GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-23-2010, 07:49   #201
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,672


Quote:
Originally Posted by tc556guy View Post
Sure you do; you just don't want to admit that you do.The roads you drive on, the medicines you use, the food you eat....you benefit from so many programs and you don't even want to recognize it.
Roads are a state function. And before you talk about federal highway funds, those funds shouldn't go to the fed in the first place....only to be bequeathed back to the states after they jump through federal hoops.

The government programs provide the medicine I use and the food I eat?
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2010, 07:50   #202
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,672


Quote:
Originally Posted by tc556guy View Post
Everyone should pay for their own health insurance.
What about your guy that makes $10-$15K / year? Who should pay for HIS health insurance?
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2010, 08:24   #203
lawman800
Juris Glocktor
 
lawman800's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Out the frying pan & into the fire!
Posts: 37,302
Blog Entries: 1
Yes, we all benefit from certain government programs and functions like the military providing for a safe nation and interstate commerce for our abundant markets and even the post office. However, those are all enumerated powers of the Federal government which they are authorized to levy tax so they can provide. All the other programs have no basis in the Constitution, including all your social welfare programs. ZERO authority. (Before you say it, general welfare is in the preamble, it is not even in the body of the Constitution and has no force of law)

I derive zero benefit from Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, HUD, DFEH, etc.

How is it fair to charge someone rich more for the same or less programs than the poor? Does he use more road? Does he send out more mail? Does a soldier protect him more? I venture say that he is still one man and uses up one man's resources, or even less, since the rich get no benefit from social programs meant to give assistance to the poor. How is it fair to tax a rich man a higher percentage of his wealth so that someone poor can pay a smaller percentage or no percentage at all and use the same, if not more, government resources? Why is that simple mathematic model so hard to comprehend?

You want simple #s to visualize it? Fine.

2 guys, 1 making $250,000 (Guy A) and 1 making $10,000 (Guy B)

GA pays 40% in the progressive scheme or $50,000
GB pays 0% in the progressive scheme or $0

GA has $200,000 left to spend on other things
GB has $10,000 left to spend on other things

Unless GA only spends $10,000 or less on taxed transactions would GB even come close to paying the same as GA in the sales tax or VAT or excise tax scenario and nowhere close to the income tax scenario.

Realistically, also, GB would receive government assistance like EITC, HUD, food stamps, etc., after paying zero income tax, so he is a net income tax taker, which takes from those who pay more, like GA. How is that not redistributive?

I haven't even accounted for the fact that there are also state and maybe city income taxes, property taxes which are not likely to be paid by GB as he probably won't own land, and various state and local welfare programs not used by GA but used by GB.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by blueiron:
I've said it before and I'll say it here: they'd look better with lividity.
lawman800 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2010, 08:43   #204
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,672


Quote:
Originally Posted by lawman800 View Post
Yes, we all benefit from certain government programs and functions like the military providing for a safe nation and interstate commerce for our abundant markets and even the post office. However, those are all enumerated powers of the Federal government which they are authorized to levy tax so they can provide. All the other programs have no basis in the Constitution, including all your social welfare programs. ZERO authority. (Before you say it, general welfare is in the preamble, it is not even in the body of the Constitution and has no force of law)

I derive zero benefit from Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, HUD, DFEH, etc.

How is it fair to charge someone rich more for the same or less programs than the poor? Does he use more road? Does he send out more mail? Does a soldier protect him more? I venture say that he is still one man and uses up one man's resources, or even less, since the rich get no benefit from social programs meant to give assistance to the poor. How is it fair to tax a rich man a higher percentage of his wealth so that someone poor can pay a smaller percentage or no percentage at all and use the same, if not more, government resources? Why is that simple mathematic model so hard to comprehend?

You want simple #s to visualize it? Fine.

2 guys, 1 making $250,000 (Guy A) and 1 making $10,000 (Guy B)

GA pays 40% in the progressive scheme or $50,000
GB pays 0% in the progressive scheme or $0

GA has $200,000 left to spend on other things
GB has $10,000 left to spend on other things

Unless GA only spends $10,000 or less on taxed transactions would GB even come close to paying the same as GA in the sales tax or VAT or excise tax scenario and nowhere close to the income tax scenario.

Realistically, also, GB would receive government assistance like EITC, HUD, food stamps, etc., after paying zero income tax, so he is a net income tax taker, which takes from those who pay more, like GA. How is that not redistributive?

