Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: Wiggs on October 04, 2011, 09:52:20 AM
-
Tread lightly....he is your mascot....The message is the same....
I wanna see you dipshits talk your way outta this one....LMAO ::)
[ Invalid YouTube link ]
-
In before "marxist"
In before "commie"
In before "liberal"
In before "trickle down"
-
In before "marxist"
In before "commie"
In before "liberal"
In before "trickle down"
I'm a registered independent...I just wanna know how the cons justify going against their great leader Regan. I'd like to see how this will be spun....No one on this board will be intelligent enought to spin it without looking like an idiot. I'll keep bumping it just for kicks..
-
Tread lightly....he is your mascot....The message is the same....
I wanna see you dipshits talk your way outta this one....LMAO ::)
[ Invalid YouTube link ]
hahahahahah :D
-
I'm sharing this vid on FB Wiggs
-
I'm a registered independent...I just wanna know how the cons justify going against their great leader Regan. I'd like to see how this will be spun....No one on this board will be intelligent enought to spin it without looking like an idiot. I'll keep bumping it just for kicks..
Politicians spinning to stay in power!? Say it ain't so.
-
Tread lightly....he is your mascot....The message is the same....
I wanna see you dipshits talk your way outta this one....LMAO ::)
[ Invalid YouTube link ]
I think some of you younger posters are a bit confused about the regard that conservatives might have had for Reagan.
Reagan's VooDoo economics practically drowned our economy into a depression. It was only after our economy and unemployment rate hit rock bottom, that we were then able to slowly recover during Reagan's era as well as after his run. We didn't truly see full recovery from Reagan's economic touch until well into the late 80's (87-89). Supply-side economics has its place within certain societies, but it proved to be futile with our economy back in Reagan's era. While our country's GDP growth substantially increased by the late 80's, it was due to the fact that it was swimming within negative values just prior to his taking of office and immediately during the first 2-3 years.
In other words, anyone who delivers the kind of blow that Reagan did to our economy will sooner or later see economic prosperity, because once you've hit rock bottom, there is nowhere else to go but up (false economic prosperity fueled by your own doing).
True conservatives from that time can tell you that Reaganomics was pretty fucking risky and not necessarily an immediate success.
I don't think many conservatives here will care if Obama is echoing Reagan's ideas neither..
"1"
-
In before petite bourgeoisie delusional idiots
-
Tread lightly....he is your mascot....The message is the same....
I wanna see you dipshits talk your way outta this one....LMAO ::)
I haven't seen any conservatives here saying the rich shouldn't pay their fare share of taxes.
-
Still waiting assholes....
Coach? (You're not an asshole but youre more of a "taint"....look it up...
-
tax increases for millionaires ? hell no !! no more taxes !!!
tax increases for the bottom 50% of earners ?? hell yea !!! "broaden the base" !!!
-
tax increases for millionaires ? hell no !! no more taxes !!!
tax increases for the bottom 50% of earners ?? hell yea !!! "broaden the base" !!!
you didn't go to college did you ???
-
you didn't go to college did you ???
u got a problem with raising taxes on the poor bro ?? >:(
-
"The poor should be harvested for their organs to maintain the rich." - coach
-
I think some of you younger posters are a bit confused about the regard that conservatives might have had for Reagan.
Reagan's VooDoo economics practically drowned our economy into a depression. It was only after our economy and unemployment rate hit rock bottom, that we were then able to slowly recover during Reagan's era as well as after his run. We didn't truly see full recovery from Reagan's economic touch until well into the late 80's (87-89). Supply-side economics has its place within certain societies, but it proved to be futile with our economy back in Reagan's era. While our country's GDP growth substantially increased by the late 80's, it was due to the fact that it was swimming within negative values just prior to his taking of office and immediately during the first 2-3 years.
In other words, anyone who delivers the kind of blow that Reagan did to our economy will sooner or later see economic prosperity, because once you've hit rock bottom, there is nowhere else to go but up (false economic prosperity fueled by your own doing).
True conservatives from that time can tell you that Reaganomics was pretty fucking risky and not necessarily an immediate success.
I don't think many conservatives here will care if Obama is echoing Reagan's ideas neither..
"1"
GREAT POST
-
There was talk of putting Reagan on Mount Rushmore a bit ago, wonder if that is still in the cards.
-
Still waiting assholes....
Coach? (You're not an asshole but youre more of a "taint"....look it up...
