Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
I am actually embarrassed for you bro...
47% of Tea Baggers dont pay federal taxes hypocrisy insues
- Thread starter ThatGuy113
- Start date
CrackerJax
New Member
That's nice.... but only one of us reads three financial newspapers a day.....
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Only one of us only does a lot of things a day... and it sure doesn't involve reality...
CrackerJax
New Member
No worries here..... pick a subject ... any subject.
Since I follow actual data and not emotion.... it will be easy.
Paddy would be surprised to find out all that I do in a day..... $$$$
Since I follow actual data and not emotion.... it will be easy.
Paddy would be surprised to find out all that I do in a day..... $$$$
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
If Cracker was actually interested in a real debate, I'd be all for it, but he's not. All the guy wants to do is argue against anything left of center.
That and he resorts to the old "Nazi, Socialist, Fascist, Communist, Terrorist, Progressive, Liberal, Democrat" label and generalization tactic.
I think it would just be a waste of time. I've tried to have a few different discussions with him in particular, but it almost always dissolves into; A claim is made, it's challenged with actual facts and sources or reliable accounts of history, then Cracker comes back with remarks about how we're just uneducated to the actual facts, only he can see the reality and the rest of us are all going by nothing but emotion... Filled with a constant condescending overtone and smug egocentric undertone. The guys a political hack for the GOP, and it's obvious as fuck to anyone who reads these political threads. Abe just got done serving Cracker exactly what he needed in this thread https://www.rollitup.org/politics/325282-nuclear-weaponry-7.html.All the evil in the world is because of the left or liberal policies and conservatives can do absolutely no wrong and have always constantly been right about everything all throughout human history.
That and he resorts to the old "Nazi, Socialist, Fascist, Communist, Terrorist, Progressive, Liberal, Democrat" label and generalization tactic.
I think it would just be a waste of time. I've tried to have a few different discussions with him in particular, but it almost always dissolves into; A claim is made, it's challenged with actual facts and sources or reliable accounts of history, then Cracker comes back with remarks about how we're just uneducated to the actual facts, only he can see the reality and the rest of us are all going by nothing but emotion... Filled with a constant condescending overtone and smug egocentric undertone. The guys a political hack for the GOP, and it's obvious as fuck to anyone who reads these political threads. Abe just got done serving Cracker exactly what he needed in this thread https://www.rollitup.org/politics/325282-nuclear-weaponry-7.html.All the evil in the world is because of the left or liberal policies and conservatives can do absolutely no wrong and have always constantly been right about everything all throughout human history.
brothafromanothaplanet
Well-Known Member
great assessment!
hanimmal
Well-Known Member
I really don't like that nobody ever really stops to think what there lives would be like if we did not pay taxes and all the things we actually are able to enjoy as a society because our elders paid their taxes and worked hard to make our lives better, and when we pay taxes it is simply our turn to do so, this way the next generations can have the same benefits we have had.
Our government with all of its faults has done much to make us much more efficient than we would be. Can you imagine all of us fighting to spend money the way we want so that we don't work together to build roads, and better schools or better technologies because there is no immediate return on our investments, or we would not see any benefit from it?
There are so many ways it can improve our and it's efficiency, but we all have benefitted so much from the collaboration the government tells us we must do.
And instead of bitching about less taxes, we should be demanding better uses of our taxes with better understanding of the direction they are all working towards.
Our government with all of its faults has done much to make us much more efficient than we would be. Can you imagine all of us fighting to spend money the way we want so that we don't work together to build roads, and better schools or better technologies because there is no immediate return on our investments, or we would not see any benefit from it?
There are so many ways it can improve our and it's efficiency, but we all have benefitted so much from the collaboration the government tells us we must do.
And instead of bitching about less taxes, we should be demanding better uses of our taxes with better understanding of the direction they are all working towards.
Banditt
Well-Known Member
CrackerJax
New Member
Because most things left of center when dealing with economics HURTS the country.
hanimmal
Well-Known Member
lol ok, i read that, and it is false, and untrue.
1. The Fed are banks, what they are not is a commercial bank, we cannot place a deposit into the Fed, only banks can.
2. Somehow they are overpaid? The Fed employees can make much more money in the private sector.
3. What she is saying they do (by lending the government a bunch of money) is wrong and illegal, the Fed cannot issue or purchase new securities from the government. What they can do however is buy and sell existing securities from banks or firms that have already purchased them.
Very different. See the Treasury sells the newly issues treasuries to the people or firms (people have to choose to purchase them), not the Fed (Because it is illegal for the Fed to buy or sell directly from the Treasury).
Oh this is funny too:
I think it was a university in California that was the first to operate a internet connection. And I think it would be very hard pressed to show how americans have not greatly benefitted from this government spending.