I haven't even accounted for the fact that there are also state and maybe city income taxes, property taxes which are not likely to be paid by GB as he probably won't own land, and various state and local welfare programs not used by GA but used by GB.
the marxist-progressive can't answer these questions in a logical, coherent manner.
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2010, 10:49   #205
emt1581
Curious Member
 
emt1581's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Penn's Woods
Posts: 28,137
So due to the lack of any examples, I'm taking it that once a government gives out welfare and the rest of society picks up the slack for the lazy, it NEVER gets reduced or eliminated.

Seems like a portion of society is responsible for providing the lazy ones of society....so no matter how much or little you work, you still get an income. And the less you work the more you get for free... how is that not a communist situation again??

-Emt1581
emt1581 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2010, 12:09   #206
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,672


Quote:
Originally Posted by emt1581 View Post
So due to the lack of any examples, I'm taking it that once a government gives out welfare and the rest of society picks up the slack for the lazy, it NEVER gets reduced or eliminated.

Seems like a portion of society is responsible for providing the lazy ones of society....so no matter how much or little you work, you still get an income. And the less you work the more you get for free... how is that not a communist situation again??

-Emt1581
It will end when the ends don't meet. They'll destroy the currency and the credit of the U.S. to meet their social commitments, and then flee.

I'll let the resident marxist-socialist-progressive tc55guy tell you how its not communist.
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2010, 17:26   #207
G29Reload
Tread Lightly
 
G29Reload's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,121
Quote:
Originally Posted by emt1581 View Post
So due to the lack of any examples,
I told you several posts back that it was rolled back in Welfare to Work programs during the Klinton admin.

It actually worked and had a 5 yr limit on welfare. A lot of welfare people were pissed that they had to start working.

But when their benes were cut off, work they did. Amazing.

What we need to eliminate immediately is the EITC.
G29Reload is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2010, 19:56   #208
lawman800
Juris Glocktor
 
lawman800's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Out the frying pan & into the fire!
Posts: 37,302
Blog Entries: 1
Mitch, I pose this to you. How rich is rich? Who decides who is rich? Is your Queen Nancy Pelosi rich? I submit that she is with her millions in net worth, along with her husband's net worth. How about Barack? He ain't doing too shabby with his book sales and his $400k salary with little expenses. Then you got all of the Hollywood libs with their hundreds of millions.

Then you have the working schlubs who make a decent salary. How rich is rich when you work for a living? Be careful, because to the guy who has less than you, you are now the rich guy. How much are you willing to give to the guy who has less than you. If you are making six figures, you are in the top 10% of wage earners in America. Guess what, you're rich, start coughing up.

As for TC's assertion that I want to take the vote away from people who don't agree with me... look at who's rich here. The libs have all the big time multimillion and billionaires like Warren Buffet, George Soros, Bill Gates, professional athletes and Hollywood. They pay their share and more. By my own statement, they are all allowed to vote too and you never heard me say they can't vote. They pay for services they will never use too.

I don't care how you vote, that is not the issue. It never was. It only became an issue when libs tried to hide the facts and use the same ad hominem straw man attacks that I want to disenfranchise a certain segment due to race or ideology. That's totally false and disingenuous. You pay, you vote, I don't care how you vote. You paid your dues.

Another poster said it and I stand by it too. Conservatives want to be left alone and live their own lives and earn their own way. Liberals want to butt into other people's business and tell others how to live and use other people's money to pay their way.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by blueiron:
I've said it before and I'll say it here: they'd look better with lividity.
lawman800 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2010, 20:23   #209
marlinfan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Idiots Out Wandering Around
Posts: 1,006
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
Roads are a state function. And before you talk about federal highway funds, those funds shouldn't go to the fed in the first place....only to be bequeathed back to the states after they jump through federal hoops.

The government programs provide the medicine I use and the food I eat?
both are heavily subsidized by the fed. Not saying it's right, but it's true. especially food.
__________________
Marlinfan should shut the **** up! - Dennis in MA:supergrin:
marlinfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2010, 20:31   #210
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,672


Quote:
Originally Posted by marlinfan View Post
both are heavily subsidized by the fed. Not saying it's right, but it's true. especially food.
Right. And the fed gets its money from the states.

