I can't for the life of me figure out what exactly it is you're asking here, Inlet. One of us has been hanging out in the Lounge Car too long.
He said in the Obama opening he was a supervisor security guard at a petroleum co. and he received gov't assistance to be one. This is how he got into rock by funding it. I heard he was a gas station attendant. Not a supervisor security guard at an oil company.
Anyone who's familiar with PJ knows the gas station attendant, living in a shack, surfing story that ended with Once, Alive and Footsteps while surfing.
My point is - this doesn't add up. The story is changing. I'm looking for a reason - maybe I'm off somewhere.
I had heard years ago that he worked security at a petroleum company. I can't remember if it was in a book or in an article, but I definitely remember reading that because I had heard he was a gas station attendant as well. My thought is that either 1) the reports that he was a gas station attendant were confused in hearing that he worked for an oil company (probably fairly easy mistake) 2) He worked more than one job at a time (I worked 3 different jobs at the same time when I first graduated undergrad - not so uncommon), or 3) he worked more than one job consecutively within the same year as a lot of young people do
Eddie probably knows his work history better than any reporter, author or wikipedia writer
Luckily, someone on the thread on the porch quoted the pj20 book where it says he had this job, so it's been proven Eddie isn't a liar about his own life now. :roll: Also, ed specifically said on the vid that this course and job came along when he was 19. That inlet was saying things didn't add up and sounds fishy he was assuming that ed was talking about when he was older, closer to when he went to Seattle, showing that inlet started two threads about how ed seems to be full of shit without even seeing the vid or reading a transcript.... just mentioning this so that perhaps people will be more careful about knowing what they're talking about before coming to any conclusions about other people.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I can't for the life of me figure out what exactly it is you're asking here, Inlet. One of us has been hanging out in the Lounge Car too long.
He said in the Obama opening he was a supervisor security guard at a petroleum co. and he received gov't assistance to be one. This is how he got into rock by funding it. I heard he was a gas station attendant. Not a supervisor security guard at an oil company.
Anyone who's familiar with PJ knows the gas station attendant, living in a shack, surfing story that ended with Once, Alive and Footsteps while surfing.
My point is - this doesn't add up. The story is changing. I'm looking for a reason - maybe I'm off somewhere.
I had heard years ago that he worked security at a petroleum company. I can't remember if it was in a book or in an article, but I definitely remember reading that because I had heard he was a gas station attendant as well. My thought is that either 1) the reports that he was a gas station attendant were confused in hearing that he worked for an oil company (probably fairly easy mistake) 2) He worked more than one job at a time (I worked 3 different jobs at the same time when I first graduated undergrad - not so uncommon), or 3) he worked more than one job consecutively within the same year as a lot of young people do
Eddie probably knows his work history better than any reporter, author or wikipedia writer
Luckily, someone on the thread on the porch quoted the pj20 book where it says he had this job, so it's been proven Eddie isn't a liar about his own life now. :roll: Also, ed specifically said on the vid that this course and job came along when he was 19. When inlet was saying things didn't add up and sounds fishy he was assuming that ed was talking about when he was older, closer to when he went to Seattle, showing that inlet started two threads about how ed seems to be full of shit without even seeing the vid or reading a transcript.... just mentioning this so that perhaps people will be more careful about knowing what they're talking about before coming to any conclusions about other people.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I think the original story back in '91 was gas station attendant. I think the media thought that was a better story. I've never heard Ed say anything other than security guard.
This show, another show, a show here and a show there.
I think the original story back in '91 was gas station attendant. I think the media thought that was a better story. I've never heard Ed say anything other than security guard.
He's always said he was a gas station attendant when he got the mamasan tape. He's told specific stories about his boss at that gas station and has dedicated a song to him. He was a se purity guard at this other place years before that.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
He said in the Obama opening he was a supervisor security guard at a petroleum co. and he received gov't assistance to be one. This is how he got into rock by funding it. I heard he was a gas station attendant. Not a supervisor security guard at an oil company.
Anyone who's familiar with PJ knows the gas station attendant, living in a shack, surfing story that ended with Once, Alive and Footsteps while surfing.
My point is - this doesn't add up. The story is changing. I'm looking for a reason - maybe I'm off somewhere.
