Old Yeller

Since many flags are made from synthetics now days, you might consider a pollution law.

Wicky

Also on a related tangent - even though it didn't involve burning of a symbolic object - here in the UK someone was arrested for displaying a symbolic object.

Neighbour faces racial harassment charge over golliwog in window | World news | The Guardian

How would that go down in the US esp the fact it was in the persons home?

superhawk22

Just to add flames to the fire (nice play on words there eh) you do know that burning is the proper way of disposing of a flag right.

superhawk22

Unless there was a crime connected with it in the US it would be tasteless but not a crime in my opinion. a person is allowed to have a rebel flag flying on their flag pole with no consequence, however if that same flag was used to strangle a person then that just became a hate crime which carries higher penalties. Now if that doll truely was the childs toy they just went from tasteless to flat out irresponsible, that is NOT a child safe toy at all.

klx678

You mean it was fine and dandy for people who are rich enough to invest money furthering their income and paying a lower percentage of tax is fair? Then there are the CEOs who make quite literally hundreds more per year because they have been able to play the system to form enough of a good old boys network to be able to do this? If they get compensation in stocks then their investments gains are taxed at less than what I am taxed on my working income. That's fair?


This is a republic, partially to control a pure capitalist society. A pure capitalist society would be totally caveat emptor. If I can sucker you out of your money then I get to keep it. The same thing seems to have happened with the Lehman Brothers collapse and others. They suckered the money from hard working individuals and collapsed. The money didn't disappear. At least over a million went to the Governor of Ohio for his work with Lehman back in 2007 as they went down. Yeah, that's fair. Have you heard, Warren Buffet pays a lower percentage tax than his secretary. Is that fair? Is it fair for the health insurance, financial industry, and Wall Street to buy off political clout? Is it fair to have a corporation with huge money reserves to be considered an individual when it comes to being able to donate as much as they want to a campaign?

Do you even realize that everyone is being taxed at the lowest rate in at least a decade right now, and the richest are paying at a lower rate than the average worker in the U.S. does with an income of $40,000? Is that fair?

I remember a Bible quote with the general idea of "from those with much, much will be expected." And of course there was the well known "render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's" and the idea of treating your neighbor as yourself. Seems a lot of fundamentalist conservatives and the extremely wealthy think this didn't apply to them in spite of their religious claims on everything else.

Now tell me what is wrong with leveling the tax field on the backs of those who haven't been carrying their share. I don't have my hand out, I just expect that GE should pay more than $0 as should other corporations that are able to weasel out of paying as much in tax as you or I do. Some even get government grants and contracts to boot. Then how about the guy who makes a million or more on investments, shouldn't he pay as much on that as I do when I work hourly? I think so. Don't you?

As for reduced taxes making jobs, the taxes have dropped since 2001 and so have the jobs. There has been less job growth in this time of taxes on the rich dropping than in the era of higher taxes. Where are the jobs that these tax reductions were supposed to make?

Old Yeller

funny how people always use GE as a prime example when it is the exception, not the norm. Those on the left need to stop bending information to suit their position.

Your bible quotes are taken out of context. you should go back and study/read more. From those with much refers to support of the church and it's good works. I have no problem giving a tythe or more to the church for good works in the community or world. Do I think the government should be in that business...heck no! For the render unto Caesar part, do you realize in those days a tythe went to the church and another 10% to Caesar? Man I wish that was all that was required. The passage, however, does not say "you make more, so Caesar will take a larger percentage of what you make, and you should gladly give it to him".

I'm opposed to taking more taxes from ANY level. The problem with our country is not people paying less tax, the problem is the government is spending and giving away too much of it.

PUSHrod

And those on the right need to just quit wrapping themselves in the flag, proclaiming themselves pious christians and then abjectly demonstrating hypocrisy.

From my perspective, if the mule on the left isn't working with the mule on the right then the field won't get plowed and the crops won't come in before harvest season. 'Effin stubborn mules!

autoteach

Well, the right has you right where they want you, defending the entire country against tax increases, when some with much pay little. The "right" is that some. They also have you hooting and hollering over the many at the bottom with very little not paying their fare share. Its rice for dinner, kids. How those poor folks dont contribute is beyond me. Who do you stand for? If you want to be the religious right, then you dont stand for yourself, your stand for those with less than you. But, then again...we dont stone harlots anymore.