Waiting for what? You're making a point nobody was arguing. Nobody here has said the rich shouldn't pay their fare share of taxes.
-
Waiting for what? You're making a point nobody was arguing. Nobody here has said the rich shouldn't pay their fare share of taxes.
You must not read this board much...nice try...
I'll continue to wait for Coach, 3333 and others to respond to their mascot's words.
-
Reagan wanted to remove "loopholes" and lower the overall tax rates, Obama wants to remove "loopholes" and tax people more
-
How about one flat tax rate for everyone with no loopholes. No Earned Income credit, no separate tax brackets, no minimum income before you have pay federal income taxes. Loophole problem solved!
-
How about one flat tax rate for everyone with no loopholes. No Earned Income credit, no separate tax brackets, no minimum income before you have pay federal income taxes. Loophole problem solved!
I am a supporter of a flat tax rate.
-
You must not read this board much...nice try...
I'll continue to wait for Coach, 3333 and others to respond to their mascot's words.
You may read it, but you're not comprehending it.
You basically just have a video of both Presidents saying the rich should pay their fare share, and not pay less than the MC or the poor. Despite you looking for some big "gotcha" type thread, you're arguing a point nobody is disagreeing with.
Once again, conservatives here are not saying the rich shouldn't pay their fare share. They're saying that Obama's definition of rich is incorrect (those over 200-250k) and that you just can't keep asking the rich to pay more when so many aren't paying at all. Nobody wants millionaires and corporations to skirt what they should pay. Sorry to burst your bubble.
You should look at it this way - reppingfor20 is endorsing your post. It can't possibly be right.
-
You may read it, but you're not comprehending it.
You basically just have a video of both Presidents saying the rich should pay their fare share, and not pay less than the MC or the poor. Despite you looking for some big "gotcha" type thread, you're arguing a point nobody is disagreeing with.
Once again, conservatives here are not saying the rich shouldn't pay their fare share. They're saying that Obama's definition of rich is incorrect (those over 200-250k) and that you just can't keep asking the rich to pay more when so many aren't paying at all. Nobody wants millionaires and corporations to skirt what they should pay. Sorry to burst your bubble.
You should look at it this way - reppingfor20 is endorsing your post. It can't possibly be right.
:D
-
tax the poor not the rich !!! fucking free loaders need to contribute to the system !!!
-
tax the poor not the rich !!! fucking free loaders need to contribute to the system !!!
Nobody's saying that either.
-
I'd say that Obama is trying to confuse people by comparing capital gains tax rates against income tax rates. apples and oranges.
Check the income tax rates for 2011 straight from the IRS. In the realm of income tax, the more you earn in income, the higher your percentage owed. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/rp-11-12.pdf
-
Nobody's saying that either.
It's fucking retarded they try to make it sound that way.
-
Nobody's saying that either.
well they should be ! broaden the base bitch ! 50% of americans arent paying income tax ! fucking poor free loaders!
-
I listened to that entire speech. There was a lot more in that speech. Wiggs is doing a some selective ediditing here.
-
well they should be ! broaden the base bitch ! 50% of americans arent paying income tax ! fucking poor free loaders!
Even though it's a pointless thread, stop trolling.
-
Even though it's a pointless thread, stop trolling.
trolling ?
BROADEN THE BASE BITCH
-
BROADEN THE BASE BITCH
Is that what you yell when you're on the bottom?
-
I listened to that entire speech. There was a lot more in that speech. Wiggs is doing a some selective ediditing here.
There always is thats why I don't really bother getting into threads like this. You take 50sec of a 25min speech and they tell you "Hey Conservatives..explain this". 240 is famous for this.
-
You may read it, but you're not comprehending it.
You basically just have a video of both Presidents saying the rich should pay their fare share, and not pay less than the MC or the poor. Despite you looking for some big "gotcha" type thread, you're arguing a point nobody is disagreeing with.
Once again, conservatives here are not saying the rich shouldn't pay their fare share. They're saying that Obama's definition of rich is incorrect (those over 200-250k) and that you just can't keep asking the rich to pay more when so many aren't paying at all. Nobody wants millionaires and corporations to skirt what they should pay. Sorry to burst your bubble.
You should look at it this way - reppingfor20 is endorsing your post. It can't possibly be right.
All of this. You can move this to political now, Ron.