I had heard years ago that he worked security at a petroleum company. I can't remember if it was in a book or in an article, but I definitely remember reading that because I had heard he was a gas station attendant as well. My thought is that either 1) the reports that he was a gas station attendant were confused in hearing that he worked for an oil company (probably fairly easy mistake) 2) He worked more than one job at a time (I worked 3 different jobs at the same time when I first graduated undergrad - not so uncommon), or 3) he worked more than one job consecutively within the same year as a lot of young people do
Eddie probably knows his work history better than any reporter, author or wikipedia writer
Luckily, someone on the thread on the porch quoted the pj20 book where it says he had this job, so it's been proven Eddie isn't a liar about his own life now. :roll: Also, ed specifically said on the vid that this course and job came along when he was 19. When inlet was saying things didn't add up and sounds fishy he was assuming that ed was talking about when he was older, closer to when he went to Seattle, showing that inlet started two threads about how ed seems to be full of shit without even seeing the vid or reading a transcript.... just mentioning this so that perhaps people will be more careful about knowing what they're talking about before coming to any conclusions about other people.
ahhh that makes sense. I knew I had heard he had worked both jobs. I guess Eddie didn't realize that he was only allowed to work one job before joining PJ Any time he mentions one job, he better be sure to mention all the others,with dates, etc...you know...like we all do.
I sure hope peacefrompaul doesn't have any fishy stuff in his background :? :thumbup:
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
I think the original story back in '91 was gas station attendant. I think the media thought that was a better story. I've never heard Ed say anything other than security guard.
He's always said he was a gas station attendant when he got the mamasan tape. He's told specific stories about his boss at that gas station and has dedicated a song to him. He was a se purity guard at this other place years before that.
Well, there ya go...shows how much stuff like that matters to me.
This show, another show, a show here and a show there.
When exactly has trickle down economics actually worked?
It doesn't!
It's all so silly. The lefts premise is actually more insulting to those "down on their luck" than the right.
I also love the it's rigged theory. So, now you're also insulting those that are successful. Is there anyone the left actually admires?
And the 1980's would be the correct answer to your question. That was also the decade we didn't hate ourselves.
Now off to the lounge car......
Debatable... and you are talking about cutting from restrictively high rates (basically cutting the top tax rate from 70% to 28% over time). Lowering it that much is bound to infuse the economy with cash. But dropping it a few percent (or raising it a few percent) isn't going to have that effect.
Also, Reagan tripled the debt during his time, mostly due to lowering tax income and increasing military spending.
And while everyone loves to talk about Reagan lowering taxes, but he actually raised taxes on lower incomes in 1986 and his policies helped greatly increase the difference from the haves and have nots.
My whole life
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
And why didn't he say gas station attendant. Why was it puffed up to "supervisory" security guard at a petroleum company? Seems pretty ridiculous.
The fact that it seems he stretched his current auto biography from gas attendent to supervisor of security guards at a petroleum company to "potentially" fit Obama's demands - if that's true: that's kinda messed up - at least to me. And if it's true , I'd really lose more respect. And it doesn't have to do with supporting a Presidential candidate - it has to do with changing stories - repeatedly.
Or...Ed could have been downplaying his job at the gas station, whatever that was, in earlier quotes and stories. He can be rather self deprecating at times. Anyway, I've really only thought he said he was working at a gas station all this time. I never really recall him saying what his job specifically was. Long story short...maybe he was trying to get a tiny bit more street cred in the past by saying he worked graveyard at a gas station instead of saying he actually worked his way up into middle management. Who knows? I just don't think we can conclude Ed was necessarily puffing anything up for the Obama fundraiser.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win ."
mitt scares the hell out of my mom & her friends. for the last 4 hrs all i have heard is how scared people are of mr. mitt romney. this dude is for the elite & the elite only.
Alright, Mr. Long Island. Let's not talk about our "down on their luck", let's talk about our "dirt poor". How, my friend, are tax cuts for Warren Buffet, Jamie Dimon, Dick Fuld and the likes going to give our dirt poor an education or any chance in this life? Come on buddy. I'd love an answer. Or do we on Long Island not give a fuck about them?
You're the insulting motherfuckers that act like having a couple extra bucks in your pocket is somehow going to benefit everyone else. Oh, I may not give my employee a raise, but I will but a new TV and that will stimulate the economy, even if that TV was made in China.
