Quote:
Originally Posted by Bkcloud114
That would require our politicians to do REAL work, something they aren't good at. :smiley36:
-Mike
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bkcloud114
That would require our politicians to do REAL work, something they aren't good at. :smiley36:
-Mike
Sean Penn is now the spokesperson for the Democratic Party? Guess I missed the memo.
I always get a kick out of the venom that conservatives spew about Hollywood....considering how starstruck Republicans become upon discovering a celebrity that embraces their view. A celebrity aligns him or herself with the party that bashes Hollywood as part of its platform and the Republicans are falling over each other to convince the said celebrity to run for higher office. Aside from President Ronald Reagan, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and NRA President Charlton Heston, the GOP has actively sought out Bo Derek, Dennis Miller and Kelsey Grammer to run for office in California. And notice the B-list celebrity lineup they trotted out at last year's convention (Rick Schroeder, Elizabeth from Survivor, and my personal favorite, Ron Silver).
And how about Britney Spears and Kid Rock? They're both Republicans! But they're also both in the bullseye of Republican culture warriors...or at least they were before they publicly supported George Bush. What's a conservative to do? Do they invite Kid Rock and Britney Spears to respectively run for the Mayor of Detroit and the Governor of Louisiana? Or do they quietly shift the focus off of Britney and on to a Democratic celebrity who wears too few clothes? Or do they distract the faithful simply by mentioning the name of Sean Penn and Michael Moore, instigating an instant culture war feeding frenzy and providing instant amnesia about the party's conflicting relationship with Hollywood.
:smiley36:Yeah, you missed the memo, it said: CAN'T YOU TAKE A F*CKING JOKE?!Quote:
Originally Posted by Amanda
Jesus Christ Amanda, this shit is just funny, lighten up. God, your head is going to explode! You are so dry it makes me want to kill myself. You know, you are like the H-bomb, everyones out having a good time, then you show up and everyone dies. :smiley36: Of course now that I've said that you'll say something like, "How can you make fun of the destruction the H-bomb causes, we should drop hugs instead." Or, "think of how many people we could feed with the money it costs to make 1 H-bomb." Man, it's just a joke, lighten up. You are the most up tight liberal I've ever come into contact with.
-Mike
Sorry Amanda but... you do.
reaganyouth, my post was intended for humor as well, which I would have thought would have been obvious. Iced-T, please point out one of the "lies" I've told.
A couple of popular tax misconceptions by both sides.
To the liberals:
Rich people do not pay less taxes. They generally have much more complex financial affairs and spend more money in more directions. If something they spend money on is tax deductible, it's worth their time to take advantage of it.
To the conservatives:
Going to a tax system where only sales tax is used and abolishing income tax would compltely screw the working class and poor. The less money you make, the higher a percentage of your income that you spend on goods and services. Therefore the higher a tax percentage you will pay.
To everyone:
The current system is pretty fair percentage-wise. After it's all said and done and the returns are given back, we (middle class) spend about %20 of our income on taxes. The rich pay few percent more, and the poor pay practically nothing.
Kenyth, I completely agree with you about a nationwide sales tax. Aside from its regressivity, it encourages thrift in an economy driven by consumption. If I have to pay 23% higher tax rates every time I go to purchase a car or a piece of furniture, I'm gonna buy fewer cars and less furniture. Furthermore, I can't envision a scenario where a sales tax on the selected items subjected to the tax would produce enough revenue to finance government. In fact, a black market would likely develop for goods whose prices would be artificially inflated by the national sales tax. There are so many things wrong with the supersized national sales tax idea that I could go on all day listing them.
As for the current tax structure being fair, times are changing quickly. Bear in mind that from the 1950s through the 1970's, the top tax rate was never lower than 70%. Today, it's 33%....and that's on top of recent revisions to further reduce the tax burden on stock holders, heirs and heiresses. Who gets to the pay the taxes that they're not? In the short term, smokers, homeowners and college students, all of whom are seeing "sin taxes," property taxes and college tuition rates soar far faster than the rate of inflation. In the long-term, the burden will fall on future generations who will see higher income tax rates necessary to finance national debt interest.
And keep in mind that this regressive restructuring of the tax code is occurring at a time when those seeing their taxes cut are also seeing their share of the national GDP soar, a dynamic that's been in place for about 30 years now. On the other hand, those seeing their taxes increase have largely been experiencing flatlined income growth over the same period. It's a system doomed to destroy itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amanda
Amanda i think its because of the raw, unreasonable hatred that many of the celebrities on the left display. Granted, there are some celebrities on the right that parrot their behavior, but almost all of the raw hatred I hear about is from the loony left. Plus, the vast majority of Hollywood types are leftish, liberal or downright socialist, so the squeaky wheel gets the grease as the saying goes.
[QUOTE=Amanda]Kenyth, I completely agree with you about a nationwide sales tax. Aside from its regressivity, it encourages thrift in an economy driven by consumption. If I have to pay 23% higher tax rates every time I go to purchase a car or a piece of furniture, I'm gonna buy fewer cars and less furniture.QUOTE]
Do you have any idea what that would do to our market, and economy if we cut back on what we purchase? Not only on a national level, but on a world wide level? Let's put it this way, it wouldn't be good.
-Mike
That's exactly the point I was making. If a supersized national sales tax becomes law and replaces the existing income tax, as an increasing chorus of primarily Republicans suggest it should, the higher prices of goods creates a huge disincentive for making purchases. Our economy is fueled by consumer spending, and such a tax promotes thrift.
We get mixed messages on this subject all the time. Take the days after 9-11, for instance, when our elected leaders encouraged us to do our part to help the economy by "spending" at the local mall and car dealership. Message: we can spend our way to financial prosperity. On the other hand, many of that same lawmakers have since lectured us on our dangerously low personal savings rate, accusing us of recklessly spending our way to personal bankruptcy and leaving ourselves high and dry for our retirement years. Problem is, we can't spend and save at the same time. The conventional wisdom is that we're now moving into a "saving period" where consumers are more like to pinch their pennies than buy big screen TV's. On the surface that sounds good, but an economy of savers is an economy without growth. Just ask the Japanese. There's no easy answers, but the worst-case solution, far as I can tell, is a national sales tax.