taxes is a penalty. Where is the incentive to make more money when you know the government will just take more?

The real problem is that people who make less than $30k or $40k actually get back everything that they pay in plus they get Earned Income Credit and other tax credits that gives them back more than they even paid into the system. My cousin makes pretty good money (about $12 an hour), but he is the only one working and has 3 kids. After all is said and done he gets back all of what he paid in plus an additional $1500 that he didn't pay in.

How defective is a tax system that not only gives back what it collects, but it actually pays people for being low income?

shrewsbury
07-14-2012, 11:58 AM
and buffet is behind on taxes but yet is the ring leader for obama's tax the rich.

MadMan1978
07-14-2012, 12:46 PM
So person A should pay more in taxes because they are wealthy while person B should pay no taxes? Income tax should not be a flexible thing that is applied subjectively. If someone is a part of society then they should contribute to it. Making some people who have worked hard to get where they are pay more in taxes is a penalty. Where is the incentive to make more money when you know the government will just take more?

The real problem is that people who make less than $30k or $40k actually get back everything that they pay in plus they get Earned Income Credit and other tax credits that gives them back more than they even paid into the system. My cousin makes pretty good money (about $12 an hour), but he is the only one working and has 3 kids. After all is said and done he gets back all of what he paid in plus an additional $1500 that he didn't pay in.

How defective is a tax system that not only gives back what it collects, but it actually pays people for being low income?

NO Person A should pay their fair sahre due to the fact they have the ABILITY TO PAY...and the flexible deductions of 70K for Romney on his "PET" horse?

Really need a new argument...

and with your Cousin are you complying because he receives a 1500 EIC or that he gets back more then you?
and 12 bucks an hour is pretty good money???

Wickabee
07-14-2012, 01:02 PM
So person A should pay more in taxes because they are wealthy while person B should pay no taxes?


Come on man, it's such a short post it can't be that hard to comprehend it.

I said O'Reilly was just mad Obama wants to raise his taxes. I like O'Reilly, I really do, but he's just upset that his taxes may go up and his budget for ivory backscratchers is going to drop a little.

I didn't say anything about who should be taxed what, you added that. I didn't read the rest of your post because I see no point (if you can't get the first sentence right...)

mikesilvia
07-14-2012, 03:46 PM
I said O'Reilly was just mad Obama wants to raise his taxes. I like O'Reilly, I really do, but he's just upset that his taxes may go up and his budget for ivory backscratchers is going to drop a little.


Do you watch O'Reilly much? I watch it a few times a week and he makes it very clear that he is not against paying more taxes. He is against paying more taxes when so much fraud, waste and abuse is happening (Solandra, shrimp on tredmills, etc). Under Obama we are adding more people to disability than we are adding people to the work force and we have gone from 30 million on food stamps to 43 million.

Would you want to contribute more in taxes with all this waste? O'Reilly makes this clear every time he discusses this.

Wickabee
07-14-2012, 05:41 PM
Do you watch O'Reilly much? I watch it a few times a week and he makes it very clear that he is not against paying more taxes. He is against paying more taxes when so much fraud, waste and abuse is happening (Solandra, shrimp on tredmills, etc). Under Obama we are adding more people to disability than we are adding people to the work force and we have gone from 30 million on food stamps to 43 million.

Would you want to contribute more in taxes with all this waste? O'Reilly makes this clear every time he discusses this.

I was referring to the article alone. Are you deliberately misconstruing all of my posts or is this genuine confusion?

*censored*
07-14-2012, 08:12 PM
and 12 bucks an hour is pretty good money???

$12 an hour is $25,000 a year on a 40 hour a week schedule. I echo the above question. If that's pretty good money, then do you consider someone making $50,000 a year to be filthy, stinking, ungodly rich?

mikesilvia
07-14-2012, 11:18 PM
I was referring to the article alone. Are you deliberately misconstruing all of my posts or is this genuine confusion?

You said you like O'Reilly. That insinuates that you knew him before this article. Or did you just discover him after I made this post?

If you've watched O'Reilly for more than a few minutes his position on higher taxes is not really that hard to figure out. He explains it almost every time he discusses the Obama tax increase position.

If you've read the article you will see that Obama has hired 10 times more federal workers in 3.5 years than Reagan did in 8 years. Again, he doesn't like to pay higher taxes so we can have more government workers.

Wickabee
07-14-2012, 11:49 PM
You said you like O'Reilly. That insinuates that you knew him before this article. Or did you just discover him after I made this post?

If you've watched O'Reilly for more than a few minutes his position on higher taxes is not really that hard to figure out. He explains it almost every time he discusses the Obama tax increase position.
Yep. Unfortunately, in this particular article, he comes off as whiny.


If you've read the article you will see that Obama has hired 10 times more federal workers in 3.5 years than Reagan did in 8 years. Again, he doesn't like to pay higher taxes so we can have more government workers.

I read the article. Again, he comes off as whining because he's rich.

I fail to see the point in you attacking every one of my posts if you aren't going to take the time to understand what's written.

Wickabee
07-15-2012, 03:11 AM
Not to mention, if O'reilly and the Republicans are more worried about wasting taxpayer's money than they are about their own tax bracket, why isn't the whole party trying to end the utter failure and waste of tax dollars that is the war on drugs?

Wait, that was Nixon and then Nancy Reagan, wasn't it? Nevermind, I think I figured out why the Republicans are willing to flush so much taxpayer cash.

MadMan1978
07-15-2012, 09:30 AM
The Ghost of Ronald Reagan? First I say call Ghost Busters....

then I see the REAL Reagan

Ronald Reagan raised taxes (http://www.npr.org/2011/02/04/133489113/Reagan-Legacy-Clouds-Tax-Record) 11 times, nearly tripled the federal budget deficit, gave amnesty to 3 million undocumented immigrants and their families, increased the size of the federal government, and presided over an unemployment increase after cutting taxes for the rich but raising them for the middle class and the poor. Republicans and conservative groups are hard-pressed to admit to those aspects of the Reagan presidency, but regardless their efforts to rewrite history, the records are there for all to see.

http://www.politicususa.com/ronald-reagan-record.html

I would say from my own experience of the years that he started the class warfare and the war on the middle class in general. I would as well say I was not better off because of him or the Bush 1 years, in fact the quite opposite i would say the Reagan was a great debater even if he was a fool!

shrewsbury
07-15-2012, 12:03 PM
Yes America, there is a wealth gap. Seven of the top ten wealthiest members in Congress are Democrats.

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2011/11/15/seven-of-the-top-ten-wealthiest-members-of-congress-are-democrats/?singlepage=true


Results:

Average Republican Salary: $38,855
Average Democratic Salary: $44,934

http://funancials.biz/democrats-are-richer-than-republicans/

Star_Cards
07-16-2012, 09:57 AM
I feel that all tax payers would feel much better about paying taxes if they (all politicians) would be more responsible with it. The point is to spend within your budget, not just go back for more tax money because you failed to spend the money in a wise or efficient manner. It's way too easy for politicians to just go back to the what they see as a huge money pool in the american workforce. They shouldn't see us like that no matter how much money some of us make.

mrveggieman
07-16-2012, 10:26 AM
I feel that all tax payers would feel much better about paying taxes if they (all politicians) would be more responsible with it. The point is to spend within your budget, not just go back for more tax money because you failed to spend the money in a wise or efficient manner. It's way too easy for politicians to just go back to the what they see as a huge money pool in the american workforce. They shouldn't see us like that no matter how much money some of us make.

CHURCH!! :love0030::love0030::love0030: