At least Rick Perry is entertaining

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List

This thread has been locked

Messages 141 - 160 of total 227 in this topic

<< First | < Previous | Show All | Next > | Last >>

S.Leeper

Sport climber

Pflugerville, Texas

Sep 14, 2011 - 01:23am PT

no comments? you know he's the repub front runner

Reilly

Mountain climber

The Other Monrovia- CA

Sep 14, 2011 - 01:26am PT

Perry's style reminds me of Charlie Wilson. The big difference is that
Charlie was honestly trying to do the right thing. Well, at least when
he wasn't packing his nose with coke.

S.Leeper

Sport climber

Pflugerville, Texas

Sep 14, 2011 - 01:54am PT

good observation Reilly.

healyje

Trad climber

Portland, Oregon

Sep 14, 2011 - 02:18am PT

Yep, what the world needs right now is another round of Texas cheer leading because it worked out so well last time.

guido

Trad climber

Santa Cruz/New Zealand/South Pacific

Sep 14, 2011 - 11:45am PT

Heard on the radio last night that Perry's Foreign Relation advisors include Rummie and Dougie Fife. Now both those Neocom fools should be locked up.

Reilly

Mountain climber

The Other Monrovia- CA

Sep 14, 2011 - 11:58am PT

Guido, now you're scaring me!
"There are known fools and unknown fools." Did I get that right?

Ken M

Mountain climber

Los Angeles, Ca

Sep 14, 2011 - 12:06pm PT

You know, Perry has the nomination locked up, if he can navigate the craziness he's said and written in the past. He's gotten through the debates, so far, without looking unPresidential.

His great attraction is his charm and plain-spokenness.

Romney is a far better candidate, has a far better mastery of issues. However, there is just something "salesmanlike" about him that people don't like. There is also the Mormon thing that is a problem for a percentage of people.

The rest are out of it, and running for VP.

So, as I see it right now, it is in Perry's hands entirely. I would imagine that it will come down a lot to who he has running the show behind him, the professionals, and whether he listens to them. Rollins is in Bachmann's camp, which was a good move for her, if she'd have listed to him. Will Perry?

August West

Trad climber

Where the wind blows strange

Sep 14, 2011 - 12:23pm PT

It wouldn't suprise me for Perry to get the nomination, but I still think Romney will get it.

According to polls, Perry currently looks as electable (against Obama) as Romney. As independent voters learn more about Perry, I think that will change and I think that will have some influence on republican primary voters.

Certainly Perry will continue to do well with the Tea party crowd, but I think the tide will turn against him down the road.

healyje

Trad climber

Portland, Oregon

Sep 14, 2011 - 02:19pm PT

One of the two tall white males is going to take it? Hot damn! Now that's a real surprise.

HighTraverse

Trad climber

Bay Area

Sep 14, 2011 - 02:26pm PT

And whichever tall white male it is, who will be the brainless, flashy, bible toting', dame VP candidate?

and don't get your knickers in a twist thinking I'm a misogynist (look that up in your Funk and Wagnalls). I could name several Republican and Democratic women who'd be a good VP. But they'd show up any of the current Repub male Pres candidates.

CrackAddict

Trad climber

Joshua Tree

Sep 14, 2011 - 02:46pm PT

Republicans SAY they stand for fiscal "responsibility", yet when in power they spend money and drive up the national debt at a rate MUCH higher than Democrats.

Republicans SAY they stand for "less government" and "personal responsibility", yet they
want to pass MORE big government legislation to tell people who they can marry and who they cannot can and cannot give birth to.

Republicans SAY they want "smaller government", yet when they are in power they grow the size of the Federal government and use no "pay as you go" to fund their pet programs.

Republicans SAY they are "all about jobs", yet after eight months in control of the House they have passed ZERO "jobs" legislation, while managing to focus on the huge issues of defunding Planned Parenthood and National Public Radio.

That is why the Tea Party came about, but unfortunately they are being hijacked by the religious right in much the same way the environmental movement was hijacked by the left. The Tea Party should be embracing Ron Paul, not Bachman/Palin, etc.

CrackAddict

Trad climber

Joshua Tree

Sep 14, 2011 - 02:50pm PT

And this is just Federal income tax, if you look at Total Tax Burden the figures are much, much worse. Add to that the fact that it is so much easier to legally dodge taxes if you have the resources, a great example being Bush senior who lived in Maine but maintained an apartment in Texas.
In America we have a total tax system that is deeply regressive, its not even remotely close to being progressive.

This is the usual argument made by fiscal liberals, there is one problem with it - it is not true. That is why you never see numbers to back it up. We have the most progressive system in the world - Sweden and Norway have much flatter taxes.

If your arguments are correct, explain how the richest 1% pays 42% of income taxes while the poorest 51% pays nothing.