You know what's really silly. Acting like Mitt Romney is actually a legitimate candidate. For all you fuckers swearing a GOP win in 6 weeks, good fucking luck. I have a feel you're gonna need it.
You see? That's the problem - Obama wants to raise taxes on those making $250K. I think Buffet, Dimon and Fuld make a tad bit more than that. So, let's talk Long Island - do you think $250K for a family on Long Island is the same as $250K, let's say in (insert just about anywhere else in the country).
THAT'S the issue. Sure, nobody making $250K is crying poverty. But, you make it sound like this debate is over Warren Buffet.
And if you think his line stops there, good luck. The math doesn't work at $1 million, so he had to bring it down to $250K. It won't work at $250K, so it will move again. He's already raised taxes on the middle class (Obamacare), so what makes you think $250K is the fair demarcation of "rich?"
We need to stop this class warfare he has fostered.
And BTW, I think Obama's going to win for a variety of reasons not the least of which is that 95% of a particular race is voting for him regardless. And, nobody is waxing poetic about Romney. I KNOW Obama's a failure. I only THINK Romney MIGHT be. A glimmer of hope is better than none at all.
And just to clear this all up - to date I personally have done better under Obama. But, its not personal for me. I see the disaster that is the country around me, and I want that to be better. Good luck with 4 more years of Obama.
I'll just raise my salary to pay the extra taxes. Where do you think my extra salary to pay the extra taxes will be taken from? (I am being facetious by those last couple sentences, as I don't control my own salary, nor would I personally do that. But, if you already think so little of "wealthy" business owners, do you really think they are going to accept lower take home pay? It's all so cukoo. Nothing he says makes any sense. There's no logic to it.)
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
so when the rich make money off of the poor and are allowed to use tax shelters that the poor can't so that they can shield their money an assets from taxes it is called capitalism.
when the poor question that it is called class warfare...
the system is rigged to favor the rich.
seriously, who is waging class warfare here?
the rich want to balance the budget but they are fundamentally opposed to helping chip in to clinton tax rates to help with the deficits and debt. they want to cut programs to help the poor. they want to repeal obamacare, cut welfare, cut social security, cut medicare. THAT to me is class warfare.
you can not have it both ways.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
so when the rich make money off of the poor and are allowed to use tax shelters that the poor can't so that they can shield their money an assets from taxes it is called capitalism.
when the poor question that it is called class warfare...
the system is rigged to favor the rich.
seriously, who is waging class warfare here?
the rich want to balance the budget but they are fundamentally opposed to helping chip in to clinton tax rates to help with the deficits and debt. they want to cut programs to help the poor. they want to repeal obamacare, cut welfare, cut social security, cut medicare. THAT to me is class warfare.
you can not have it both ways.
This class warfare bull shit is getting old.
I've always liked this:
"Actually, there’s been class warfare going on for the last 20 years, and my class has won. We’re the ones that have gotten our tax rates reduced dramatically.
If you look at the 400 highest taxpayers in the United States in 1992, the first year for figures, they averaged about $40 million of [income] per person. In the most recent year, they were $227 million per person — five for one. During that period, their taxes went down from 29 percent to 21 percent of income. So, if there’s class warfare, the rich class has won."----Warren Buffet
The bottom line is that the poor ALWAYS pay in this country. The facts point to this.
In a nation where an actor can get paid $5, 10 million to portray a soldier in a movie, while the average salary for a real soldier, a kid who gets sent to the desert to die for the interests of the ruling class, the ownership class as Carlin will say, makes, including healthcare and housing, roughly $50-60,000.
But hey, we can't tax actors and actresses, baseball players and late-night talk show hosts, "reality" TV slobs and heiresses. THAT would be class warfare!!
1) stay on the course of change that we voted for 4 years ago even if it hasn't happened as fast and effortlessly than we thought it might. We want to work for a better future for ourselves and our countrymen.
2) throw our hands up, say "fuck it, this is too hard" and go back to the same GW Bush policies that got us into this pit of eternal stench.
