Don't even talk about raising taxes, won't do anything for the deficit.
Bull fucking shit. Raising taxes would go a long way toward fixing the deficit. Only a complete idiot would see a problem between revenues and spending, and saying that brining in more revenue won't do anything.
Because that's not necessarily "balance". One of the biggest fallacies infecting modern journalism is that there are "two sides to every story". This is simply not true. Some stories have many, many sides. Some only have one. For instance, the birther bullshit. That's not a two sides thing; that's reality, and a bunch of idiots arguing against reality.
That sentence certainly describes Obama more than it does Romney. Gitmo, support for drone strikes, economic stimulus, etc. etc. etc.
Only if you pay absolutely no attention to facts at all.
Romney has a clearly laid out plan for what he wants to do. You may not like the plan, but he has one.
No he fucking hasn't. He's said, "Obama sucks" and "I'm going to repeal the ACA". That's it. He has NOT put forth any kind of plan whatsoever.
Meanwhile Obama and Democrats in general have failed to produce a budget for THREE FUCKING YEARS. How can you vote for that kind of nonsense?
The Republicans in Congress are just as guilty.
At this point we just need someone that will pick a direction and go there. Right now it seems far more likely Romney will do so than Obama, especially based on past history. Romney inherited a badly run Olympics and made it work; Obama inherited a bad economy and made it worse.
False, and false. You cannot say Romney has any kind of direction, especially given the proven inconsistencies between him now and him even a few years ago.
And just about all leading economists agree that the economy is far better than when Obama inherited it.
Quit with the uncited lies. It's getting annoying.
The tax should be even at all levels of income, period end of statement. That is the Constitutional answer, as well as the most logical and "Fair". If I pay 13%, then some person making a bazillion dollars a year should pay 13%. If that person pays 10%, I pay 10%.
No. This is inherently Regressive, and has absolutely nothing to do with "Constitutionality".
Ten percent. For everybody with absolutely no deductions, classes of income (capital gains, unearned, etc) credits (refundable or none) or anything.
Ahh, so you're a Regressive. Glad to have that cleared up.
Because anyone with half a brain can realize that "flat" taxes are inherently regressive, and shift most of the tax burden to the poor and middle class. 10% from someone making $10,000/year is felt far, far more than 10% from someone making $100k/year, and that is felt more than 10% from someone making $1MM/year.
Not to mention the fact that the 10% would not actually bring in enough revenue.
That we are already far more progressive in our tax policy than countries with outright socialists in charge. In other words, we are almost certainly maxed out and probably way on the bad side of the Laffer Curve.
You haven't cited anything to support this. The fact is, no one has any idea what side of the Laffer Curve we are on. Odds are, we're on the side that says we're collecting too little in taxes.
The bottom half are already getting more from the State than they pay in all taxes combined.
That's not saying much when you take into account the fact that they don't have shit to start with. You make it sound like the bottom half is driving around in Rolls Royces.
Politifact is useless. You won't believe me so I won't even cite, Google it yourself.
Translation: "I've been caught with my pants down in a baldfaced lie, but I don't want to admit it. So I'm going to not bother to back up my position."
The important numbers are the percentage of the budget shouldered by the top income earners vs their share of total income.
Who says these are the important numbers? I certainly don't think so.
Anyone who even utters the phrase 'fair share' must first go see that number for themselves and THEN define exactly how much more they think they can extract before they say 'fuck it' and go somewhere else.
Mitt Romney's 13% sure as fuck is not a "fair share", considering most people with a far lower amount of income pay more than this.
By "high taxes", you mean among the lowest in the civilized world, and lowest in history of this country, right? Because you clearly don't know what high taxes actually are.
I'm glad Ryan has the guts to make the hard decisions that need to be made and deal with the political fallout.
Except that by "hard decisions", you mean that he's willing to cut programs that he doesn't like, or is ideologically opposed to. I haven't heard him willing to cut the military down to the levels that are needed.
Perhaps if government wasn't required to only take into account bid price when putting out a contract, and was able to take other factors into account, like any business out there, there wouldn't be so much waste like this.
In recent months when people talk about a "war on religion" they're more likely to be talking about the HHS mandate that any Calholic who owns a business must violate the teachings of their religion if the want to be allowed to hire employees
No, they don't. This is complete and utter bullshit. That business owner is still COMPLETELY FREE to not take birth control. They just don't have the "right" (which isn't a right, but rather a desire to oppress others) to force their views on others.
That's the same mandate that says religious observance is ok when practiced inside a church amoung other people of the same religion, but if your religion wants to you to something good for the community like run a soup-kitchen or hospital, you have to violate your relgion.
