spitzer on romney, taxes

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

and i've heard of grover norquist, more than once...but just who is he, and why did pols sign his pledge?

Grover is a lobbyist and a superpac owner.

Grover Norquist has been virtually singularly responsible for the record-setting inactivity of John Boehner's House, and the reason why our credit rating was ruined by the Tea Party.

Every Republican answers to Grover and Rush. Republicans being primaried right now are due to their lack of fealty to Grover.

The Republican Party signs the tax pledge of a lobbyist that created his "national financial plan" when he was 12 years old (Grover brags)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover_Norquist

[Thepaindispenser]

Real credible source, a guy who bangs hookers with his socks on and who still thinks Keynesion economics works! Hahahahahaha

[pointman]

Originally Posted by Thepaindispenser

Real credible source, a guy who bangs hookers with his socks on and who still thinks Keynesion economics works! Hahahahahaha

Sources are only credible to Riot if they support her position.

[DaTruth]

Originally Posted by pointman

Sources are only credible to Riot if they support her position.

She would provide a link to the voices in her head if she could.

[pointman]

Originally Posted by DaTruth

She would provide a link to the voices in her head if she could.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Thepaindispenser

Real credible source, a guy who bangs hookers with his socks on and who still thinks Keynesion economics works! Hahahahahaha

i figured some would immediately mention spitzers past.

what that has to do with the points made i don't know.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i figured some would immediately mention spitzers past.

what that has to do with the points made i don't know.

You might have made the points using another source?

Spitzer should have disappeared in shame long ago. IMO

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

You might have made the points using another source?

Spitzer should have disappeared in shame long ago. IMO

look, i know the guy's rep. but i saw the article on slate, so i posted it. so, there may be others who have made those points-but i figured i'd put it up rather than look elsewhere to see if someone who didn't hire hookers had made the same argument. now, whether the source is a good guy or a bad guy notwithstanding-the facts are the facts in that article, aren't they?
so, sticking just to the points in the article, what are everyone's thoughts on what was said?


edit~come to think of it, i doubt it would matter who wrote it. the gist of it would still be ignored. i would imagine that many who post here have already made up their minds one way or the other.
i actually haven't yet-if i had to vote today, i'd probably vote for a third party candidate.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Danzig

look, i know the guy's rep. but i saw the article on slate, so i posted it. so, there may be others who have made those points-but i figured i'd put it up rather than look elsewhere to see if someone who didn't hire hookers had made the same argument. now, whether the source is a good guy or a bad guy notwithstanding-the facts are the facts in that article, aren't they?
so, sticking just to the points in the article, what are everyone's thoughts on what was said?


edit~come to think of it, i doubt it would matter who wrote it. the gist of it would still be ignored. i would imagine that many who post here have already made up their minds one way or the other.
i actually haven't yet-if i had to vote today, i'd probably vote for a third party candidate.

Making up ones mind would require thinking and weighing the issues. On this site it is mostly Bloods vs Crips decisions never come into play.

[geeker2]

Originally Posted by jms62

Making up ones mind would require thinking and weighing the issues. On this site it is mostly Bloods vs Crips decisions never come into play.

ROR !!

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Danzig

so, sticking just to the points in the article, what are everyone's thoughts on what was said?.

Fair Enough

I think a third of one's income is a fair enough cap for an income tax considering all of the other taxes one pays, State/Sales/Property/Utilities/Cable/Cell/Tolls/some casses City/
no matter what one's income is. Take out ALL deductions and allow those w/o access/means to a tax atty be on level ground with those that do.

I think the tax rates following WW II were obviously unique and using them as a justification to raising taxes today is disingenuous. We are not in a battle for our sovereignty

The Federal Government is involved far too much and being so big and clumsy can't help but trip over itself.