-
Reagan wanted to remove "loopholes" and lower the overall tax rates, Obama wants to remove "loopholes" and tax people more
you mean the top 1 percent or so more, not the 99% of people in this country, your statement makes it sounds like he is taxing the regular joe more, he is not. 99% of the people in this country will not be affected.
-
tax the poor not the rich !!! fucking free loaders need to contribute to the system !!!
-
I would be for closing all the loopholes. Problem is all the Presidents say they are going to do it but don't. Reagan said it but didn't do it because of the people he had to deal with in the Senate and the House. He had Tip O'Neal to deal with. I read he was an ass to work with but a good friend to Big Business. All Presidents have their shortcomings, this may have been one of Reagans. He is still one of the greatest Presidents ever.
-
you mean the top 1 percent or so more, not the 99% of people in this country, your statement makes it sounds like he is taxing the regular joe more, he is not. 99% of the people in this country will not be affected.
Link?
-
Tread lightly....he is your mascot....The message is the same....
I wanna see you dipshits talk your way outta this one....LMAO ::)
[ Invalid YouTube link ]
Again, this has been posted on the proper board a few days ago, I don't really think board members are for tax loopholes for anyone or any business.
But, go ahead and construct that gigantic, Godzilla-like straw man to argue with.
Have fun with that.
-
you mean the top 1 percent or so more, not the 99% of people in this country, your statement makes it sounds like he is taxing the regular joe more, he is not. 99% of the people in this country will not be affected.
Rolling eyes at this non-factual statement. Try again.
-
I listened to that entire speech. There was a lot more in that speech. Wiggs is doing a some selective ediditing here.
Another backfire of a thread..... :'(
-
Wiggs took his interwebs and went home I see.
-
Link?
it may not be exact, but how many millionaires are there in the USA that would have to pay the extra tax? Not that many i think it was 50,000 ppl it would affect. The new buffet rule is also very good for the greedy pigs making their money on investments and avoiding a real tax rate.
-
it may not be exact, but how many millionaires are there in the USA that would have to pay the extra tax? Not that many i think it was 50,000 ppl it would affect. The new buffet rule is also very good for the greedy pigs making their money on investments and avoiding a real tax rate.
When you make definitive statements, you need to be prepared to back them up with something tangible, otherwise you're just full of shit. Plus, you should also read others' posts who are responding to what you write, and react accordingly.
Show us that it's even close to only 1% of the population. You cited 50k people - that's far BELOW 1%, so you've already contradicted yourself. Prove your point, or just stop posting in these threads.
-
When you make definitive statements, you need to be prepared to back them up with something tangible, otherwise you're just full of shit. Plus, you should also read others' posts who are responding to what you write, and react accordingly.
Show us that it's even close to only 1% of the population. You cited 50k people - that's far BELOW 1%, so you've already contradicted yourself. Prove your point, or just stop posting in these threads.
no i am generalizing, too bad you don't like the truth. the new tax laws that Obama is proposing will affect hardly 1 percent of the population i think maybe 1.6%, if you don't make more than 250,000 or a million or so you have nothing to worry about. most people in usa don't make that money, why do you think there are protests on wall street. will murdoch match buffets tax return hahahaha never LOL.
the us population in 2009 was 307 million, 50,000 millionaires getting taxed more is like 1.6 percent, big fuggin deal, let them cry like babies they are so cuddled.
-
put a tax on black folk immediatley
-
no i am generalizing, too bad you don't like the truth. the new tax laws that Obama is proposing will affect hardly 1 percent of the population i think maybe 1.6%, if you don't make more than 250,000 or a million or so you have nothing to worry about. most people in usa don't make that money, why do you think there are protests on wall street. will murdoch match buffets tax return hahahaha never LOL.
the us population in 2009 was 307 million, 50,000 millionaires getting taxed more is like 1.6 percent, big fuggin deal, let them cry like babies they are so cuddled.
So jt, in your world: Generalization = truth? Why am I not surprised?
50,000 is 1% of.....wait for it.......wait for it...........5 million. 50,000 is .016% of 307 million, you absolute fucking idiot. Stick to posting about nut fuzz and foreskin, because that's about the only thing I can be sure you have first hand experience with.
-
So jt, in your world: Generalization = truth? Why am I not surprised?