Again, nothing but horseshit. And tell me, why the fuck should your "religious freedom" trump anything else? If that business owner's "religious teachings" said that he should perform human sacrifice, or have sex with his employees, should that be allowed as well?
Since the Charlie Brown Christmas special came out maybe 50 years ago, have you seen another Christmas special on network TV that made any mention of the reason for Christmas?
Who the fuck cares? When was the last time you saw a holiday special on network TV that explained the reason for Chanukah, or Kwanza?
The first is that religion should only be practiced in private.
No. The idea is that practices of religion should not be forced onto others that don't want them. A business owner objecting to birth control for their employees is doing that exact thing, and they have no fucking right to do so.
All we would have to do is get Paul Ryan on record as wanting to privatize the Green Bay Packers, and he'd be gone before he could finish that sentence.
You have no fucking idea how those laptops are used, and what the process was to come to the conclusion that they should be used. Until you can actually procure that information, yes, you are a troll.
It's okay to teach evolution even though we have absolutely no samples of evolution of a species, only variations in species, but we can't teach alternative theories?
1). Your statement is absolutely false.
2). Creationism is NOT an "alternate theory". There is absolutely no evidence for it. Further, it is religious in nature. If you're going to teach creationism, you'd have to teach Flying Spaghetti Monsterism as well.
That way if I don't like the state's policies I can pick-up and move to a better state.
Unless you're willing to pay the moving expenses for everyone who doesn't like the state they're in, that argument is completely stupid, and should not be made in regards to things like this.
Freedom of choice between 27 EU states or 50 US states is preferable to being stuck with just one choice
And if you don't have the resources to move? Where's your "choice" then?
Slashdot Mirror
Again, no evidence. Just guesses.
Don't even talk about raising taxes, won't do anything for the deficit.
Bull fucking shit. Raising taxes would go a long way toward fixing the deficit. Only a complete idiot would see a problem between revenues and spending, and saying that brining in more revenue won't do anything.
Because that's not necessarily "balance". One of the biggest fallacies infecting modern journalism is that there are "two sides to every story". This is simply not true. Some stories have many, many sides. Some only have one. For instance, the birther bullshit. That's not a two sides thing; that's reality, and a bunch of idiots arguing against reality.
That sentence certainly describes Obama more than it does Romney. Gitmo, support for drone strikes, economic stimulus, etc. etc. etc.
Only if you pay absolutely no attention to facts at all.
Romney has a clearly laid out plan for what he wants to do. You may not like the plan, but he has one.
No he fucking hasn't. He's said, "Obama sucks" and "I'm going to repeal the ACA". That's it. He has NOT put forth any kind of plan whatsoever.
Meanwhile Obama and Democrats in general have failed to produce a budget for THREE FUCKING YEARS. How can you vote for that kind of nonsense?
The Republicans in Congress are just as guilty.
At this point we just need someone that will pick a direction and go there. Right now it seems far more likely Romney will do so than Obama, especially based on past history. Romney inherited a badly run Olympics and made it work; Obama inherited a bad economy and made it worse.
False, and false. You cannot say Romney has any kind of direction, especially given the proven inconsistencies between him now and him even a few years ago.
And just about all leading economists agree that the economy is far better than when Obama inherited it.
Quit with the uncited lies. It's getting annoying.
The problem with that idea is that you are now dependent on other nations to do your R&D for you. What happens when they take the same position?
Maybe not, but I can't imagine that the number of plutonium managers with experience is very large.
You may think taxes are low, but the U.S. corporate tax rate is the highest in the world. [usnews.com]
Corporate tax rate largely isn't paid, so it doesn't matter.
The only serious way out involves LOTS of cuts, everywhere
Start at the top then. Cut the military.
If you pretend otherwise you are simply ignorant or on a mission to doom us all.
Same for anyone who opposes raising taxes on the rich.
It doesn't hurt the rich at all, like everything it rolls downhill and hurts US
A rich person paying their fair share in taxes does NOT hurt "us". It helps us.
Higher tax rates force the rich to switch from asset appreciation and economic growth to wealth preservation and tax avoidance.
And they magically decide to pay taxes when they're lower?
The tax should be even at all levels of income, period end of statement. That is the Constitutional answer, as well as the most logical and "Fair". If I pay 13%, then some person making a bazillion dollars a year should pay 13%. If that person pays 10%, I pay 10%.
No. This is inherently Regressive, and has absolutely nothing to do with "Constitutionality".
Ten percent. For everybody with absolutely no deductions, classes of income (capital gains, unearned, etc) credits (refundable or none) or anything.
Ahh, so you're a Regressive. Glad to have that cleared up.
