Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4
Reply To Thread

Obama should give back his tax refundFollow

#1 Apr 18 2011 at 3:28 PM Rating: Sub-Default
*
123 posts
ABC story

Basically Obama got a 12k income tax return. IMO since he is for taxing the rich and against the Bush era tax cuts, he should lead by example and return the 12k to the government and pay extra according whatever he wants the rates to be.

If he believes in a higher tax rate for the wealthy, it's only fair that he put his own money where his mouth is... If wealthy liberals don't overpay in accordance to whatever they think the rate should be, I don't think have any rights to make others pay more.

BTW, I'm trying to be neutral on this. If you believe in tax rate whatever, that's fine, but if you think the rates should be higher than what they are, don't you have a moral responsibility to overpay and let the government keep the extra?
#2 Apr 18 2011 at 3:37 PM Rating: Good
**
272 posts
Empty effort.

If he pays it back he'll be viewed as some sort of richy rich smug *******. If he doesn't (likely nothing will actually happen) other people might call him a hypocrite.

There is no right decision when you're a celebrity, even more so when you're a political celebrity.
____________________________
Always check for black-on-black text.
#3varusword75, Posted: Apr 18 2011 at 3:44 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Swiftless,
#4 Apr 18 2011 at 3:47 PM Rating: Good
******
43,893 posts
If he has to, they all have to.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#5 Apr 18 2011 at 3:48 PM Rating: Decent
******
21,717 posts
It's likely that 12k return will be more than made up for in charitable donations elsewhere, especially considering such donations last year totaled $245k, so its kind of a moot point, don't you think?

12k is peanuts at that level.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#6varusword75, Posted: Apr 18 2011 at 3:49 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) lolgaxe,
#7varusword75, Posted: Apr 18 2011 at 3:50 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) brownd,
#8 Apr 18 2011 at 3:55 PM Rating: Good
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
KingWinterclaw wrote:
ABC story

Basically Obama got a 12k income tax return. IMO since he is for taxing the rich and against the Bush era tax cuts, he should lead by example and return the 12k to the government and pay extra according whatever he wants the rates to be.

If he believes in a higher tax rate for the wealthy, it's only fair that he put his own money where his mouth is... If wealthy liberals don't overpay in accordance to whatever they think the rate should be, I don't think have any rights to make others pay more.

BTW, I'm trying to be neutral on this. If you believe in tax rate whatever, that's fine, but if you think the rates should be higher than what they are, don't you have a moral responsibility to overpay and let the government keep the extra?
Not really, Obama paid his fair share of taxes ($453,770), and then $12,334 more, because it was paid to the government during 2010 before he knew how much he'd actually owe for the year. Now, are you implying that he should be paying more? Or are you just saying he should have the precognition to already know exactly what to pay at the end of the year as early as January 1st, 2010?

KingWinterclaw wrote:
if you think the rates should be higher than what they are, don't you have a moral responsibility to overpay and let the government keep the extra?
Sure, but if you're actually a member of the government, a better idea would be to push a change in the tax code rather than just pay the wrong numbers. Just like how everyone over 65 who abhors government health care and welfare will opt out of Medicare and either refuses to cash their Social Security check or pays it back to the IRS in full on top of their yearly taxes, right?

Right? That's what they do?

Get back to me on that.



Edited, Apr 18th 2011 4:58pm by bsphil
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#9 Apr 18 2011 at 3:56 PM Rating: Good
******
43,893 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Only the people that support Obama's tax plan.
No, everyone.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#10 Apr 18 2011 at 3:57 PM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,643 posts
KingWinterclaw wrote:
ABC story

Basically Obama got a 12k income tax return. IMO since he is for taxing the rich and against the Bush era tax cuts, he should lead by example and return the 12k to the government and pay extra according whatever he wants the rates to be.

If he believes in a higher tax rate for the wealthy, it's only fair that he put his own money where his mouth is... If wealthy liberals don't overpay in accordance to whatever they think the rate should be, I don't think have any rights to make others pay more.

BTW, I'm trying to be neutral on this. If you believe in tax rate whatever, that's fine, but if you think the rates should be higher than what they are, don't you have a moral responsibility to overpay and let the government keep the extra?


What I get from this is that Republicans are not allowed to file for unemployment or live on welfare at all.

