SH,

So, he failed.

So did the congressional republicans.

What's your point?

My point is until people like YOU stop trying to score points and solve problems we're all being f'd over by you guys. So quit being part of the f'n problem and start being part of the solution. Here's a shocking message for you -- your way isn't 100% "right". Another shocker -- Obama's way isn't 100% "wrong".

You both need to wake up and smell the coffee.

We need to cut spending. We *also* need to return taxes to a sane level.

If you can't see that, then as I said, you're just PART OF THE PROBLEM.

You should be saying that to the f'n politicians, dipstick.
Putting an article by a left wing paper out for review makes ME the problem? Weak, Dude. Weak.

Where is the posting on how much the two unfunded wars that Bush started and did he EVER take any responsibly for ANY of his actions, NO!

So this conservation could go on forever............



Fishy

1. YES, you are the problem. YES. Because you are not trying to solve the problem, you're playing a big fat "gotcha!" game. You are presumably a smart guy, and instead of using your time and energy to solve problems, you do Google searches that have absolutely *zero* chance of changing peoples opinions. They make you feel good in the exact same way that the nerds making fun of the jocks for being stupid and the jocks making fun of the nerds for having their fly unzipped helps society.

2. Thank you also for proving another point -- that ANYONE who dares to adopt a problem solving, constructive, but "impure" ideology is "weak". Yeah right. Sit back and consider just how many of the greatest tragedies in human history have been caused by fanatical pursuits of ideological purity.

IR.......

And your solutions are? You've just pointed out a couple of problems. Isn't that what you were b!tching at me about?

This country is headed head long into default. If you don't know that and feel helpless to do anything...then you might need to wake up and smell the coffee. I love coffee, btw. and I'm paying attention, and I vote. And I voice my opinion about dishonest and misleading government, especially when I'm (you too) are paying for it.

You are far younger than I.....so you have plenty of years ahead to enjoy what we have become. (tic)

Good Luck with that.

SH,

I wonder if you raised this much fuss when Bush was in office running amok and starting two unfunded wars and helping to create this catastrophic event?

Caterwauling about this because you don't like the current admin is part of the GOP's problem because you have lost all credibility by not calling Bush onto the carpet for spending MORE than President Obama!



Fishy

A condition he wears like a badge of courage...it would be funny were it not so sad, especially sad that there are a considerable number of fools who will vote for people who think like that, too.

Fish on...

Todd

So you are happy where we are headed debt-wise.

Not at all, but I am also not happy with the complete take over by Corporations that have infiltrated all aspects of our lives.

Putting this debt on the backs of the poor and elderly seems a recipe for disaster. Once this well has run dry and we have hundreds of thousands homeless and wandering the streets where does the next cut come from? Should it not start with those that have reaped so much from this society? Those that can and have in the past paid tax rates that they now say are too high, but history shows that while paying those tax rates we experienced great growth and people were still making great money.

Cut Congresses platinum health care and put them on the same Social Security that we folks get and watch how fast things get done.Bring their retirement in line with the rest of society and make them work 25 years till they can be eligible and watch how fast things change.

This greatest country in the history of the world should not be bankrupting the working people for health care reasons or enslaving the working poor while we give multi-corps huge tax breaks and create an oligarchy of members of congress.