Because anyone with half a brain can realize that "flat" taxes are inherently regressive, and shift most of the tax burden to the poor and middle class. 10% from someone making $10,000/year is felt far, far more than 10% from someone making $100k/year, and that is felt more than 10% from someone making $1MM/year.
Not to mention the fact that the 10% would not actually bring in enough revenue.
That we are already far more progressive in our tax policy than countries with outright socialists in charge. In other words, we are almost certainly maxed out and probably way on the bad side of the Laffer Curve.
You haven't cited anything to support this. The fact is, no one has any idea what side of the Laffer Curve we are on. Odds are, we're on the side that says we're collecting too little in taxes.
The bottom half are already getting more from the State than they pay in all taxes combined.
That's not saying much when you take into account the fact that they don't have shit to start with. You make it sound like the bottom half is driving around in Rolls Royces.
Politifact is useless. You won't believe me so I won't even cite, Google it yourself.
Translation: "I've been caught with my pants down in a baldfaced lie, but I don't want to admit it. So I'm going to not bother to back up my position."
The important numbers are the percentage of the budget shouldered by the top income earners vs their share of total income.
Who says these are the important numbers? I certainly don't think so.
Anyone who even utters the phrase 'fair share' must first go see that number for themselves and THEN define exactly how much more they think they can extract before they say 'fuck it' and go somewhere else.
Mitt Romney's 13% sure as fuck is not a "fair share", considering most people with a far lower amount of income pay more than this.
but it's clear from our high taxes
By "high taxes", you mean among the lowest in the civilized world, and lowest in history of this country, right? Because you clearly don't know what high taxes actually are.
I'm glad Ryan has the guts to make the hard decisions that need to be made and deal with the political fallout.
Except that by "hard decisions", you mean that he's willing to cut programs that he doesn't like, or is ideologically opposed to. I haven't heard him willing to cut the military down to the levels that are needed.
Nobody is forced at gunpoint to invest in any given business
And the same is said of government. You are free to leave the country and go find another.
Perhaps if government wasn't required to only take into account bid price when putting out a contract, and was able to take other factors into account, like any business out there, there wouldn't be so much waste like this.
Every branch of government and every government funded project wastes money
The same can largely be said of the private sector as well.
So you're going to separate them from society for the rest of their lives? That's not much better.
In recent months when people talk about a "war on religion" they're more likely to be talking about the HHS mandate that any Calholic who owns a business must violate the teachings of their religion if the want to be allowed to hire employees
No, they don't. This is complete and utter bullshit. That business owner is still COMPLETELY FREE to not take birth control. They just don't have the "right" (which isn't a right, but rather a desire to oppress others) to force their views on others.
That's the same mandate that says religious observance is ok when practiced inside a church amoung other people of the same religion, but if your religion wants to you to something good for the community like run a soup-kitchen or hospital, you have to violate your relgion.
Again, nothing but horseshit. And tell me, why the fuck should your "religious freedom" trump anything else? If that business owner's "religious teachings" said that he should perform human sacrifice, or have sex with his employees, should that be allowed as well?
Since the Charlie Brown Christmas special came out maybe 50 years ago, have you seen another Christmas special on network TV that made any mention of the reason for Christmas?
Who the fuck cares? When was the last time you saw a holiday special on network TV that explained the reason for Chanukah, or Kwanza?
The first is that religion should only be practiced in private.
No. The idea is that practices of religion should not be forced onto others that don't want them. A business owner objecting to birth control for their employees is doing that exact thing, and they have no fucking right to do so.
All we would have to do is get Paul Ryan on record as wanting to privatize the Green Bay Packers, and he'd be gone before he could finish that sentence.
You have no fucking idea how those laptops are used, and what the process was to come to the conclusion that they should be used. Until you can actually procure that information, yes, you are a troll.
The South would eventually have given up slavery
Except you have absolutely nothing to back that statement up.
It's okay to teach evolution even though we have absolutely no samples of evolution of a species, only variations in species, but we can't teach alternative theories?
1). Your statement is absolutely false.
2). Creationism is NOT an "alternate theory". There is absolutely no evidence for it. Further, it is religious in nature. If you're going to teach creationism, you'd have to teach Flying Spaghetti Monsterism as well.
Because that would absolutely destroy the competitiveness of large portions of our nation, and severely fuck over lots of innocent kids.
Only the heavily indoctrinated would even hesitate to acknowledge this fact.
Or those hanging out in reality.
That way if I don't like the state's policies I can pick-up and move to a better state.
Unless you're willing to pay the moving expenses for everyone who doesn't like the state they're in, that argument is completely stupid, and should not be made in regards to things like this.
Freedom of choice between 27 EU states or 50 US states is preferable to being stuck with just one choice
And if you don't have the resources to move? Where's your "choice" then?