If we still believe that we really can fight the good fight, turn things around and give our country a better future... or we can go back.
so when the rich make money off of the poor and are allowed to use tax shelters that the poor can't so that they can shield their money an assets from taxes it is called capitalism.
when the poor question that it is called class warfare...
the system is rigged to favor the rich.
seriously, who is waging class warfare here?
the rich want to balance the budget but they are fundamentally opposed to helping chip in to clinton tax rates to help with the deficits and debt. they want to cut programs to help the poor. they want to repeal obamacare, cut welfare, cut social security, cut medicare. THAT to me is class warfare.
you can not have it both ways.
This class warfare bull shit is getting old.
I've always liked this:
"Actually, there’s been class warfare going on for the last 20 years, and my class has won. We’re the ones that have gotten our tax rates reduced dramatically.
If you look at the 400 highest taxpayers in the United States in 1992, the first year for figures, they averaged about $40 million of [income] per person. In the most recent year, they were $227 million per person — five for one. During that period, their taxes went down from 29 percent to 21 percent of income. So, if there’s class warfare, the rich class has won."----Warren Buffet
The bottom line is that the poor ALWAYS pay in this country. The facts point to this.
In a nation where an actor can get paid $5, 10 million to portray a soldier in a movie, while the average salary for a real soldier, a kid who gets sent to the desert to die for the interests of the ruling class, the ownership class as Carlin will say, makes, including healthcare and housing, roughly $50-60,000.
But hey, we can't tax actors and actresses, baseball players and late-night talk show hosts, "reality" TV slobs and heiresses. THAT would be class warfare!!
Ok. Keep you discussion points to multi-millionaires just to be safe. But, that's not the entirety of Obama's plan.
And, if Warren Buffet thinks paying 29% of his income is fair, he is more than welcome to do so. I don't think the Feds would turn down an extra 8% of his income. So, his discussion points hold no water either.
Now, let's talk about a family making $250,000 that already pays $80,000 in taxes. $80 fucking thousand!!!! (I'm talking ALL taxes). How much is enough? You're not the least bit embarassed asking your neighbor for $80,000? No, you need another $8,000?!! Then call them selfish or accuse them of taking grandpa's social security check? Who the fuck do you think is financing all that? The small minority of Warren Buffets? Or your neighbor that's worked hard to make $250,000? But, yet you need more or they should be made to feel bad for their success and "lack of giving of themselves." It's pathetic. That's the class warfare we're talking about. Not Warren Buffet vs. you. There is no war there. It's your neighbors that you think aren't contributing enough. That's who Obama is attacking. And, again - yes - not that a family making $250K is crying poverty. But, how much is enough for your neighbor to pay?
Warren Buffet isn't your neighbor. Tom Hanks isn't your neighbor. The family making $250,000 - is. Stop putting the argument where you know it doesn't belong.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
1) stay on the course of change that we voted for 4 years ago even if it hasn't happened as fast and effortlessly than we thought it might. We want to work for a better future for ourselves and our countrymen.
2) throw our hands up, say "fuck it, this is too hard" and go back to the same GW Bush policies that got us into this pit of eternal stench.
If we still believe that we really can fight the good fight, turn things around and give our country a better future... or we can go back.
It's Bush's fault. Classic.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
1. Lower taxes on income up to $100,000
We need the middle class to have the disposable income, to have purchasing power. Keeping all disposable income at the top with the fantasy of it trickling down results in a stagnation of capital flow. Capitalism relies on a constant flow of capital.
2. Keep taxes the same for income of $100,000-$300,000.
3. Raise taxes on income of $300,000-$500,000 by two percentage points: 37.5%
4. Let the Bush tax cuts expire for all income over $500,000: 39.6%
5. In increments, increase taxes on income over $1,000,000(43.5%), then $5,000,000 (47.5%), then $10,000,000 (57.5%), and finally on income over $20,000,000 (67.5%).
Keep tax credits for children, charitable donations (for those making less than $1,000,000), earned income tax credit, lifetime learning tax credit.
Lower the top corporate tax rate to 25%, and enforce it.
Lower the tax rate on small businesses to 10/15% (and get a president that will sign 19 small business bills, because President Obama hates small business and only signed 16 small business bills)
Done and done. Wow, that only took me 4 minutes to figure out....it must be a great plan!!
so when the rich make money off of the poor and are allowed to use tax shelters that the poor can't so that they can shield their money an assets from taxes it is called capitalism.
when the poor question that it is called class warfare...
the system is rigged to favor the rich.
seriously, who is waging class warfare here?
the rich want to balance the budget but they are fundamentally opposed to helping chip in to clinton tax rates to help with the deficits and debt. they want to cut programs to help the poor. they want to repeal obamacare, cut welfare, cut social security, cut medicare. THAT to me is class warfare.
you can not have it both ways.