When our Federal Budget is $4 trillion and we have a total of 350 million people that comes to $11,400 per individual. Or for a family of 5, $57,000 per year! This is not sustainable no matter how much we tax the rich. When you consider roughly 150 million of the 350 million file taxes that yearly bill comes to $26,666 per person.

Pure and simple the government needs to be reduced by between 50%-70%
but that would require individual responsibility and that may be impossible to pull off.

The Sons of Liberty must be rolling in their graves with talks of 50% taxes what more 90%.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Fair Enough

I think a third of one's income is a fair enough cap for an income tax considering all of the other taxes one pays, State/Sales/Property/Utilities/Cable/Cell/Tolls/some casses City/
no matter what one's income is. Take out ALL deductions and allow those w/o access/means to a tax atty be on level ground with those that do.

I think the tax rates following WW II were obviously unique and using them as a justification to raising taxes today is disingenuous. We are not in a battle for our sovereignty

The Federal Government is involved far too much and being so big and clumsy can't help but trip over itself.

When our Federal Budget is $4 trillion and we have a total of 350 million people that comes to $11,400 per individual. Or for a family of 5, $57,000 per year! This is not sustainable no matter how much we tax the rich. When you consider roughly 150 million of the 350 million file taxes that yearly bill comes to $26,666 per person.

Pure and simple the government needs to be reduced by between 50%-70%
but that would require individual responsibility and that may be impossible to pull off.

The Sons of Liberty must be rolling in their graves with talks of 50% taxes what more 90%.

How about elimination of government pensions and make them 401K's like everyone else has for the last 30 years. How about and I know I will catch a rash of **** here but how about military pensions/police mentions starting at 65. There is so much ****ing waste in the system but those that are responsible for fixing the problem are benefitting from it so it will never be fixed.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Fair Enough

I think a third of one's income is a fair enough cap for an income tax considering all of the other taxes one pays, State/Sales/Property/Utilities/Cable/Cell/Tolls/some casses City/
no matter what one's income is. Take out ALL deductions and allow those w/o access/means to a tax atty be on level ground with those that do.

I think the tax rates following WW II were obviously unique and using them as a justification to raising taxes today is disingenuous. We are not in a battle for our sovereignty

The Federal Government is involved far too much and being so big and clumsy can't help but trip over itself.

When our Federal Budget is $4 trillion and we have a total of 350 million people that comes to $11,400 per individual. Or for a family of 5, $57,000 per year! This is not sustainable no matter how much we tax the rich. When you consider roughly 150 million of the 350 million file taxes that yearly bill comes to $26,666 per person.

Pure and simple the government needs to be reduced by between 50%-70%
but that would require individual responsibility and that may be impossible to pull off.

The Sons of Liberty must be rolling in their graves with talks of 50% taxes what more 90%.

your ideas aside, what do you think about romney's proposals, and how they add up? or don't add up? the facts remain, as frequent posts here have shown, that marginal tax rates are the lowest in decades and that the purported job increases haven't materialized with cuts in the wealthiests' taxes. the wealthiest are paying the lowest taxes in 80 years, yet job creation from those supposed job creators haven't materialized. meanwhile, debt and deficits have increased.
so, knowing all that, what do you think of romney's ideas?

[pointman]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i figured some would immediately mention spitzers past.

what that has to do with the points made i don't know.

Spitzer also lacks credibility since he was a man drunk on power who governed as a bully who forced people out who disagreed with him (sound like anyone here?). He also is a Keynesion follower which are principles that have been proven to not work. He also left a mess in New York by banging a hooker with his socks on.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by pointman

Spitzer also lacks credibility since he was a man drunk on power who governed as a bully who forced people out who disagreed with him (sound like anyone here?). He also is a Keynesion follower which are principles that have been proven to not work. He also left a mess in New York by banging a hooker with his socks on.

so had he taken them off, would it have been less of a mess?????

[pointman]

Originally Posted by Danzig

so had he taken them off, would it have been less of a mess?????

I'll defer the answer to that to Doug . . . .