Indiana Begins Medicaid Expansion

WHL wrote:If you believe that NB, then you should be all for the Fair Tax or Flat Tax.

I am, but that will never see the light of day in Congress. The last one to propose it was a Republican, David Camp, and it didn't go anywhere.

http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2014-02-27/rep-dot-camps-serious-tax-bill-just-wasnt-made-for-these-times

I would advise anyone who has a refund coming to get their taxes done early. The IRS took a hit in their budget and I'm thinking that people will be waiting a long time for their money!

WHL wrote:And you don't, NP?  You don't take tax breaks offered to you?  You just pay without taking any deductions?

I'm middle class, I pay for "it" all....my complaint is with those who won't acknowledge that it's not just "poor" people that we're paying for!
Why aren't you offended by  people who play the tax game just so they can stay warm for 6 months? What makes that attitude any different than the chronic homeless who take advantage of our system?
Why don't you feel the same hatred for the "Romneys" of this country?...after-all, he's a "businessman" just like you except he doesn't pay his fair share...they use our military to protect their off-shore interests while you & I pay for it, they use our infrastructure to transport their goods but they pay no road taxes, etc etc etc.
They take way more from our treasury than those welfare mothers you worry so much about!

News Pigeon wrote:Why don't you feel the same hatred for the "Romneys" of this country?...after-all, he's a "businessman" just like you except he doesn't pay his fair share...they use our military to protect their off-shore interests while you & I pay for it, they use our infrastructure to transport their goods but they pay no road taxes, etc etc etc.

Mitt Romney paid $1,950,000.00 in federal income taxes but didn’t pay his fair share?

Maybe when you can explain how someone’s “fair share” can be ZERO or even a negative number, then we can talk about this rationally.

News Pigeon wrote:They take way more from our treasury than those welfare mothers you worry so much about!

I would like you to back that statement up.  We spent over $1 trillion in tax payer dollars last year on welfare, not social security and medicare...on welfare.  You want to make the claim the rich receive more…prove it.

Thank you, Outer. Either she just doesn't understand or doesn't want to understand. I am sure she thinks Obama paid his fair share.

Here, wrap your heads around this one...and that was 2 yrs ago. Wait until you see what this Congress gives away!
http://news.firedoglake.com/2012/07/23/report-details-21-32-trillion-in-untaxed-global-wealth-parked-offshore/

WHL wrote:Thank you, Outer.  Either she just doesn't understand or doesn't want to understand. I am sure she thinks Obama paid his fair share.  

Do you ever argue YOU'RE points or just bitch about others? Obama this...Obama that...liberal this, liberal that...what about the rest of you? Do you think your party is completely in "it" for you?? Wake up, Dorothy

Mitt Romney made $20 million in 2010. If he paid a flat tax rate of 35% his taxes would have been $7 million. That's fair in my book! I'm not looking to go back to the 90 percentile range we saw during the Eisenhower Administration, but something is radically wrong when a guy making $20 million pays a 13% tax rate and then bitches about 47% of the population. Do you folks think we won't see major unrest in the world when 1% of the population owns 50% of the wealth? The Republican control of congress will be short lived, especially when they won't be able to play the race card anymore!!!

News Buzzard wrote:Mitt Romney made $20 million in 2010. If he paid a flat tax rate of 35% his taxes would have been $7 million. That's fair in my book! I'm not looking to go back to the 90 percentile range we saw during the Eisenhower Administration, but something is radically wrong when a guy making $20 million pays a 13% tax rate and then bitches about 47% of the population. Do you folks think we won't see major unrest in the world when 1% of the population owns 50% of the wealth? The Republican control of congress will be short lived, especially when they won't be able to play the race card anymore!!!

Did the rich accumulate their wealth in an unlawful way? If they did, then yes something needs to be done about this. If they earned it, it's theirs and not anyone else's to worry about.

I'm not sure I want to live in a country that is against gaining wealth or decides who should be the rightful owner of wealth. The only way you'll change things is to steal it from them.