This class warfare bull shit is getting old.
I've always liked this:
"Actually, there’s been class warfare going on for the last 20 years, and my class has won. We’re the ones that have gotten our tax rates reduced dramatically.
If you look at the 400 highest taxpayers in the United States in 1992, the first year for figures, they averaged about $40 million of [income] per person. In the most recent year, they were $227 million per person — five for one. During that period, their taxes went down from 29 percent to 21 percent of income. So, if there’s class warfare, the rich class has won."----Warren Buffet
The bottom line is that the poor ALWAYS pay in this country. The facts point to this.
In a nation where an actor can get paid $5, 10 million to portray a soldier in a movie, while the average salary for a real soldier, a kid who gets sent to the desert to die for the interests of the ruling class, the ownership class as Carlin will say, makes, including healthcare and housing, roughly $50-60,000.
But hey, we can't tax actors and actresses, baseball players and late-night talk show hosts, "reality" TV slobs and heiresses. THAT would be class warfare!!
Ok. Keep you discussion points to multi-millionaires just to be safe. But, that's not the entirety of Obama's plan.
And, if Warren Buffet thinks paying 29% of his income is fair, he is more than welcome to do so. I don't think the Feds would turn down an extra 8% of his income. So, his discussion points hold no water either.
Now, let's talk about a family making $250,000 that already pays $80,000 in taxes. $80 fucking thousand!!!! (I'm talking ALL taxes). How much is enough? You're not the least bit embarassed asking your neighbor for $80,000? No, you need another $8,000?!! Then call them selfish or accuse them of taking grandpa's social security check? Who the fuck do you think is financing all that? The small minority of Warren Buffets? Or your neighbor that's worked hard to make $250,000? But, yet you need more or they should be made to feel bad for their success and "lack of giving of themselves." It's pathetic. That's the class warfare we're talking about. Not Warren Buffet vs. you. There is no war there. It's your neighbors that you think aren't contributing enough. That's who Obama is attacking. And, again - yes - not that a family making $250K is crying poverty. But, how much is enough for your neighbor to pay?
Warren Buffet isn't your neighbor. Tom Hanks isn't your neighbor. The family making $250,000 - is. Stop putting the argument where you know it doesn't belong.
That's NOT AT ALL what I am saying. You are twisting my words, which is very, very rude, kind sir.
I am using a quote from someone who has knowledge on the subject. If you are more knowledgeable than Buffett, then I apologize.
I think all taxes should be LOWER on those who learn less $100,000. I am from Long Island, and I know what the costs are there. See my tax plan.
1) stay on the course of change that we voted for 4 years ago even if it hasn't happened as fast and effortlessly than we thought it might. We want to work for a better future for ourselves and our countrymen.
2) throw our hands up, say "fuck it, this is too hard" and go back to the same GW Bush policies that got us into this pit of eternal stench.
If we still believe that we really can fight the good fight, turn things around and give our country a better future... or we can go back.
It's Bush's fault. Classic.
That's not what he said, and you know it.
Is it incorrect to think that voting Romney would take us back to the policies of 2000-2008? The same rhetoric of tax cuts with no real spending cuts, saber-rattling foreign policy, and even a budget guy brought along who voted along with most of Bush's polices.
What exactly will be different this time around than the last republican administration?
My whole life
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
1) stay on the course of change that we voted for 4 years ago even if it hasn't happened as fast and effortlessly than we thought it might. We want to work for a better future for ourselves and our countrymen.
2) throw our hands up, say "fuck it, this is too hard" and go back to the same GW Bush policies that got us into this pit of eternal stench.
If we still believe that we really can fight the good fight, turn things around and give our country a better future... or we can go back.
It's Bush's fault. Classic.
That's not what he said, and you know it.
Is it incorrect to think that voting Romney would take us back to the policies of 2000-2008? The same rhetoric of tax cuts with no real spending cuts, saber-rattling foreign policy, and even a budget guy brought along who voted along with most of Bush's polices.