Leave the money in the states and we don't need the damnded fed to bequeath the money back to us to build roads or support our food production.
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2010, 22:08   #211
racerford
Senior Member
 
racerford's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,859


Quote:
Originally Posted by tc556guy View Post
Sure you do; you just don't want to admit that you do.The roads you drive on, the medicines you use, the food you eat....you benefit from so many programs and you don't even want to recognize it.
Just how much in taxes do I have to pay to be at the break-even point? How much in benefits do I receive?

This is a very arrogant and presumptive statement of you to make. You don't know what benefits I have received, you don't know how much I pay, and you spout this drivel. You are wrong.

You spout this drivel because you think it helps you make your point. You are wrong, it shows your ignorance.

When does a person pay enough in taxes? What is a person's fair share? You can't answer the question and yet you say I don't pay as much as I benefit. You are wrong. Put up the facts that support your position.

Does Warren Buffet pay more in taxes than he benefits?, Bill Gates? Just how much road do they use? How much food do they eat? Do more soldiers protect them than you?
racerford is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2010, 00:42   #212
lawman800
Juris Glocktor
 
lawman800's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Out the frying pan & into the fire!
Posts: 37,302
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
Right. And the fed gets its money from the states.

Leave the money in the states and we don't need the damnded fed to bequeath the money back to us to build roads or support our food production.
That in itself is redistribution at its most elementary.

The states give money over to the Feds who then redistributes it back according to earmarks, pet projects, federal programs and all the other fun and hilarious ways it wants.

So for example, CA has been a net contributor to the fed for decades. We give the Fed way more than we get back in federal moneys. Therefore, Californians have subsidized roads, welfare, and farm subsidies in other states in accordance with how they run their business.

I don't benefit one iota from a cow fart methane plant in Iowa nor do I care that the indigent in Alabama get HUD housing on my dime.

I don't even like it at the state level where my local taxes in LA get sent up there and Sacramento gives it to HIV awareness classes in SF where they teach gay men how to be safer when they "romp" in their bath houses. How does SF get to spend my money when I have no say in SF politics?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by blueiron:
I've said it before and I'll say it here: they'd look better with lividity.
lawman800 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2010, 01:02   #213
mitchshrader
Deceased
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tulsa
Posts: 26,577
No, you have it backwards. Thieves CLAIM to be liberals.

At your expense, and that oughta be your first clue. They ain't one BIT liberal, they don't want you spending your own money.

And like I said, I want to soak the rich for UNEARNED income, not anything they produce. Their wages, no matter how high, are THEIRS. I don't want any.

But if you DIE, and give your brother 30 million, he didn't EARN it. Capish? And you can't complain I took YOUR money, you're DEAD. so quit griping.

I didn't say estate taxes were fair, I said they were the LEAST tyrannical.

And as far as how MUCH can be inherited without tax, that's up to the electorate. I'd like to say you can inherit or win the first million any given year without tax, and halvers past that. That's with NO income tax. So if you want that 30 mil to go untaxed, you split it among 30 people. None of 'em pay a dime. How's that? It's redistributive and a LOT less tyrannical than the current income tax.

I have no interest in maximizing government income, the reverse. Left up to me, charitable contributions would be counted as tax payments, if provable, and any tax you paid could be specifically earmarked for a particular government expense. Defense, medical, schools, whatever. And if the populace didn't fund a program, it didn't get funded.

But at some point, somebody is going to have to pay SOMETHING to keep the lights on.. and I'd rather it be excise taxes, inheritance taxes, or even a sales tax before income taxes or corporate taxes.

At about 40% total of the current tax burden. Redistributive taxation isn't theft if YOU do the redistributing. What i don't want is multi-generation billion dollar estates buying my government. OR theft of labor..
__________________
OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER "This guy is a flake, listen at your own risk"

Last edited by mitchshrader; 04-24-2010 at 01:36..
mitchshrader is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2010, 06:07   #214
crimsonaudio
15 or 30?
 
crimsonaudio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,841
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
Right. And the fed gets its money from the states.

Leave the money in the states and we don't need the damnded fed to bequeath the money back to us to build roads or support our food production.
Sorta - the fed gets it's money from the people. I dunno about you, but I don't pay my federal income tax (or business tax) to the state - I pay the US Treasury directly. That's why they have the States by the balls here - the state doesn't see the cash until/unless they do what the FedGov wants.
__________________
The third rule of fight club: have fun and try your best.
crimsonaudio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2010, 08:04   #215
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,672


Quote:
Originally Posted by crimsonaudio View Post
Sorta - the fed gets it's money from the people. I dunno about you, but I don't pay my federal income tax (or business tax) to the state - I pay the US Treasury directly. That's why they have the States by the balls here - the state doesn't see the cash until/unless they do what the FedGov wants.
Of course you are correct.