50,000 is 1% of.....wait for it.......wait for it...........5 million. 50,000 is .016% of 307 million, you absolute fucking idiot. Stick to posting about nut fuzz and foreskin, because that's about the only thing I can be sure you have first hand experience with.
the numbers I put out were generalized. If you want to nit pick because you want to protect the rich, you will do that till you die because greed has a hold of you and your soul. Yes the percent is like 99 percent won't be affected, I never said my numbers were perfect, and obviously they weren't. Most people as in 98 - 99 % will not be affected, why are you sticking up for them so much, is 3% hike in tax rate that bad, Clinton years were great, do they not want to repeat greatness?
The poor do not feel entitled either coach, I have no idea where you got that from except the conservative media probably. The poor want fair wages, good jobs, they don't want free money and free food, that is the very minority of the poor that you are talking about.
-
the numbers I put out were generalized. If you want to nit pick because you want to protect the rich, you will do that till you die because greed has a hold of you and your soul. Yes the percent is like 99 percent won't be affected, I never said my numbers were perfect, and obviously they weren't. Most people as in 98 - 99 % will not be affected, why are you sticking up for them so much, is 3% hike in tax rate that bad, Clinton years were great, do they not want to repeat greatness?
Prove it or shut the fuck up. Enough with the generalizations. You haven't addressed the 200-250k example. A 3% tax hike on them is 7,500 CASH. That's fucking enormous when you compare it to take home pay, and often the difference between saving some money at the end of the year and being in the red.
The generalizations that you love to lean on are good for you because they ignore specific, real examples and fit nicely into the all encompassing, neat little world view you want to have. Listening to your posts is like reading the Huffington post.
I'm giving you the chance to back up your words and bring something tangible to the discussion: Prove it only affects the uber-rich millionairs by providing a link to the actual plan, prove that it only affects 1% (now up to 2% for you), and prove that it doesn't hurt those who are defined as rich by the current admin, but most certainly aren't. If you're not up for it, which I can bet you aren't, just stop already.
I'm going to sleep now. You have 7 hours to google your opinion.
The poor do not feel entitled either coach, I have no idea where you got that from except the conservative media probably. The poor want fair wages, good jobs, they don't want free money and free food, that is the very minority of the poor that you are talking about.
Another straw man. Nobody wants people to suffer. I regret posting this because you'll probably focus on that and ignore the stuff above.
-
You can take EVERYThING from the rich of the rich (assets, income, mansions, boats, EVERYTHING from ALL of them and it still wouldn't make a dent in hardly anything...so this bullshit on taxing the rich is a bunch of crap and the liberals fall for it hook line and sinker!
-
I am a supporter of a flat tax rate.
They problem is there are lot of people who make alot of money, but it is cash. They hide the tax so this would benefit them also. The best thing would be a national sales tax. I know alot of make that get paid in cash, and still buy expensive toys.
-
So wait, a "Millionaires Tax" would also include single filers making 200k and up and families making 250k and up?
Huh, the term "Millionaires and Billionaires" sure covers a lot.
-
You can take EVERYThING from the rich of the rich (assets, income, mansions, boats, EVERYTHING from ALL of them and it still wouldn't make a dent in hardly anything...so this bullshit on taxing the rich is a bunch of crap and the liberals fall for it hook line and sinker!
It's class warfare. Obamas a scum sucking leach tiny tit.
-
Consumption tax.
-
Prove it or shut the fuck up. Enough with the generalizations. You haven't addressed the 200-250k example. A 3% tax hike on them is 7,500 CASH. That's fucking enormous when you compare it to take home pay, and often the difference between saving some money at the end of the year and being in the red.
The generalizations that you love to lean on are good for you because they ignore specific, real examples and fit nicely into the all encompassing, neat little world view you want to have. Listening to your posts is like reading the Huffington post.
I'm giving you the chance to back up your words and bring something tangible to the discussion: Prove it only affects the uber-rich millionairs by providing a link to the actual plan, prove that it only affects 1% (now up to 2% for you), and prove that it doesn't hurt those who are defined as rich by the current admin, but most certainly aren't. If you're not up for it, which I can bet you aren't, just stop already.
I'm going to sleep now. You have 7 hours to google your opinion.
Another straw man. Nobody wants people to suffer. I regret posting this because you'll probably focus on that and ignore the stuff above.
No I won't shut the fuck up, not going to just shut the middle class down by trying to tell them to shutup. What I am saying is basically the truth, I don't feel like taking time to google facts about this, it isn't worth my time, I know I am right about the percentage it will affect generally.
-
It's class warfare. Obamas a scum sucking leach tiny tit.
If you really think people making 200k a year are dieing for tax breaks end yourself. You live in the land of make believe my friend.