Fishy

Table 1. Number of Tax Filers with Zero Tax Liability, 1950-2004




Year


Total Tax Returns Filed


Tax Returns with Zero Tax Liability


Percentage of Tax Returns with Zero Tax Liability




1950


53,060,098


14,873,416


28.0%




1951


55,447,009


12,798,399


23.1%




1952


56,528,817


12,652,544


22.4%




1953


57,838,184


12,615,033


21.8%




1954


56,747,008


14,113,948


24.9%




1955


58,250,188


13,561,123


23.3%




1956


59,197,004


12,938,358


21.9%




1957


59,825,121


12,959,806


21.7%




1958


59,085,182


13,433,048


22.7%




1959


60,271,297


12,774,384


21.2%




1960


61,027,931


12,966,946


21.2%




1961


61,499,420


12,916,655


21.0%




1962


62,712,386


12,620,023


20.1%




1963


63,943,236


12,620,015


19.7%




1964


65,375,601


14,069,263


21.5%




1965


67,596,300


13,895,506


20.6%




1966


70,160,425


13,451,349


19.2%




1967


71,651,909


12,978,971


18.1%




1968


73,728,708


12,440,000


16.9%




1969


75,834,388


12,112,994


16.0%




1970


74,279,831


14,962,460


20.1%




1971


74,576,407


14,660,035


19.7%




1972


77,572,720


16,703,713


21.5%




1973


80,692,587


16,425,425


20.4%




1974


83,340,190


16,005,423


19.2%




1975


82,229,332


20,738,595


25.2%




1976


84,670,389


20,249,022


23.9%




1977


86,634,640


22,253,502


25.7%




1978


89,771,551


21,083,246


23.5%




1979


92,964,302


20,999,319


22.6%




1980


93,902,469


19,996,225


21.3%




1981


95,396,123


18,671,399


19.6%




1982


95,337,432


18,302,132


19.2%




1983


96,321,310


18,304,987


19.0%




1984


99,438,708


17,799,199


17.9%




1985


101,660,287


18,813,867


18.5%




1986


103,045,170


19,077,757


18.5%




1987


106,996,270


20,272,474


18.9%




1988


109,708,280


22,572,948


20.6%




1989


112,135,673


22,957,318


20.5%




1990


113,717,138


23,854,704


21.0%




1991


114,730,123


25,996,536


22.7%




1992


113,604,503


26,872,557


23.7%




1993


114,601,819


28,166,452


24.6%




1994


115,943,131


28,323,685


24.4%




1995


118,218,327


28,965,338


24.5%




1996


120,351,208


29,421,858


24.4%




1997


122,421,991


28,950,791


23.6%




1998


124,770,662


31,722,764


25.4%




1999


127,075,145


32,529,065


25.6%




2000


129,373,500


32,555,897


25.2%




2001


130,255,237


35,491,707


27.2%




2002


130,076,443


39,112,547


30.1%




2003


130,571,319


41,467,439


31.8%




2004*


131,113,969


42,545,501


32.4%

Hard to put the tax burden on the backs of the poor when they don't pay federal income tax unless you mean the check they get from the federal gov might be smaller.

There are millions who work hard every day and are in that group you say are on the government dole.

So you put more of the burden on the working poor who's wages have stagnated over the last thirty years while the one per-centers income has risen some 300 percent?

Could it be the poor pay no federal tax because they live on the edge of poverty? Homelessness? How much federal tax does a homeless person pay?

So the person that makes little money and pays substantially more in taxes percentage wise due to his small income should shoulder more of the burden while those at the top reap more in profit due to LOWER federal taxes?

We should be looking toward things like BOA who paid no federal tax this year and got back over a billion dollars! How about cutting the fed subsidies to the oil companies that have made record profits for years. How about not paying bonuses to defense contractors that rip off the public and under-preform?

I could go on.

Fishy



Link below is to a wage chart for the 1%, average Joe and productivity


http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/files/2011/11/cbochart.jpg

Maybe, but should we not at least seek to find alternative sources of energy and invest something toward that end. Wouldn't energy independence make us a richer country?

Fishy

Dont we already export more oil than we use? Wouldn't that mean we could be energy independent if we wanted to? Maybe there is no profit in being independent.

But it comes off of private lands!

Fish on...

Todd

P.S. I know that's 100% irrelevant, just thought I'd throw that in there.

Thanks Todd, I was not trying to make an argument was really just asking a question but might have phrased it more as a statement.

We produce more than we did during the Bush years, and we produce more than we use...but it goes out on the open market and is keeping China and Indian in oil and fuel.

We could be independent of all foreign oil today...but it would cut into oil company profits and would have to have restrictions on where oil from here is sold...like keeping it here.

That's why it's funny to watch those heavily subsidized oil companies talk about "we need to drill more to be energy independent!"...blah, blah, blah...and talk about "national security" being energy security...blah, blah, blah...when what they want is more subsidized drilling of "our" oil off of public lands so they can sell it to China, and do nothing at all for our gas prices, energy security, or national security.

Fish on...

Todd

Dear Scab Crappy-

Yes, your confusion and cloudy thinking are caused by hormonal changes, which proves you are going through menopause/the change.

I feel like *every* time someone posts that "30% of people pay NO INCOME TAXES" that I must remind them that:

a) You're talking simply about one specific tax (FICA). Note that they very likely paid Social Security and Medicare on their payroll earnings.

b) Oh, don't forget PAYROLL TAXES either (effectively doubling the SS and Medicare)

c) Oh, and don't forget that for people living at/near the poverty line, a larger percentage of their spending is subject to sales tax than those in upper income brackets.

My point is only that if you want to make a point about taxes paid by various income levels, you should do so accurately. Not present the one part of the facts that support your own arguement, and neglect the rest.

Accuracy is not the goal...making the poorest Americans pay for the tax cuts for the richest is the goal.

Fish on...

Todd

DING DING DING we have a winner!

That could be the GOP mantra except that they would be lynched.

Fishy

Isn't it just as funny that when we talk about federal tax breaks and the such that someone always brings up that the poor pay a higher % of their earnings in sales tax? Seeing how the sales tax is a state tax vice federal and actually means nothing in the topic at hand?

If you are so poor that the majority of your money is spent on food(not fast food) then your tax burden would be pretty low.

There can be no argument, however, that sales tax is a disproportionate tax.....and that is bad.
Income tax at the state level is the way to go......but the problem, at least with this State is that everyone fears that if we had a State income tax, the sales tax wouldn't be dropped out of the picture. And considering the past, I'd say that the fear is legitimate.