People with your dangerous radical thought process don’t seem to understand that the top works hard enough to accumulate wealth. The make sacrifices and take chances. They worked hard to get where they are. Why would any right-minded person blame them for the rest of the folks that didn’t do things like get an education, start a company, invent a product or start businesses, or have the good fortune to have been born to parents who did? There is nothing stopping you from taking out loans and starting your own business and working hard until you succeed.

I'm not sure who told your life was supposed to be fair but they lied to you and there is no system that can guarantee equal outcome in life.

Outerlimits wrote:

News Buzzard wrote:Mitt Romney made $20 million in 2010. If he paid a flat tax rate of 35% his taxes would have been $7 million. That's fair in my book! I'm not looking to go back to the 90 percentile range we saw during the Eisenhower Administration, but something is radically wrong when a guy making $20 million pays a 13% tax rate and then bitches about 47% of the population. Do you folks think we won't see major unrest in the world when 1% of the population owns 50% of the wealth? The Republican control of congress will be short lived, especially when they won't be able to play the race card anymore!!!

Did the rich accumulate their wealth in an unlawful way? If they did, then yes something needs to be done about this. If they earned it, it's theirs and not anyone else's to worry about

You forgot the part about wealthy people buying politicians who will introduce laws favorable to their bottom lines... ...and rig the process so that we "bail" them out when they fail.

Couldn’t agree more and it’s ‘not just the 1%.  

I am against corporatism.  It should be against the law.  Unfortunately, law makers are politicians and it is highly unlikely they will pass a bill that will limit their campaign contributions.  

Even politicians that use anti-corporatism to get into office allow about a third of their bundlers to join their administration.  Nearly 80% of those who gave a half million or more in the last presidential race are now in key administration posts.  13 ambassador nominees were bundlers that raised a minimum of $500,000.  Union groups that financially support one party got their pensions and jobs saved while stock holders and non-union employees lost the investments and jobs.    Insurance companies that lobbied for healthcare reform got rewarded with guaranteed profits (paid by the taxpayer).  So called “green” companies paid off politicians to get subsidies and product mandates as well.

But is it really all that different from supporting a candidate because they promise tax cuts and subsidies paid for by other people?

This all has to end and the politicians need to be held accountable.

News Buzzard wrote:Mitt Romney made $20 million in 2010. If he paid a flat tax rate of 35% his taxes would have been $7 million. That's fair in my book! I'm not looking to go back to the 90 percentile range we saw during the Eisenhower Administration, but something is radically wrong when a guy making $20 million pays a 13% tax rate and then bitches about 47% of the population. Do you folks think we won't see major unrest in the world when 1% of the population owns 50% of the wealth? The Republican control of congress will be short lived, especially when they won't be able to play the race card anymore!!!

I'd say that Romney has achieved financial success by taking risks in the marketplace of ideas, and making fewer mistakes than his peers. If Democrats spent no money on drugs, but had invested those discretionary funds in mutual funds instead, they'd not be looking to steal money legally earned by others.

Wolfeboro citizens would be worse off if "the Romneys" of Carroll County moved to Texas.  

Romney likely has a team of accountants who know their business. If Romney's money was "invested" in a Professor's dreams of energy, where would we be today?  NB thinks that the money that Government spends is wisely "invested", when the exact opposite is the case. Socialism, in particular, has failed in every country that it's been tried. "Redistribution" didn't work for the Soviets, as only the top dogs stayed rich from the citizens' product of labor—for citizens enslaved themselves through a false and harmful ideology.

"We pretend to work, while they pretend to pay us"—the cry of the beleaguered Soviet worker.

Right now, Americans' taxpayer money is being spent to educate the coal miners who've been erased by Obama from the workforce in poor sections of the country. As Google engineers discovered recently, "renewable" energy is not sustainable—or, for those of you in Rio Linda—it costs more to produce "energy savings" than what it actually saves.

"If stealing 100% of the product of someone's labor is Slavery,
at what percentage is it not Slavery?"

[/size]