Anyway maybe I do need to read more (I read a lot) but it is not all about quantity, you should concern yourself more with the quality of the information you read.
Even someone's economic system you have said before is a great mind (Milton Friedman) "Monaterist Economics" is virtually identical to the Keynsian system (that for some reason you deem "Left economics" in all aspects except Keynesian system does not have an assumption that the economy is always at full employment.
False.
1. The Fed are banks, what they are not is a commercial bank, we cannot place a deposit into the Fed, only banks can.
2. Somehow they are overpaid? The Fed employees can make much more money in the private sector.
3. What she is saying they do (by lending the government a bunch of money) is wrong and illegal, the Fed cannot issue or purchase new securities from the government. What they can do however is buy and sell existing securities from banks or firms that have already purchased them.
Very different. See the Treasury sells the newly issues treasuries to the people or firms (people have to choose to purchase them), not the Fed (Because it is illegal for the Fed to buy or sell directly from the Treasury).
Oh this is funny too:
I like the short sightedness (and intended stupidity of the people she is trying to sell this idea to) to not realize how much benefit we have had from this 'sweat of the little guy'.
I think it was a university in California that was the first to operate a internet connection. And I think it would be very hard pressed to show how americans have not greatly benefitted from this government spending.
Anyway maybe I do need to read more (I read a lot) but it is not all about quantity, you should concern yourself more with the quality of the information you read.
You have failed to provide any logic behind this idea you have trapped into your head CJ. This is utterly false, and provably false, but you fail to realize it.
Even someone's economic system you have said before is a great mind (Milton Friedman) "Monaterist Economics" is virtually identical to the Keynsian system (that for some reason you deem "Left economics" in all aspects except Keynesian system does not have an assumption that the economy is always at full employment.
CrackerJax
New Member
Number 2 is blatantly false. Fed jobs pay more than the private for the same type of work. Why not.... the money they pay them isn't EARNED.... so it is wasted.
Banditt
Well-Known Member
ink the world
Well-Known Member
Good for you, your motivations are sincere and thank you for answering my question.I was out there, ink. In fact, I challenged my Congressman at his town-hall meeting to point out in the consitution, especially in view of the 10th Amendment, where he derived the authority to institute HILLARY CARE in the states.
Where were you? I didn't see you at that particular meeting.
hanimmal
Well-Known Member
Do you not think that banks are private corporations?
See above for the stupidity of this.
What? Did you even read what that twit said the Fed does?
Here it is again:
The only currency that the Fed deals in is when they buy or sell EXISTING securities from or to banks. That interest, you do get that it is the yields on the current bonds they are holding right? And that at the end of the day the Fed is the only government entity (quasi government or not) that actually turns profits (which they give to the government at the end of the year).
If we forced every government entity to have to operate as a business and operate at zero economic costs to society it would be super efficient.
But it is a shame that nobody actually understands this, and just falls back on 'they are out to get me' logic.
Banditt
Well-Known Member
"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men." -Woodrow Wilson, after signing the Federal Reserve into existence
CrackerJax
New Member
Once again.... Han shows he doesn't know what he's talking about...and yet is CONVINCED he's right!!! 
Over & over again.... everything is a surprise...
here you go... hooboy!!
Want to get rich? Work for feds
Examiner Editorial
April 29, 2010
Data shows the pay gap between state and local government and private sector workers. (Chris Edwards/Cato Institute)
For decades, public sector unions have peddled the fantasy that government employees were paid less than their counterparts in the private sector. In fact, the pay disparity is the other way around. Government workers, especially at the federal level, make salaries that are scandalously higher than those paid to private sector workers. And let's not forget private sector workers not only have to be sufficiently productive to earn their paychecks, they also must pay the taxes that support the more generous jobs in the public sector.
Data compiled by the Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis reveals the extent of the pay gap between federal and private workers. As of 2008, the average federal salary was $119,982, compared with $59,909 for the average private sector employee. In other words, the average federal bureaucrat makes twice as much as the average working taxpayer. Add the value of benefits like health care and pensions, and the gap grows even bigger. The average federal employee's benefits add $40,785 to his annual total compensation, whereas the average working taxpayer's benefits increase his total compensation by only $9,881. In other words, federal workers are paid on average salaries that are twice as generous as those in the private sector, and they receive benefits that are four times greater.
The situation is the same when state and local government compensation data is compared with that of the private sector. As the Cato Institute's Chris Edwards notes in the current issue of the Cato Journal, "The public sector pay advantage is most pronounced in benefits. Bureau of Economic Analysis data show that average compensation in the private sector was $59,909 in 2008, including $50,028 in wages and $9,881 in benefits. Average compensation in the public sector was $67,812, including $52,051 in wages and $15,761 in benefits." Those figures likely underestimate the true gap on the benefits side because the typical government employee gets a guaranteed defined benefit pension under very generous terms, while the private sector norm is a 401(K) defined contribution plan that is subject to the ups and downs of the economy.