Right?
#11varusword75, Posted: Apr 18 2011 at 3:58 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) bsphil,
#12 Apr 18 2011 at 3:59 PM Rating: Decent
**
272 posts
No, you missed my point entirely.

Whether he gives it back or not the GOP will call him on it in some form or another. It's what you do in a political party. You demonize the other guy no matter what decision he makes.

Thankfully we've gotten passed demonizing the opposite candidate for "masticating" as they used to do some time ago.
____________________________
Always check for black-on-black text.
#13 Apr 18 2011 at 3:59 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
varusword75 wrote:
bsphil,

Quote:
Just like how everyone over 65 who abhors government health care and welfare refuses Medicare and either refuses to cash their Social Security check or pays it back to the IRS in full on top of their yearly taxes, right?


And these baby boomers are bankrupting the nation. Of course they don't care they won't be here when the sh*t hits the fan anyway.
Glad to hear your opposition to a significant portion of your own party. Come into the light.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#14 Apr 18 2011 at 4:00 PM Rating: Good
******
43,893 posts
Belkira wrote:
What I get from this is that Republicans are not allowed to file for unemployment or live on welfare at all.
Not much of a worry. Its next to impossible to lose a government job, anyway.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#15 Apr 18 2011 at 4:17 PM Rating: Excellent
****
4,150 posts
Who gives a toss about $12K?

If he gives anything back he should return his Nobel Peace Prize as he is wholly undeserving of it.
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#16 Apr 18 2011 at 4:18 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,738 posts
First off, let me state for the record that the whole "if you want tax rates to be higher, why don't you pay more yourself" argument is pretty weak. It's just a bad argument because it ignores the basic assumption of taxes in the first place. To be honest, it moves the whole thing in the wrong direction as far as I'm concerned. But having said that...

bsphil wrote:
Sure, but if you're actually a member of the government, a better idea would be to push a change in the tax code rather than just pay the wrong numbers. Just like how everyone over 65 who abhors government health care and welfare will opt out of Medicare and either refuses to cash their Social Security check or pays it back to the IRS in full on top of their yearly taxes, right?

Right? That's what they do?

Get back to me on that.


...this is an even more bogus argument. People pay into social security and medicare over the course of their lives. In the case of most middle class workers, they pay more into them than they are likely to get back out. And I'd wager that most of those people who argue against paying higher taxes would happily forgo receiving social security or medicare if we could turn back time and let them keep all the money they paid into them over their lifetimes.


At least the argument in the first case can be expressed as a "charity by choice versus charity by force" question. While it's weak in the context of taxes as a whole, at least there's some validity to saying to someone who believes that the government is a better charity service than private charity that if they think so then they can donate to their charities on their own and let the rest of us donate to the private ones we choose. Arguing that someone should be opposed to receiving benefits for which they have paid (in most cases overpaid) is a pretty horrible counter to that.


The better argument is that the government shouldn't be in the charity business in the first place. Then we don't have this problem at all.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#17 Apr 18 2011 at 4:22 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
gbaji wrote:
bsphil wrote:
Sure, but if you're actually a member of the government, a better idea would be to push a change in the tax code rather than just pay the wrong numbers. Just like how everyone over 65 who abhors government health care and welfare will opt out of Medicare and either refuses to cash their Social Security check or pays it back to the IRS in full on top of their yearly taxes, right?

Right? That's what they do?

Get back to me on that.
...this is an even more bogus argument. People pay into social security and medicare over the course of their lives.
Obama paid his yearly federal taxes over the course of the year.

How is that any different?

gbaji wrote:
The better argument is that the government shouldn't be in the charity business in the first place. Then we don't have this problem at all.
We've tried it and were much worse off as a society.

By the way, you have yet to respond to this post of mine in another thread. I can only assume you're working on a response right now, correct?



Edited, Apr 18th 2011 5:24pm by bsphil
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#18 Apr 18 2011 at 4:34 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
KingWinterclaw wrote:
IMO since he is for taxing the rich and against the Bush era tax cuts, he should lead by example and return the 12k to the government and pay extra according whatever he wants the rates to be.

IMO, he should make a real effort to revise the tax code rather than make symbolic efforts that do nothing to change the present situation.

