Enough

[surefire]

Oct 29, 2008 8:24:40 GMT -5 JustMyOpinion said:

I'd say this is a good example of how the country is feeling right now. I've said until I'm blue in the finger tips we all need to find a way to unite in this country despite opposing views.

I agree that the country should be more united.

How will this happen when the leadership is at the far left (same argument would apply if it was at the far right), and most americans are centralists? (moderate left to moderate right)

Even my moderate left friends HATE Pelosi, Reed, and Feinswine. They are typically luke warm on Obama, but I think that will change once he breaks his promises, and turns this country into European socialism.

[bolverk]

Under that idiot Jimmy Carter, tax rates were actually 70% on all earnings over $108,300. Did you get that, 70% on all earnings over $108,300. Democrats really want people to get ahead. Even Kennedy knew the taxes were too high, unlike most Democrats, and he cut the rate from 89% to 76.5% and would have gone further.

Now lets look at the earnings and compare. That same $108,300 with 70% tax is wrong, if you had $108,300 in earnings in 1946 your tax rate was 89% but in future dollars to 1980 that same $108,300 would be equal to $457,636.92 in buying power. That means that $108,300 in 1980 only had a value of $25,629.25, which had a tax rate of 59%, so Jimmy Carter actually increased your taxes by 11%.

If you compare it to JFK the value of $108,300 in 1964, the year his tax cuts took effect, it was worth $40,743.93 in buynig power. That had a tax rate of 61%, so Jimmy Carter increased your taxes by 9% over Kennedy's tax cuts. Looking at Kennedy's taxes that same $108,300 in his time would have been taxed at 76.5%, which is slightly higher then Jimmy Carter, but it would have a value of $287,868.39 in 1980, which means Carter was taxing you higher on 62.4% of your income when he was President, when compared to Kennedy.

Reagan understood this, he was actually a working man. That is why his tax cut was so popular, because it stopped confiscatory taxes and simplified the tax rates. The very first year his top rate was 50% on earnings over $41,500 and the bottom rate was 0% up to $2,300. When you adjust for inflation you get a 50% rate on earnings over $94,088.03 and a 0% tax rate on earnings up to $5,214.52, which helps the poor. The funny thing is that 0% disappeared once the Democrats got control and it has steadily increased, until George W. Bush.

Democrats talk a good game, but the simple fact is they are in it for your money. They are all liars and cheats. They want to tell me how to best spend my dollars? Screw that. There has been two brave men that really tried to lower taxes. And a bunch of idiots who tried to convince everyone it was good for them to pay more in taxes. The funny thing is, even with all the evidence to the contrary, those idiots have convinced people like you that they should be in charge. And it is all because you are to damn lazy to study the issues in any fashion.

[bolverk]

Not you surefire, this is directed a JMO.

[bolverk]

In 1939 the tax rate on money earned up to $4,000 was 4%.

That same $4,000 is valued at $62,959.14 today and taxed at 10% for $8,025, plus 15% on the amount of $24,525 and 25% on the remainder of $17,003.96. Taxes are (8,025*.1)+(24,525*.15)+(17,003.96*.25)=8,732.24

In Clinton's final year as President, 2000, that same $4,000 was worth $49,553.96 and taxed at 15% for the first $26,250 and 27.5% for the remainder of $23,303.96. Taxes are (26250*.15)+(23,303.96*.275)=10,346.09 or nearly $2000 more in taxes on less income. Imagine it being adjusted for inflation.

The Bush tax cuts help all earners making it the most fair system available. Heck, even if you did not adjust that $4,000 to modern values, taxes are still more equitable under Bush, since you would only pay 10% in taxes and not 15%, that is a savings of $200 without considering inflation adjustments. What is so hard for you progressive socialists to get?

[Mink]

JMO is one of the most, if not the most respectful and a level-headed member here. Since Big Dog mentions all Liberals in his comment, which she isn't, I'm guessing he is also targetting myself and saunterelle as well??

Regardless, I'm guessing this is his bridge to burn and his choice.
I find it interesting that he chose a response that Obama had chosen earlier in the race...."Enough!"

[JustMyOpinion]

Thank you Mink for your kind words.

[surefire]

I respect and admire all of the lefties on this board, including JMO, Mink, and saunterelle. While we have our disagreements on policy, I think they'll all good people.

[saunterelle]

Thanks surefire. I've always respected BigDog's intelligent, informed opinion even if I don't agree with it. It would be a shame to see him go.

[maxsawdust]

BD VERY UPSET TO SEE YOU GO.

See the thing here is you keep calling it HIS OPINION when the MAJORITY of his posts were FILLED TO THE RIM WITH VERIFIABLE FACTS. 99% of the TIME LINKED FOR YOU TO VERIFY ON YOUR OWN.

It's you lefties that spout non-sensical emotion based rubbish with ZERO I MEAN ZERO FACT BEHIND ANY OF IT.

If it were MERELY his opinions you were referring to I too would call him a baby for running off. But you CONTINUALLY IGNORE BLATANT VERIFIABLE FACTS..

Because you are delusional and "wish" to rewrite factual histories.

[subdjoe]

Max, facts and truth mean nothing to the progressives. They have a Higher Truth that guides them. They can 't be bothered with something like facts.

[Mink]

Big Dog has been a forum member for years and knows what to expect. A forum isn't just about producing facts. Most of what we discuss are our opinions and the sources we produce, support them. Sometimes we just rant or joke around, share stories, information......etc.

I won't call him a big baby, but I think this election has alot to do with his decision and I'm sorry to see him go. At the same time, I'm upset that he would target a respected forum member, JMO, and say it is an unarmed group that she doesn't claim, because of his own frustration.

[subdjoe]

Yeah, he knew what to expect. But I think the insistance by those who lean to the left that feelings and inuendo should trump reason and fact in establishing public policy got to him. The conservatives here post link after link to sites with verifiable facts, and we get emotional pablum back. Or bald faced lies passed on from sources like HuffPo or Kos. Of course, those are based on emotional pablum too.