The Goat Pen

Jungle Rat wrote:

Hacksaw wrote:Yeah, because Obama's done such a greeeat job, he so deserves another term.

He's dug himself our of GWBs escape tunnel. Stop crying about it already.

Yes, he inherited a hole and he has continued to dig -- only at a much more rapid pace. Good analogy.

"Public school (although socialized) had nothing to DO with what we today, call socialism."

No, it has nothing to do with you YOU call socialism, b/c you have benefited from it, you didn't want to pay to send your kids to school, so you availed yourself of the socialist option of sending them to public school. Typically hypocritical, since you helped yourself to it, YOU don't call it socialism. But it is, and you're a socialist...

puterbac wrote:Poor ed...

U guys should revere W. The fing tax code got MORE progressive after his tax cuts net less.

The bottom 50% pay less and the top 50% pay more and the top 1, and 2, and 5, and 10 pay more than they did as a share of all taxes.

Puterboortz, sorry to hear about your retirement.

Why only include income taxes when you present cherry picked data?

puterbac wrote:If you could get corp AND union money out of the equation and it was just individual donors with the 2k or whatever the limit is, maybe.

Would PAC's be around in your scenario?

I am a bit leery because money is speech.

And as we continue to become a country of 50%+ who pays no fed income taxes and who collects payments from the feds we will have fewer and fewer people who have skin in the game and who will give a shit about taxes, debt, etc. We become more like Greece. Right now money you hate is an equalizer of sorts to the money that the Feds dole out in search of votes.

All big money out, keep the limit at 2K for all.

No PAC, and that has nothing to do with free speech.

Why only bother with income taxes, why not include all taxes in your data?

hedge wrote:"Public school (although socialized) had nothing to DO with what we today, call socialism."

No, it has nothing to do with you YOU call socialism, b/c you have benefited from it, you didn't want to pay to send your kids to school, so you availed yourself of the socialist option of sending them to public school. Typically hypocritical, since you helped yourself to it, YOU don't call it socialism. But it is, and you're a socialist...

Wrong. I pay for public school. It's called property taxes and the largest sum of said taxes goes to the county for our school system.

I also paid to send my daughter to private school.

This makes me anti-social???????

Hacksaw wrote:

Jungle Rat wrote:

Hacksaw wrote:Yeah, because Obama's done such a greeeat job, he so deserves another term.

He's dug himself our of GWBs escape tunnel. Stop crying about it already.

Yes, he inherited a hole and he has continued to dig -- only at a much more rapid pace. Good analogy.

Yet a repub governor, who inherited a mess from a dem has his state almost in the black....

...except that the $3.6 billion deficit Walker inherited has disappeared and property taxes have declined.

GBJs wrote:

hedge wrote:"Public school (although socialized) had nothing to DO with what we today, call socialism."

No, it has nothing to do with you YOU call socialism, b/c you have benefited from it, you didn't want to pay to send your kids to school, so you availed yourself of the socialist option of sending them to public school. Typically hypocritical, since you helped yourself to it, YOU don't call it socialism. But it is, and you're a socialist...

Wrong. I pay for public school. It's called property taxes and the largest sum of said taxes goes to the county for our school system.

I also paid to send my daughter to private school.

This makes me anti-social???????

What you pay in property taxes is woefully short of what it costs to educate a child. The vast amount is funded by property and sales taxes generated by businesses and federal money mostly coming from taxing the affluent. You all are welcome.

Hacksaw wrote:

bluetick wrote:Through the years Obama has personally certified on at least a hundred documents that he was born in the U.S. He states in his 1995 autobiography that he was born in Hawaii in 1961. The state of Hawaii confirmed that fact in an extraordinary release of his birth certificate 14 months ago (to quell the 'carnival barkers' such as Trump, as oprama put it).

If anybody here knows of a further course of action the prez can take to molify you and your fellow birthers, then let's hear it.

It's official...'tick has a serious reading comprehension problem.