What exactly will be different this time around than the last republican administration?
What tax cuts? Obama is pushing for tax increases. Romney is pushing for continuation of current tax rates.
And the fact is, Bush's policies worked just fine until year 8. It should not have taken 4 years to get out of this. Even Obama said that (of course, now he's changed his tune).
It's also kind of interesting that the Middle East is aflame right now with your peace loving Pres. No connection there....
And to answer you last question more specifically - I have no idea to be honest. As I've said before - Not a huge Romney supporter. But, he's not a lawyer. He has run a successful business. He has run a successful international organization. And he has run a government before. All resume builders that the current community organizer in chief did not have. It's looney. We want change, but we're re-electing the guy that's changed NOTHING in 4 years. But, no - he needs 8 years for his magic to work....
I actually hope he gets re-elected to see how long the Bush's fault thing continues. It's quite comical at this point.
We have the lowest labor force participation rate in 30 years AND unemployment over 8%!!!!!!! What about that do you not understand? Oh, that's right - he inherited that. :roll:
To help you out - 30 years ago was the 1st year of the Reagan Administration. It did not take him 4 years to get it turned around. This is the FOURTH year of the Obama administration. And, yet we're still blaming the guy before him. Which fits perfectly with how kids are being raised these days. It's not MY kid! It's someone else's fault.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
Is it incorrect to think that voting Romney would take us back to the policies of 2000-2008? The same rhetoric of tax cuts with no real spending cuts, saber-rattling foreign policy, and even a budget guy brought along who voted along with most of Bush's polices.
What exactly will be different this time around than the last republican administration?
What tax cuts? Obama is pushing for tax increases. Romney is pushing for continuation of current tax rates.
And the fact is, Bush's policies worked just fine until year 8. It should not have taken 4 years to get out of this. Even Obama said that (of course, now he's changed his tune).
It's also kind of interesting that the Middle East is aflame right now with your peace loving Pres. No connection there....
And to answer you last question more specifically - I have no idea to be honest. As I've said before - Not a huge Romney supporter. But, he's not a lawyer. He has run a successful business. He has run a successful international organization. And he has run a government before. All resume builders that the current community organizer in chief did not have. It's looney. We want change, but we're re-electing the guy that's changed NOTHING in 4 years. But, no - he needs 8 years for his magic to work....
I actually hope he gets re-elected to see how long the Bush's fault thing continues. It's quite comical at this point.
We have the lowest labor force participation rate in 30 years AND unemployment over 8%!!!!!!! What about that do you not understand? Oh, that's right - he inherited that. :roll:
To help you out - 30 years ago was the 1st year of the Reagan Administration. It did not take him 4 years to get it turned around. This is the FOURTH year of the Obama administration. And, yet we're still blaming the guy before him. Which fits perfectly with how kids are being raised these days. It's not MY kid! It's someone else's fault.
You have some factual errors there...
Romney is campaigning on cutting taxes. He's proposing for a 20% reduction in tax rates across the board. Plus, cutting the corporate tax rate 25% and eliminating the death tax.
And no matter what version of revisionist history that you are reading, Bush's policies didn't work "fine" in the first 7 years. The deficit blew up each year, spending was through the roof and we get into a mess in Iraq. Does that sound "fine" to you?
And technically, Romney is a lawyer.
Post edited by blackredyellow on
My whole life
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
Comments
I sure hope peacefrompaul doesn't have any fishy stuff in his background :? :thumbup:
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
Well, there ya go...shows how much stuff like that matters to me.
Debatable... and you are talking about cutting from restrictively high rates (basically cutting the top tax rate from 70% to 28% over time). Lowering it that much is bound to infuse the economy with cash. But dropping it a few percent (or raising it a few percent) isn't going to have that effect.
Also, Reagan tripled the debt during his time, mostly due to lowering tax income and increasing military spending.
And while everyone loves to talk about Reagan lowering taxes, but he actually raised taxes on lower incomes in 1986 and his policies helped greatly increase the difference from the haves and have nots.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
Or...Ed could have been downplaying his job at the gas station, whatever that was, in earlier quotes and stories. He can be rather self deprecating at times. Anyway, I've really only thought he said he was working at a gas station all this time. I never really recall him saying what his job specifically was. Long story short...maybe he was trying to get a tiny bit more street cred in the past by saying he worked graveyard at a gas station instead of saying he actually worked his way up into middle management. Who knows? I just don't think we can conclude Ed was necessarily puffing anything up for the Obama fundraiser.