IMO, anyone actually interested in changing the present situation rather than trying to make lame political points would also be uninterested in meaningless symbolic gestures.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#19 Apr 18 2011 at 4:36 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,048 posts
KingWinterclaw wrote:

BTW, I'm trying to be neutral on this. If you believe in tax rate whatever, that's fine, but if you think the rates should be higher than what they are, don't you have a moral responsibility to overpay and let the government keep the extra?
The government isn't npr. Do you think people sending the government money all willy-nilly based on what they think is fair is going to fix the economy and/or the income gap? Cripes the IRS would go into melt-down.

I would encourage the Obama's to do a better job withholding taxes so they don't end up getting a refund (and avoid one more stupid talking point about his behavior).
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#20 Apr 18 2011 at 5:10 PM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
KingWinterclaw wrote:
ABC story

Basically Obama got a 12k income tax return. IMO since he is for taxing the rich and against the Bush era tax cuts, he should lead by example and return the 12k to the government and pay extra according whatever he wants the rates to be.

If he believes in a higher tax rate for the wealthy, it's only fair that he put his own money where his mouth is... If wealthy liberals don't overpay in accordance to whatever they think the rate should be, I don't think have any rights to make others pay more.

BTW, I'm trying to be neutral on this. If you believe in tax rate whatever, that's fine, but if you think the rates should be higher than what they are, don't you have a moral responsibility to overpay and let the government keep the extra?


So basically, you don't think the rich should pay more in taxes, but you think Obama should pay more because he's rich?

0/10
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#21 Apr 18 2011 at 5:18 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,738 posts
bsphil wrote:
gbaji wrote:
People pay into social security and medicare over the course of their lives.
Obama paid his yearly federal taxes over the course of the year.

How is that any different?


You honestly can't see why? I'll give you a hint: No one is demanding that Obama *not* receive government benefits he's due from his taxes. What they are arguing is the opposite. If Obama (liberals in general) think that the government should provide more benefits than it is, then perhaps they should be the ones to pay for those extra things. As I said earlier, there's at least some logic to this on the grounds that those extra benefits are charity (intended for people other than those who pay for it), so why not let people choose which extra benefits they care about and let those people pay for them?

Surely you can see the massive logical gulf between that and arguing that people should give up benefits that they paid for themselves, right? So because I think that if you want to help out some specific group of people, that you should be the one to pay for it, that it's fair in return for me to give up something I paid for as well? How does that even work logically? It doesn't.


Quote:
gbaji wrote:
The better argument is that the government shouldn't be in the charity business in the first place. Then we don't have this problem at all.
We've tried it and were much worse off as a society.


Really? Care to be more specific about that?

Quote:
I can only assume you're working on a response right now, correct?


Um. Sure. To be honest, I went home for the weekend and I've been busy today and haven't had a chance to read very many threads. Not like I'm ignoring you or anything.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#22 Apr 18 2011 at 7:25 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
gbaji wrote:
bsphil wrote:
gbaji wrote:
People pay into social security and medicare over the course of their lives.
Obama paid his yearly federal taxes over the course of the year.

How is that any different?


You honestly can't see why? I'll give you a hint: No one is demanding that Obama *not* receive government benefits he's due from his taxes. What they are arguing is the opposite. If Obama (liberals in general) think that the government should provide more benefits than it is, then perhaps they should be the ones to pay for those extra things. As I said earlier, there's at least some logic to this on the grounds that those extra benefits are charity (intended for people other than those who pay for it), so why not let people choose which extra benefits they care about and let those people pay for them?

Surely you can see the massive logical gulf between that and arguing that people should give up benefits that they paid for themselves, right? So because I think that if you want to help out some specific group of people, that you should be the one to pay for it, that it's fair in return for me to give up something I paid for as well? How does that even work logically? It doesn't.
So only liberals should pay higher taxes? Hahahaha. Only people that provide aid to those less fortunate? What about people that increase spending on programs that don't help people overall? What about people that increase spending to wage war? Shouldn't they pay even more still?
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#23 Apr 18 2011 at 7:51 PM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
20,581 posts
I'm less annoyed by the flawed argument for voluntary taxes, and more annoyed at Winterclaw failing to make the point he is trying to make. Your return is based on how much you over/underpaid during the year. You should be making the point that he should be paying what he believes should be paying in taxes, not that he should return his refund arbitrarily.
#24 Apr 18 2011 at 10:29 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,468 posts
OP I don't think you know how tax returns work.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#25 Apr 18 2011 at 10:43 PM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
20,581 posts
It's hard to say this without merely sounding spiteful, but I've noticed fiscal conservative posters here making a lot of factual errors in regards to business and finance.