RegularGuy

The top 5 percent (those making more than $153,542 pay 60 percent of all federal income taxes. The rich (aka the top 1 percent of income earners, those making more than $388,806 a year), according to the IRS, pay 40 percent of all federal income taxes. The top 1 percent's taxes constitute 17 percent of the federal government's revenue from all sources, including corporate taxes, excise taxes, social insurance and retirement receipts.

autoteach

And what portion of household incomes do the top 5 and 1 percent constitute? I would wager to guess that they make a fair share of the taxable income. Can you put t in perspective for me? Maybe for yourself as well.

superhawk22

400 people in the US have more money than 150,000,000 people combined! The tax rate for these people is the lowest its been for 50 years but the unemployment rate has increased so why aren't the job makers making jobs?

superhawk22

So you're saying there's no demand for more workers? Not really my point at all but that just sounds rediculous. My point is this, all I keep hearing is if we raise taxes on the rich they won't be able to afford to make new jobs. Well the tax rate is the lowest its been in fifty years and the unemployment rate is the highest its been in that same time so where's the jobs that they won't be ab le to make if we raise the rate back to where it was before the Bush breaks? Record profits are beeing made but the money isn't beeing invested back into the companies its just going in the pockets.

Tweety

Last I checked 42% was higher than 35%... But yeah, if you just compare the numbers in one single column, the 35% a corporation pays in the US is higher than the 28% in Sweden, but then the tax systems aren't actually the same, so it's probably more fair to compare the "real" numbers that the incomprehensible Swedish system actually produces if you look at all the numbers...

superhawk22

Wow I feel like I'm arguing with Fox News here! Again way to take what I said and twist it around to fit your needs. 1st off you can't have it both ways either the job creators are scared to make jobs because they're afraid o ftax increases or there's just no demand not both. 2nd let's take that 47% that people love to throw out there and make it a little more truthfull. The 47% of "workers as you put it includes the nearly 10% of people who are unemployed so yeah they've been living large for much too long we need to tax the hell out of their fed supplied paycheck. So that brings it to more like 37% now let's tax the high rollers that are the working people in poverty. Lord knows they've been getting too good in this country for far too long. I mean really some people have no job and these bums are working to or three jobs to not get food on the table for their families, down right selfish I tell you! So that brings the 47% down to around 25% hey I have a brillant idea why don't we abolish the child labor laws and put those lazy SOB's back to work and we can tax them! Again my post was an answer to another post about what amount of people have what amount of money in the US and when 400 people have more money than 150 million americans combined not individually combined well then excuse me if I don't shed a tear if we want to tax their lear jet instead of giving them a tax break on it! Oh and by the way maybe you should check some of your "facts" the tax rate under Clinton was 39%.but I'd hate to confuse you with the facts.

superhawk22

Sorry for the typos I'm extremely tired and BTW how did this thread go from flag burning to this crap?

superhawk22

Maybe you should sharpen your reading comprehension skills RK you were the only one talking abouÞ corporations I've always been talking about individuals. Also I agree taxes do not and never have had anything to do with making jobs which was my point to begin with it is the talking heads and republican candidates that say they do. As for envy or hatred nope none of that here either but if you're going to have most of the money don't bitch about having to pay most of the taxes.

Old Yeller

I guess what I scratch my head about is trying to understand how the government is going to improve things by collecting more in taxes when they have a proven track record of inept spending. I'm just not seeing the logic of increasing taxes on the rich or corporations to create more jobs. The real bottom line is the government needs to curb spending and eliminate the deficit. I personally keep tending back to a solution of term limits to get rid of career politicians because I view that as part of the Washington problem, and providing line item veto to the president so that he/she can cross off the pork barrel overspending that is so pervasive. Perhaps it's not the total solution, but I gotta think it would go a long way to helping solve the problem.

Old Yeller

so then, if not to create jobs, what is your reason for increasing the taxes on the rich?

superhawk22

Ok 1st its not raiseing taxes its restoring them to where they were before the cuts that were only supposed to be temporary were put in place. 2nd we lose trillions of dollars by keeping them in place which obviously could got towards reducing the deficit. 3rd as the President said in his job act the gov. Who supposedly can't create jobs would have more money to put into rebuilding our once superior infrastructure and failing schools. I agree we should make some cuts in spending but let's be smart about it, I've never once heard congress say hey why don't we cut our pay or why don't we stop the lifetime pay we receive or hey why don't we give back our tax paid health ins and start paying for it like we expect the citizen to pay. Or maybe we can stop paying $16 a piece for muffins and $2 an ounce for coffe at special sessions or maybe not have our military spend $2000 for a fn hammer!

Old Yeller

I guess that sums up where the philosophical difference is in the arguement. In my mind, the government does not need more money. I don't care if it comes from the rich, the poor, or anywhere else. Until we hold them accountable for doing a better job with what we give them, why should we give them more? It's not about what congress pays themselves, or spends on themselves. They need to take a better look at the budget overall, and clean up what is already going on.

In my view, I'm drawing a line in the sand. I'm telling the government "enough"....you (we) get no more money....figure out how to live within your (our) means. I have to be fiscally responsible in my personal finances. why do we not require the same of the government instead of giving them more money?

superhawk22

Again what you fail to understand is we are not giving them more we are restoring what was already being given. So who pays the people in gov we do so while most american people have taken pay cuts they continue to give themselves raises is that responsable spending? Everything I've said would help to restore a balanced budget when you balance your check book do you not account for income?