"With our thoughts we make the world"
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
dunno if this has been posted already. this romney guy is dangerous stupid & out of control
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
fantastic information on the ruthless business man that is mitt romney
?how does this man & his people sleep at night?
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
Maybe this little number will become their theme song this year:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6geVEciAP9w
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
But I thought it was the evil, socialist, radical Kenyan Muslim that was the divisive one?
You see? That's the problem - Obama wants to raise taxes on those making $250K. I think Buffet, Dimon and Fuld make a tad bit more than that. So, let's talk Long Island - do you think $250K for a family on Long Island is the same as $250K, let's say in (insert just about anywhere else in the country).
THAT'S the issue. Sure, nobody making $250K is crying poverty. But, you make it sound like this debate is over Warren Buffet.
And if you think his line stops there, good luck. The math doesn't work at $1 million, so he had to bring it down to $250K. It won't work at $250K, so it will move again. He's already raised taxes on the middle class (Obamacare), so what makes you think $250K is the fair demarcation of "rich?"
We need to stop this class warfare he has fostered.
And BTW, I think Obama's going to win for a variety of reasons not the least of which is that 95% of a particular race is voting for him regardless. And, nobody is waxing poetic about Romney. I KNOW Obama's a failure. I only THINK Romney MIGHT be. A glimmer of hope is better than none at all.
And just to clear this all up - to date I personally have done better under Obama. But, its not personal for me. I see the disaster that is the country around me, and I want that to be better. Good luck with 4 more years of Obama.
I'll just raise my salary to pay the extra taxes. Where do you think my extra salary to pay the extra taxes will be taken from? (I am being facetious by those last couple sentences, as I don't control my own salary, nor would I personally do that. But, if you already think so little of "wealthy" business owners, do you really think they are going to accept lower take home pay? It's all so cukoo. Nothing he says makes any sense. There's no logic to it.)
when the poor question that it is called class warfare...
the system is rigged to favor the rich.
seriously, who is waging class warfare here?
the rich want to balance the budget but they are fundamentally opposed to helping chip in to clinton tax rates to help with the deficits and debt. they want to cut programs to help the poor. they want to repeal obamacare, cut welfare, cut social security, cut medicare. THAT to me is class warfare.
you can not have it both ways.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
This class warfare bull shit is getting old.
I've always liked this:
"Actually, there’s been class warfare going on for the last 20 years, and my class has won. We’re the ones that have gotten our tax rates reduced dramatically.
If you look at the 400 highest taxpayers in the United States in 1992, the first year for figures, they averaged about $40 million of [income] per person. In the most recent year, they were $227 million per person — five for one. During that period, their taxes went down from 29 percent to 21 percent of income. So, if there’s class warfare, the rich class has won."----Warren Buffet
The bottom line is that the poor ALWAYS pay in this country. The facts point to this.
In a nation where an actor can get paid $5, 10 million to portray a soldier in a movie, while the average salary for a real soldier, a kid who gets sent to the desert to die for the interests of the ruling class, the ownership class as Carlin will say, makes, including healthcare and housing, roughly $50-60,000.
But hey, we can't tax actors and actresses, baseball players and late-night talk show hosts, "reality" TV slobs and heiresses. THAT would be class warfare!!
We have two choices.
1) stay on the course of change that we voted for 4 years ago even if it hasn't happened as fast and effortlessly than we thought it might. We want to work for a better future for ourselves and our countrymen.
2) throw our hands up, say "fuck it, this is too hard" and go back to the same GW Bush policies that got us into this pit of eternal stench.
If we still believe that we really can fight the good fight, turn things around and give our country a better future... or we can go back.
And, if Warren Buffet thinks paying 29% of his income is fair, he is more than welcome to do so. I don't think the Feds would turn down an extra 8% of his income. So, his discussion points hold no water either.