With the federal deficit and national debt heading into the stratosphere, taxpayers can no longer afford to support such lucrative government compensation. Public sector pay and benefits at all levels should be reduced to make it comparable to the wages and benefits earned by the average working taxpayer. The first politician to propose a five-year plan for this purpose is likely to be cheered mightily by taxpayers.!
Over & over again.... everything is a surprise...
here you go... hooboy!!
Want to get rich? Work for feds
Examiner Editorial
April 29, 2010
Data shows the pay gap between state and local government and private sector workers. (Chris Edwards/Cato Institute)
For decades, public sector unions have peddled the fantasy that government employees were paid less than their counterparts in the private sector. In fact, the pay disparity is the other way around. Government workers, especially at the federal level, make salaries that are scandalously higher than those paid to private sector workers. And let's not forget private sector workers not only have to be sufficiently productive to earn their paychecks, they also must pay the taxes that support the more generous jobs in the public sector.
Data compiled by the Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis reveals the extent of the pay gap between federal and private workers. As of 2008, the average federal salary was $119,982, compared with $59,909 for the average private sector employee. In other words, the average federal bureaucrat makes twice as much as the average working taxpayer. Add the value of benefits like health care and pensions, and the gap grows even bigger. The average federal employee's benefits add $40,785 to his annual total compensation, whereas the average working taxpayer's benefits increase his total compensation by only $9,881. In other words, federal workers are paid on average salaries that are twice as generous as those in the private sector, and they receive benefits that are four times greater.
The situation is the same when state and local government compensation data is compared with that of the private sector. As the Cato Institute's Chris Edwards notes in the current issue of the Cato Journal, "The public sector pay advantage is most pronounced in benefits. Bureau of Economic Analysis data show that average compensation in the private sector was $59,909 in 2008, including $50,028 in wages and $9,881 in benefits. Average compensation in the public sector was $67,812, including $52,051 in wages and $15,761 in benefits." Those figures likely underestimate the true gap on the benefits side because the typical government employee gets a guaranteed defined benefit pension under very generous terms, while the private sector norm is a 401(K) defined contribution plan that is subject to the ups and downs of the economy.
With the federal deficit and national debt heading into the stratosphere, taxpayers can no longer afford to support such lucrative government compensation. Public sector pay and benefits at all levels should be reduced to make it comparable to the wages and benefits earned by the average working taxpayer. The first politician to propose a five-year plan for this purpose is likely to be cheered mightily by taxpayers.!
When I look back at one defining moment that puts our country in its current situation, I think of Wilson signing off on the Fed.
Also, I am not so sure if there is really as much of a correlation between the Teabaggers who earn <$50,000 and the 47% of Americans who do not pay taxes as some people in this thread like to think. I understand that 47% percents of Americans do not pay taxes. However, there are far too many variables among that group to fairly say that 47% of tea baggers must also not pay taxes. These variables include: do they have legally earned income, or do they live off of the government (the taxpayers), do they have untaxed illegal income, or they retired and on SSI or some other benefits, are they even of tax paying age, are they homeless? There are so many reasons why that group does not pay taxes. But if you look closely at the tea baggers, I believe you will find that the vast majority of them have jobs, have homes, pay taxes and are otherwise productive members of society.
Note: I do not endorse the tea baggers in any manner what so ever; I am a libertarian in the truest since, but I had to play devils advocate.
Also, I am not so sure if there is really as much of a correlation between the Teabaggers who earn <$50,000 and the 47% of Americans who do not pay taxes as some people in this thread like to think. I understand that 47% percents of Americans do not pay taxes. However, there are far too many variables among that group to fairly say that 47% of tea baggers must also not pay taxes. These variables include: do they have legally earned income, or do they live off of the government (the taxpayers), do they have untaxed illegal income, or they retired and on SSI or some other benefits, are they even of tax paying age, are they homeless? There are so many reasons why that group does not pay taxes. But if you look closely at the tea baggers, I believe you will find that the vast majority of them have jobs, have homes, pay taxes and are otherwise productive members of society.
Note: I do not endorse the tea baggers in any manner what so ever; I am a libertarian in the truest since, but I had to play devils advocate.
CrackerJax
New Member
Of course.... ppl that simply leech off of society are politically Democrat. They saddle up to the party which throws money at them....for doing nothing.
I respect myself too much to EVER be a Democrat.
I respect myself too much to EVER be a Democrat.