Example, example, example, and of course this thread.

#26 Apr 19 2011 at 1:18 AM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,921 posts
I don't know how things work in America on this issue, but in Australia I'm pretty certain the tax office and the Centrelink welfare office won't accept "donations" back. Once the legal obligation of your net tax payments for the year is established, (returns, credits and all), then the Tax office insists on you paying that exact amount, no less, and no more.

Same with welfare entitlements. There was a woman who didn't think she needed the entitlements she was receiving. She owned her own home, lived very simply, and just didn't have need for much money. She tried to return thousands of dollars in benefits, and was told that Centrelink could not accept the money back. They advised her that it was entirely at her own disposal. Thus if she wanted to give it on to private charity she was welcome.

One can simply neglect to apply for benefits you qualify for, and thus not receive them, but once you are in the system, if you are qualified for something, and don't show up as a fraud, then you are going to get the legal set entitlement.

Edited, Apr 19th 2011 3:21am by Aripyanfar
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#27 Apr 19 2011 at 5:46 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,252 posts
Here, you can put your tax refund toward next year's taxes (if you pay quarterly, not a bad option), donate it to charity for tax credit, or get it back as cash.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#28 Apr 19 2011 at 11:26 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
***
1,150 posts
Of course he should keep his refund and do what ever he wants with it. I am surprised any conservative would say otherwise.

If you want to get ****** off at a liberal politician complaining about taxes being too low go after Senator Kerry and his boat in Rhode Island to avoid Massachusetts taxes. (Yes I know he finally changed the registertration, but it is a better point on hypocracy.)
#29 Apr 19 2011 at 11:52 AM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
nyopo wrote:
Of course he should keep his refund and do what ever he wants with it. I am surprised any conservative would say otherwise.

If you want to get ****** off at a liberal politician complaining about taxes being too low go after Senator Kerry and his boat in Rhode Island to avoid Massachusetts taxes. (Yes I know he finally changed the registertration, but it is a better point on hypocracy.)
Conservatives only want lower taxes for conservatives:

gbaji wrote:
If Obama (liberals in general) think that the government should provide more benefits than it is, then perhaps they should be the ones to pay for those extra things.
So what if conservatives want to wage an unfunded and unnecessary war? Everyone has to pay for those. Only the good things for society should be paid for by liberals.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#30varusword75, Posted: Apr 19 2011 at 12:10 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) phil,
#31 Apr 19 2011 at 12:11 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
varusword75 wrote:
phil,

Quote:
Conservatives only want lower taxes for conservatives:


Conservatives only want to lower taxes on people who pay taxes which just happen to be conservatives.
I'd call Obama a liberal, looks like he paid over $450,000 in taxes.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#32varusword75, Posted: Apr 19 2011 at 12:13 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) bsphil,
#33 Apr 19 2011 at 12:14 PM Rating: Good
******
43,893 posts
I want to say that's a stupid jump in logic.

But its just normal.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#34 Apr 19 2011 at 12:15 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
varusword75 wrote:
bsphil,

Quote:
I'd call Obama a liberal, looks like he paid over $450,000 in taxes.


I would to; considering he just spent over a trillion.
Yeah, if it was a conservative like Bush, he'd have not funded his massive spending at all, like the war in Afghanistan, the war in Iraq, Medicare Part D...

Real convincing! lol
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#35 Apr 19 2011 at 12:24 PM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
Fox News, conservative company, paid only 6% in taxes.
Disney, liberal company, paid 31% in taxes.

Conservatives pay more? No, they pay as little as possible.
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#36 Apr 19 2011 at 12:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
varusword75 wrote:
I would to; considering he just spent over a trillion.

So right about what Bush spent on a brand new entitlement program in the form of Medicare Part D?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#37 Apr 19 2011 at 12:41 PM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
Jophiel wrote:
varusword75 wrote:
I would to; considering he just spent over a trillion.