I am of the mindset that I am a citizen of Louisiana, FIRST. I am much more supportive of state and local taxes to fund things that benefit Louisiana citizens, like roads, police, education and fire protection. It utterly disgusts me to see my tax dollars leave the state only to be granted back to it.

I'd like to see my overall tax bill reduced dramatically...on the order of 75%. Then, instead of the 90/10 federal/ state split I see now, I would prefer 90% of my tax dollars go to the state and 10% to the Fed.
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2010, 11:40   #216
emt1581
Curious Member
 
emt1581's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Penn's Woods
Posts: 28,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by G29Reload View Post
I told you several posts back that it was rolled back in Welfare to Work programs during the Klinton admin.

It actually worked and had a 5 yr limit on welfare. A lot of welfare people were pissed that they had to start working.

But when their benes were cut off, work they did. Amazing.

What we need to eliminate immediately is the EITC.
Other than that ONE example...there are no others?

Even that limit you speak of, what good did it really do? I mean it's obviously not in place today or there wouldn't be 4th and 5th generation project-dwellers still there...

I'd like to hear about a time when the rug was swiftly pulled out from under the welfare recipients. Not something giving them 5 years to adjust. However, I doubt there is such an example.

-Emt1581

Last edited by emt1581; 04-24-2010 at 11:42..
emt1581 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2010, 12:19   #217
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,672


Quote:
Originally Posted by racerford View Post

When does a person pay enough in taxes? What is a person's fair share?
tc55guy and his ilk will tell you that the majority of voters will answer this question for you.
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2010, 14:46   #218
lawman800
Juris Glocktor
 
lawman800's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Out the frying pan & into the fire!
Posts: 37,302
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by mitchshrader View Post
Redistributive taxation isn't theft if YOU do the redistributing.
I don't want any redistributing. That's the difference between conservatives and liberals.

Liberals want to redistribute other people's money, not their own. Find me a liberal that wants to distribute his own money. Find me one that is willing to live as one of the masses and not as a party member with private jets and big mansions. Which rich liberal is redistributing his own money so that he lives the same as everyone else? Hypocrites.

Conservatives want to keep their own money and not take anyone else's money. You earn yours, I earn mine. I don't want yours, you don't touch mine. Sounds fair to me, no?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by blueiron:
I've said it before and I'll say it here: they'd look better with lividity.
lawman800 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2010, 15:12   #219
emt1581
Curious Member
 
emt1581's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Penn's Woods
Posts: 28,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawman800 View Post
You earn yours, I earn mine. I don't want yours, you don't touch mine. Sounds fair to me, no?

Tell that to the people in the ghettos. "It's Obama-money....he got his stash!"...

-Emt1581
emt1581 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2010, 21:45   #220
tc556guy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 4,764
Send a message via ICQ to tc556guy Send a message via Yahoo to tc556guy
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawman800 View Post
I don't want any redistributing. That's the difference between conservatives and liberals.

Liberals want to redistribute other people's money, not their own. Find me a liberal that wants to distribute his own money. Find me one that is willing to live as one of the masses and not as a party member with private jets and big mansions. Which rich liberal is redistributing his own money so that he lives the same as everyone else? Hypocrites.

Conservatives want to keep their own money and not take anyone else's money. You earn yours, I earn mine. I don't want yours, you don't touch mine. Sounds fair to me, no?
You keep ranting about redistribution, when as I've already said, we are all in a deficit and enjoy more benefits than the amount that we individually pay in. If you want to do soemthing about welfare programs in particular because you feel that some recipients are abusing the system, then get public opinion to support your view and get the programs changed.
__________________
*Post contains personal opinion and should not be considered information released in an official capacity*
tc556guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2010, 21:49   #221
tc556guy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 4,764
Send a message via ICQ to tc556guy Send a message via Yahoo to tc556guy
Quote:
Originally Posted by racerford View Post
Just how much in taxes do I have to pay to be at the break-even point? How much in benefits do I receive?

This is a very arrogant and presumptive statement of you to make. You don't know what benefits I have received, you don't know how much I pay, and you spout this drivel. You are wrong.