How plain could you be - you said obama lied about his birthplace. Your logic may be a little different than that of the average kooky birther, but your claim is every bit as unproven and unsupported. Unless you can get people to sit still for your 'breitbart-pamphlet' explanation, you'd be wise to dummy up about oprama's place of origin. Just sayin'..

"That guy over there...well spoken, knows sports. Great ass. But I heard he's one of those birthers."

Heh...just like your annointed lord and savior, Barrack Hussein Obama, you just don't know when to stop digging.

I don't even have kids, and yet I'm expected to support Hack and puter's kids by sending them thru school. Talk about a welfare state. Oh wait, it's only welfare if it's somebody else getting it, but when Hack and puter and GBJ benefit from it, it's OK...

I think Hack home schools.

They're brainwashing us and trying to sap our natural essence. Believe it.

This is the thing about socialism. They never do it to you all in one fell swoop. They get you to agree to one thing, because it sounds reasonable, and then they use that as a justification for the next thing they want to take over -- regardless of whether it sounds reasonable, or not.

And yes, I've paid a lot more into the public school system than my kids ever got out of it. And I spent my own money to pay for their schooling while I simultaneusly paid for other peoples' kids with my tax money. I would have loved to somehow opt into some kind of voucher system, but the teachers' unions and the dem pols they carry around in their collective pocket will never allow that.

Op Ed wrote:

puterbac wrote:Poor ed...

U guys should revere W. The fing tax code got MORE progressive after his tax cuts net less.

The bottom 50% pay less and the top 50% pay more and the top 1, and 2, and 5, and 10 pay more than they did as a share of all taxes.

Puterboortz, sorry to hear about your retirement.

Why only include income taxes when you present cherry picked data?

Umm because those are the taxes that were changed?

Its not cherry picked. Federal Income taxes are what was changed. This made the federal income tax more progressive not less. Hence liberals should be camped out on W's porch with their W knee pads.

puterbac wrote:

Op Ed wrote:

puterbac wrote:Poor ed...

U guys should revere W. The fing tax code got MORE progressive after his tax cuts net less.

The bottom 50% pay less and the top 50% pay more and the top 1, and 2, and 5, and 10 pay more than they did as a share of all taxes.

Puterboortz, sorry to hear about your retirement.

Why only include income taxes when you present cherry picked data?

Umm because those are the taxes that were changed?

Its not cherry picked. Federal Income taxes are what was changed. This made the federal income tax more progressive not less. Hence liberals should be camped out on W's porch with their W knee pads.

The states are increasing consumption taxes to make up fro the loss of revenue.

And if you don't include consumption tax revenue in your data, you ARE using misleading data.

Hacksaw wrote:This is the thing about socialism. They never do it to you all in one fell swoop. They get you to agree to one thing, because it sounds reasonable, and then they use that as a justification for the next thing they want to take over -- regardless of whether it sounds reasonable, or not.

Other than corporate socialism, where do you see increases in socialism in America?

I'll give Obama his due when it comes to his continuation of George W. Bush's policy of going after Al Qaeda terrorists. Fortunately for me, I am confident that Romney will be just as resolute.

But kudos to our current President for having at least one thing he can point to that he hasn't totally screwed-up.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/05/opinion/b ... ?hpt=hp_c1

What a shocker...

REPORT: 119% VOTER TURNOUT IN MADISON, WI

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... in-madison

Lord...So women have no shot without govt...

http://freebeacon.com/jill-and-michelle ... hout-govt/

Vice President Joe Biden said Tuesday that his wife, as well as the wife of President Barack Obama, would have had “no chance” in life had it not been for government help. According to vice presidential pool reports:

Vice President Biden met with leaders from 10 colleges this afternoon to kick off a new effort to increase transparency in financial aid packages. …

“I know, literally, Barack and I talk about it. Neither one of us would have had any shot,” Biden said. “The same with our wives. Both wives are smarter than both of us. Literally, these very accomplished women would not have any chance without some help.”

I actually agree with Biden. If it hadn't been for voters giving them cushy gigs as high-paid government officials, he and Obama probably would not have been cut-out to make an honest living in the real world. Same thing can be said for many politicians.