Old Yeller

It's simply an argumentative statement to ask me about accounting for my income, so that serves no useful purpose in the conversation. However, by your logic, some government spending programs that were meant to be temporary should be stopped as well. That hasn't historically happened either, because once it becomes a budget item, it seems to live forever.

The bottom line is still that the government does not need more money...they need to spend less.

superhawk22

Round and round we go where it stops nobody knows. Ok 1 more time I am not the 1 who equates jobs and taxes I was taking what the Republican candidates and right wing talking heads have been saying over and over and over again just like this conversation. Now what they keep saying is we can't restore the old tax rates (notice I didn't say raise) because the rich or as they like to call them the "job creators" won't have the means to create more jobs again not my words thiers. Now even though I agree that they don't have anything to do with each other I have given examples of how that revinue we don't collect anymore could be used. Now just so we are clear where I stand politically I am an independent voter, which means instead of just voting down party lines I try to research canidates and vote for the 1 I most closely agree with. In my life I have voted for both parties however I find it harder these days on both sides because they have become so polorized. The point of different views is supposed to be about balance and compromise to work for something that benefits all these days neither side seems to want that. I do believe that I am now done with this excercise in futility.

superhawk22

Again sorry for typos I'm on my blackberry and have slept about 2 hours.

autoteach

Dont worry about it. If he told you a red Ferrari was red, and you agreed, he would say it wasn't. The talking heads are willing to swallow their words repeatedly and just tell you it was just some phlegm. It is all about arguing, in the efforts to win, not to be right. The win is that corporations and the wealthy get richer at a rate that is nearly exponential, while those who are not, fall apart, lose their homes, lose their jobs, and end up on the streets. YEA!!! We win, but I am sure that it isnt right.

superhawk22

funny how one of the richest men in the world, (Warren Buffet), can understand my logic but the people who are getting fleeced can't seem to get it.

Old Yeller

but I have yet to hear any logic as to why the government needs more money instead of doing a better job of controlling what they have. That's my entire point. There is absolutely NO reason why the government should get one more cent from ANYONE. I've yet to hear any logical answer as to why they need more when they can't control themselves. Sorry that's so difficult to understand. I guess I'm just not good at explaining it. I've offered a couple viable solutions that could help with the problem and all I've heard offered back is "more money to Washington". How is that a good solution? Talking heads exist on BOTH sides of the isle.

autoteach

Well, we aren't arguing the money management issue, but we are arguing the fair share. Why fight to keep tax cuts for the rich? The argument then becomes they shouldnt get any more money, instead of "fair share". Maybe the bush tax cuts should stay in place, as well as tax cuts to the rest. But what should we cut. I vote war. Done, then on to other programs...I am sure that in the end you wouldnt like what I would cut, or at least Fox news wouldnt, and therefore most right wingers wouldnt. You probably wouldnt like my idea for putting our soldiers to work. We will need to, because we would just be adding to the unemployment line. They are your hero's now, but what if they cam home and were unemployed and suckling of the govt teet. Then what? Unfortunately, with the cutting of any spending there is collateral, and while it aids ones argument to scream about saving, when it cuts the programs in their neighborhood they end up going "wait, I thought you were going to cut "their" funding, not mine". The dysfunction in Washington is killing this nation to the benefit of the rich. If you deny that you must be rich or dumb.

Old Yeller

Well, my first reaction is that they (military) deserve to suckle at washington's teet more than the people who already are. There are too many people sucking Washington dry waiting for handouts. I see so many examples of that I wouldn't know were to begin. I don't disagree that it's necessary and needed in some cases, but I also see SO many who take advantage of it. It's sickening to me.

My position is that everyone is already paying more than their share. I'm not one of the rich, by any means, but I am fed up with Washington always having it's hand out for more. you are right that we probably wouldn't agree on what to cut, but if we're FORCED to have to make it happen, we would find a way. it works that way in business, and would work for the government too. it would take some hard choices, for sure, but is certainly possible.

There are two great examples right here in my area. Both ended up being positives because the private sector eventually stepped up and provided funding. That's a FAR better model than giving more to the government.

The local county governments (county and school system) are struggling with reduced revenues just like the fed is. Instead of raising taxes, the local politicians took the approach to evaluate what was critical and what was not. One area on the chopping block was libraries. There were 24 libraries spread out over the county. They decided to close 12. The second example was middle school sports. The school system had to make some tough decisions, for sure. Both of these areas had enough support from citizens that they found a way to come up with the money without taxing people.

Contrary to CBS and the left, the government does NOT know best how to spend our money!

There is one thing we can agree on though Bill. The dysfunction in Washington IS killing the nation....to the detriment of us all.

autoteach

I think there is a lot that I would be willing to change. It would be much like libertarianism. There is a reason that Ron Paul can never be president, and that is that as much as the left doesn't want him as president, the right doesnt either. Corporatism is big business for both groups. And it is paid for by us, not those with money.