So right about what Bush spent on a brand new entitlement program in the form of Medicare Part D?


I'm pretty sure that the republicans figured out that was Clinton's fault.
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#38 Apr 19 2011 at 1:18 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,978 posts
varusword75 wrote:
phil,

Quote:
Conservatives only want lower taxes for conservatives:


Conservatives only want to lower taxes on people who pay taxes which just happen to be conservatives.

Ok, then who is FICA and why is he getting my money?
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#39 Apr 19 2011 at 6:02 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,581 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Quote:
Only the good things for society should be paid for by liberals.

And they're paid for with money taxed away from conservatives.

Should I bother finding the thread where Joph linked information showing conservative sates received larger amounts of money per capita than more liberal states?

Liberals are subsidizing conservatives.
#40 Apr 19 2011 at 7:16 PM Rating: Good
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
Allegory wrote:
varusword75 wrote:
Quote:
Only the good things for society should be paid for by liberals.

And they're paid for with money taxed away from conservatives.

Should I bother finding the thread where Joph linked information showing conservative sates received larger amounts of money per capita than more liberal states?

Liberals are subsidizing conservatives.
Hey, I remember that one.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#41 Apr 19 2011 at 7:33 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,951 posts
Ailitardif, Star Breaker wrote:
Fox News, conservative company, paid only 6% in taxes.
Disney, liberal company, paid 31% in taxes.

Conservatives pay more? No, they pay as little as possible.


Wait... Disney is liberal?
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#42 Apr 19 2011 at 8:10 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,738 posts
bsphil wrote:
So only liberals should pay higher taxes?


That's not what I said at all. I said that there's some reasonableness to the argument that if liberals want to fund charity via government, that maybe they should be the ones to pay the extra costs associated with that charity. The whole "higher taxes" bit is more of a joke. It's meant to be a placeholder for the argument that instead of liberals funding charitable works with government money and making everyone pay for them, that if they think those charities are so important, they should simply pay for them directly. Conservatives don't seriously think we should have different tax rates for different people based on political affiliation. It's just a point made to show how we should be doing this differently in the first place.


Quote:
Only people that provide aid to those less fortunate?


Like all the people who donate time and money to private charities of their choice? Yes. I would absolutely expect that they are donating their time and money, not other people's.

Quote:
What about people that increase spending on programs that don't help people overall?


Yeah. Great argument for not spending money on those programs in the first place. Do you see how if instead of having the government run charitable programs, you let private charities do so instead, then those things will be funded exactly to the degree to which the people believe they are worth funding? So if *I* think that a certain homeless aid program is great, I can choose to donate money to it. But if I think that other programs aren't good ideas I can choose *not* to fund them with donations. That way, I'm never paying for anything that I don't think is a good idea.

That's what conservatives are really arguing here. The whole "how about only liberals pay the taxes for those things" is just an in between step to get the argument to that point.

Quote:
What about people that increase spending to wage war? Shouldn't they pay even more still?


Should they? National defense is at least on the list of things that governments "must do". The extra costs for wars on top of the normal amount we pay for this each year is really not as much as you might think. The reality is that social spending is much greater than military spending, and absolutely dwarfs the amount we actually spend fighting wars.

That's a BS response as well btw. It's another example of "yeah, but!".
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#43 Apr 19 2011 at 8:17 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
gbaji wrote:
Quote:
What about people that increase spending to wage war? Shouldn't they pay even more still?


Should they? National defense is at least on the list of things that governments "must do".
Except for that whole "must do" part of the war in Iraq.

Hey, so it sounds like under your plan, only conservatives get to foot the bill for Medicare Part D, right? Great, I'll expect you to be donating extra tax payments to the IRS for the 2011 tax season.

Of course, I'm not going to be paying extra in taxes for what I believe is a good government program, because I'm not the person suggesting that. According to the rule, if you didn't want the plan you don't have to support it, right? lol

Oh wait, does this mean a massive tax break for *** people that can't get married but have to subsidize the benefits of straight, married couples?



Edited, Apr 19th 2011 9:19pm by bsphil
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#44 Apr 19 2011 at 10:08 PM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,643 posts
TirithRR the Eccentric wrote:
Ailitardif, Star Breaker wrote:
Fox News, conservative company, paid only 6% in taxes.
Disney, liberal company, paid 31% in taxes.