Now, let's talk about a family making $250,000 that already pays $80,000 in taxes. $80 fucking thousand!!!! (I'm talking ALL taxes). How much is enough? You're not the least bit embarassed asking your neighbor for $80,000? No, you need another $8,000?!! Then call them selfish or accuse them of taking grandpa's social security check? Who the fuck do you think is financing all that? The small minority of Warren Buffets? Or your neighbor that's worked hard to make $250,000? But, yet you need more or they should be made to feel bad for their success and "lack of giving of themselves." It's pathetic. That's the class warfare we're talking about. Not Warren Buffet vs. you. There is no war there. It's your neighbors that you think aren't contributing enough. That's who Obama is attacking. And, again - yes - not that a family making $250K is crying poverty. But, how much is enough for your neighbor to pay?
Warren Buffet isn't your neighbor. Tom Hanks isn't your neighbor. The family making $250,000 - is. Stop putting the argument where you know it doesn't belong.
1. Lower taxes on income up to $100,000
We need the middle class to have the disposable income, to have purchasing power. Keeping all disposable income at the top with the fantasy of it trickling down results in a stagnation of capital flow. Capitalism relies on a constant flow of capital.
2. Keep taxes the same for income of $100,000-$300,000.
3. Raise taxes on income of $300,000-$500,000 by two percentage points: 37.5%
4. Let the Bush tax cuts expire for all income over $500,000: 39.6%
5. In increments, increase taxes on income over $1,000,000(43.5%), then $5,000,000 (47.5%), then $10,000,000 (57.5%), and finally on income over $20,000,000 (67.5%).
Keep tax credits for children, charitable donations (for those making less than $1,000,000), earned income tax credit, lifetime learning tax credit.
Lower the top corporate tax rate to 25%, and enforce it.
Lower the tax rate on small businesses to 10/15% (and get a president that will sign 19 small business bills, because President Obama hates small business and only signed 16 small business bills)
Done and done. Wow, that only took me 4 minutes to figure out....it must be a great plan!!
That's NOT AT ALL what I am saying. You are twisting my words, which is very, very rude, kind sir.
I am using a quote from someone who has knowledge on the subject. If you are more knowledgeable than Buffett, then I apologize.
I think all taxes should be LOWER on those who learn less $100,000. I am from Long Island, and I know what the costs are there. See my tax plan.
That's not what he said, and you know it.
Is it incorrect to think that voting Romney would take us back to the policies of 2000-2008? The same rhetoric of tax cuts with no real spending cuts, saber-rattling foreign policy, and even a budget guy brought along who voted along with most of Bush's polices.
What exactly will be different this time around than the last republican administration?
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
What tax cuts? Obama is pushing for tax increases. Romney is pushing for continuation of current tax rates.
And the fact is, Bush's policies worked just fine until year 8. It should not have taken 4 years to get out of this. Even Obama said that (of course, now he's changed his tune).
It's also kind of interesting that the Middle East is aflame right now with your peace loving Pres. No connection there....
And to answer you last question more specifically - I have no idea to be honest. As I've said before - Not a huge Romney supporter. But, he's not a lawyer. He has run a successful business. He has run a successful international organization. And he has run a government before. All resume builders that the current community organizer in chief did not have. It's looney. We want change, but we're re-electing the guy that's changed NOTHING in 4 years. But, no - he needs 8 years for his magic to work....
I actually hope he gets re-elected to see how long the Bush's fault thing continues. It's quite comical at this point.
We have the lowest labor force participation rate in 30 years AND unemployment over 8%!!!!!!! What about that do you not understand? Oh, that's right - he inherited that. :roll:
To help you out - 30 years ago was the 1st year of the Reagan Administration. It did not take him 4 years to get it turned around. This is the FOURTH year of the Obama administration. And, yet we're still blaming the guy before him. Which fits perfectly with how kids are being raised these days. It's not MY kid! It's someone else's fault.
You have some factual errors there...
Romney is campaigning on cutting taxes. He's proposing for a 20% reduction in tax rates across the board. Plus, cutting the corporate tax rate 25% and eliminating the death tax.
And no matter what version of revisionist history that you are reading, Bush's policies didn't work "fine" in the first 7 years. The deficit blew up each year, spending was through the roof and we get into a mess in Iraq. Does that sound "fine" to you?
And technically, Romney is a lawyer.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
holy shit...this is funny and sad at the same time....
Barack Hussein Obama's plan has been is dismal failure up to year four. After that, he will have to finally get a job in the private sector.
WOOT