You spout this drivel because you think it helps you make your point. You are wrong, it shows your ignorance.

When does a person pay enough in taxes? What is a person's fair share? You can't answer the question and yet you say I don't pay as much as I benefit. You are wrong. Put up the facts that support your position.

Does Warren Buffet pay more in taxes than he benefits?, Bill Gates? Just how much road do they use? How much food do they eat? Do more soldiers protect them than you?
I don't believe its presumptive on my part. The average American pays a few thousand in income tax every year; are you saying that you receive LESS than a few thousand in behefits from Federal programs? I find that very doubtful. Go ahead and label my views " ignorant" if that makes you feel better, but I think that betrays your own lack of comprehension on the issue.

I would say that even Buffet benefits more than what he pays in, even at his pay scale.
__________________
*Post contains personal opinion and should not be considered information released in an official capacity*
tc556guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2010, 21:51   #222
tc556guy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 4,764
Send a message via ICQ to tc556guy Send a message via Yahoo to tc556guy
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
What about your guy that makes $10-$15K / year? Who should pay for HIS health insurance?
Everyone should pay for their own insurance. The guy making 15 K can still afford a catastrophic plan. Generally a guy only making 10K a year is a retired guy making supplemental income to augment a pension or other benefits and probably gets insurance through other existing programs.
__________________
*Post contains personal opinion and should not be considered information released in an official capacity*
tc556guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2010, 21:55   #223
tc556guy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 4,764
Send a message via ICQ to tc556guy Send a message via Yahoo to tc556guy
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
Roads are a state function. And before you talk about federal highway funds, those funds shouldn't go to the fed in the first place....only to be bequeathed back to the states after they jump through federal hoops.

The government programs provide the medicine I use and the food I eat?
A reliable national road network for interstate commerce is a Federal interest. Hence, Federal funding. An Interstate costs 1 million per foot to build. You really think the states can cough up that kind of dough to give us a good road network?

I'd love to get more stuff hauled via rail, but for now we are forced to use the highways. That means Federal money.

Government programs ensure the safety of the meds and food you consume.
__________________
*Post contains personal opinion and should not be considered information released in an official capacity*
tc556guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2010, 21:56   #224
emt1581
Curious Member
 
emt1581's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Penn's Woods
Posts: 28,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by tc556guy View Post
You keep ranting about redistribution, when as I've already said, we are all in a deficit and enjoy more benefits than the amount that we individually pay in. If you want to do soemthing about welfare programs in particular because you feel that some recipients are abusing the system, then get public opinion to support your view and get the programs changed.
Support by public opinion?? Other than the tea party itself coming and giving their support by the thousands, the only people that raise hell about welfare and redistribution in general, at least in a public sense, are those receiving it so they get more from such programs!!

Most of the same ghetto-dwellers are the people that yell louder than or beat the crap out of anyone who opposes them. Seriously, have you ever seen how people in the projects "debate"?? I have. It has nothing to do with who's facts are accurate. It's more about who has the crazier mentality, bigger weapons/gang, and can get the other side to submit out of fear! IMHO, you can protest such ignorance, but you better be prepared for bloodshed.

As I said earlier, our society seems to be content paying for welfare programs. I haven't seen ANY protests against it that I can remember. But how many people that work hard are happy their money goes to those who aren't doing the same?

I saw a bumper sticker that was one of a few dozen plastered on the back of a car today. It said "Robin Hood had it right!"... I don't have anything else to say about it...just figured I'd mention it.

-Emt1581
emt1581 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2010, 21:58   #225
emt1581
Curious Member
 
emt1581's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Penn's Woods
Posts: 28,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by tc556guy View Post
I don't believe its presumptive on my part. The average American pays a few thousand in income tax every year; are you saying that you receive LESS than a few thousand in behefits from Federal programs? I find that very doubtful. Go ahead and label my views " ignorant" if that makes you feel better, but I think that betrays your own lack of comprehension on the issue.

I would say that even Buffet benefits more than what he pays in, even at his pay scale.
A question for you...if we do receive more than we're paying, how is that possible and how long can it last?

Is the government somehow working hard to pay us more than we pay it? If so, how?

-Emt1581
emt1581 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Tags
tc tucked tail and ran, tcguy is a socialist
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 13:31.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,328
375 Members
953 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42