Conservatives pay more? No, they pay as little as possible.


Wait... Disney is liberal?


They employ *** people and had a "*** day" (or something) at the park. The Southern Baptists have been boycotting them ever since.

They also show women as a strong character in their princess movies more and more.

They also released Wall-E which was a pro-environmentalist movement type movie.
#45 Apr 19 2011 at 10:41 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
Belkira wrote:
TirithRR the Eccentric wrote:
Ailitardif, Star Breaker wrote:
Fox News, conservative company, paid only 6% in taxes.
Disney, liberal company, paid 31% in taxes.

Conservatives pay more? No, they pay as little as possible.


Wait... Disney is liberal?


They employ *** people and had a "*** day" (or something) at the park. The Southern Baptists have been boycotting them ever since.

They also show women as a strong character in their princess movies more and more.

They also released Wall-E which was a pro-environmentalist movement type movie.
They also banned a woman from wearing a burka while on the job. Just saying that everything isn't so cut and dry.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#46 Apr 20 2011 at 2:12 AM Rating: Good
****
4,150 posts
gbaji wrote:


Should they? National defense is at least on the list of things that governments "must do". The extra costs for wars on top of the normal amount we pay for this each year is really not as much as you might think. The reality is that social spending is much greater than military spending, and absolutely dwarfs the amount we actually spend fighting wars.



Jeez thats a depressing view of life! You make it sound as though 'war' is something that just has to be practiced at all times, or modern life just wouldn't be worth living.

I was going to point out also that defense (national or otherwise) has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the wars being fought by the US in any one of the three third world countries currently in the headlines. But i'm off to australia tommorrow for the weekend and I cant be ***** with it atm.


gbaji wrote:

That's not what I said at all. I said that there's some reasonableness to the argument that if conservatives want to fund war via government, that maybe they should be the ones to pay the extra costs associated with that war. The whole "higher taxes" bit is more of a joke. It's meant to be a placeholder for the argument that instead of conservatives funding war with government money and making everyone pay for them, that if they think those wars are so important, they should simply pay for them directly.


That would have worked better if Obama wasn't so obviously following on from exactly where Dubya left off....
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#47 Apr 20 2011 at 6:59 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,893 posts
US National Security: Coming to a country near you.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#48 Apr 20 2011 at 7:09 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
11,991 posts
bsphil wrote:
Belkira wrote:
TirithRR the Eccentric wrote:
Ailitardif, Star Breaker wrote:
Fox News, conservative company, paid only 6% in taxes.
Disney, liberal company, paid 31% in taxes.

Conservatives pay more? No, they pay as little as possible.


Wait... Disney is liberal?


They employ *** people and had a "*** day" (or something) at the park. The Southern Baptists have been boycotting them ever since.

They also show women as a strong character in their princess movies more and more.

They also released Wall-E which was a pro-environmentalist movement type movie.
They also banned a woman from wearing a burka while on the job. Just saying that everything isn't so cut and dry.


But they did so because it was a fashion crime. Definitely liberal.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#49 Apr 20 2011 at 7:25 AM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
bsphil wrote:
Belkira wrote:
TirithRR the Eccentric wrote:
Ailitardif, Star Breaker wrote:
Fox News, conservative company, paid only 6% in taxes.
Disney, liberal company, paid 31% in taxes.

Conservatives pay more? No, they pay as little as possible.


Wait... Disney is liberal?


They employ *** people and had a "*** day" (or something) at the park. The Southern Baptists have been boycotting them ever since.

They also show women as a strong character in their princess movies more and more.

They also released Wall-E which was a pro-environmentalist movement type movie.
They also banned a woman from wearing a burka while on the job. Just saying that everything isn't so cut and dry.


But they did so because it was a fashion crime. Definitely liberal.


Plus burkas are ultra-conservative.
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#50varusword75, Posted: Apr 20 2011 at 8:38 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Paula,
#51varusword75, Posted: Apr 20 2011 at 8:43 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) bsphil,
« Previous 1 2 3 4
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 57 All times are in CDT
Almalieque, Poldaran, Anonymous Guests (55)