Elcapinyoazz

Social climber

Joshua Tree

Sep 14, 2011 - 03:32pm PT

If your arguments are correct, explain how the richest 1% pays 42% of income taxes while the poorest 51% pays nothing.

Do you undestand the difference between "Total Tax Burden" and the simplistic fraction thereof called "income tax"?.

This trope is a very tired, oft repeated talking point of the right..."the rich pay all the income taxes"...well, yes, by design the income tax is assessed on income above a certain level. Hence the individual std deduction, etc. Further, it ignores the percent of total income that 1% earns.

All the people you are whining about "paying nothing" in fact pay plenty of taxes. Sales taxes, payroll taxes, medicare taxes, social security taxes, property taxes, gasoline taxes, etc, etc, etc.

Your "argument" such as it is, is tired, inaccurate, and frankly exposes you as either a simple parrot of talking points or a disingenuous liar...which is it?

CrackAddict

Trad climber

Joshua Tree

Sep 14, 2011 - 05:04pm PT

All the people you are whining about "paying nothing" in fact pay plenty of taxes. Sales taxes, payroll taxes, medicare taxes, social security taxes, property taxes, gasoline taxes, etc, etc, etc.

Your "argument" such as it is, is tired, inaccurate, and frankly exposes you as either a simple parrot of talking points or a disingenuous liar...which is it?

Again, typical arguments from the left - lots of vague words and insults but no facts to back you up. I am only arguing about income taxes here because they are the biggest block of government revenue (53%). Here is a nice chart that summarizes the numbers:

Look at this graph carefully - it flies in the face of your mindless, droning mantra "the rich should pay their fair share of taxes". In fact, if you can repeat that mantra again in light of this graph you must be a liar or you have the IQ of a carrot. Which is it?

Sure, the poor pay pay the other taxes you mention, but proportionately less also - the rich also pay disproportionately high property taxes (naturally), capital gains taxes (I don't know many poor people who pay these), social security and medicare taxes (getting far less than they pay in for these programs to subsidize the poor), and you forgot to mention state taxes - the bottom 50% pay almost none of these either in most states.

If you want to show some REAL numbers that demonstrate that the TOTAL tax burden on the rich vs. the poor is dramatically different from the income tax burden, feel free to do so. But don't call me a liar if you can't disprove the numbers I show.

August West

Trad climber

Where the wind blows strange

Sep 14, 2011 - 06:30pm PT

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxday2010.pdf

Lowest 20% $ 12,400 3.5% 1.9%
Second 20% 25,000 7.1% 5.0%
Middle 20% 40,400 11.6% 10.2%
Fourth 20% 66,000 18.9% 18.9%
Next 10% 100,000 14.3% 15.2%
Next 5% 141,000 10.2% 11.2%
Next 4% 245,000 14.2% 15.8%
Top 1% 1,328,000 20.4% 22.1%

CA, the rich don't pay more when you look at all taxes. (Being too lazy to imbed figures, but the link is above)

The poorest 20% have 3.5% of the income and pay just under 2% of all taxes in the US. Everybody else pays proportional to their income. The richest 1% may pay 37% of Federal income tax but they only pay 22% of all taxes (and it is the total tax take that matters to your wallet, where ever it comes from), which matches up with their 20% take of all income. The next to bottom 20% have an income of 7.1% and pay 5%.

(And why do the tabs work fine in the preview but not the actual post?)

Elcapinyoazz

Social climber

Joshua Tree

Sep 14, 2011 - 07:03pm PT

I am only arguing about income taxes here because they are the biggest block of government revenue

No, you are only arguing income taxes because it's the only way you can come up with a completely disingenuous talking point saying the rich pay all the taxes.

See ^^^^ post on tax burden showing a very mildly progressive tax system. Your fantasy that the bottom half pay no taxes is complete and utter tripe. So which is it, ignorant talking point parrot or disingenuous liar?

CrackAddict

Trad climber

Joshua Tree

Sep 14, 2011 - 09:18pm PT

Here is their data graphically:

I dunno, looks pretty progressive to me. The last 4 columns should really be rolled into one, so it is correctly scaled on the x axis. If that were the case you would see a very strong progression. The authors displayed it this way to make it appear there is a significant drop off in the higher brackets.

If anyone is "not paying their fair share" - it is the lower and middle classes. Sure, they make less money, but everyone needs to bear the cost of government - we all receive the benefits, so tipping the costs towards one class creates an unstable system.

At any rate, if the government wants to increase revenue (which is Obama's point when he says "the rich need to pay their share"), they are not going to get it by taxing the rich more though. Look at this graph:

Wealth is more mobile than ever - it will just leave the country, taking plenty of jobs along with it. In addition the wealthy can hire lawyers, tax advisors, etc. Even if this weren't true, the numbers are not on your side. Taking 100% of the income from those making over 200K would pay down only 10% of our debt. And you while you can shear a sheep many times, you can only skin it once.

So if the government wants more revenue, it has to come from the masses.