ptown_trojans_1;1075263 wrote:I must have missed that one. I remember Iraq by 2011, but not Afghanistan by 2011.
The goal was left up in the air, then 2014ish.

From factcheck.org...

Obama, December 2009: "But taken together, these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011."

OK I meant START the withdrawal. :rolleyes:

ptown_trojans_1;1075263 wrote:I must have missed that one. I remember Iraq by 2011, but not Afghanistan by 2011.
The goal was left up in the air, then 2014ish.

From factcheck.org...

Obama, December 2009: "But taken together, these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011."

OK it was post-campaign and I meant START the withdrawal. :rolleyes:

believer;1075318 wrote:From factcheck.org...



OK it was post-campaign and I meant START the withdrawal. :rolleyes:

Ah yeah the West Point Speech. Yeah, I'm with ya now.
In that speech, came the 2014ish timeframe.

No wonder most on OC can't stand the political boards.

You effin dolt...One last fukcing time. What Obama did in the past has nothing to do with what he stated in his speach. What the hell is wrong with you? Learn to read or GTFO. We are not talking about his jobs expansion through government expansion. Are you that goddamed illiterate?

C'mon wedge...if there is a reason people can't stand the political boards, it's because of that kind of stuff you just posted.

Am I interested in what Obama is proposing? Sure....I just don't find him to be believeable. As the election approaches, he's moving towards the center trying to pick up votes from moderates...and I find it duplicious this late in the game. Even as the words come out of his mouth, he's nixing Keystone and talking of taxing oil companies.

HitsRus;1075335 wrote:C'mon wedge...if there is a reason people can't stand the political boards, it's because of that kind of stuff you just posted.

Am I interested in what Obama is proposing? Sure....I just don't find him to be believeable. As the election approaches, he's moving towards the center trying to pick up votes from moderates...and I find it duplicious this late in the game. Even as the words come out of his mouth, he's nixing Keystone and talking of taxing oil companies.

spot on

HitsRus;1075335 wrote:C'mon wedge...if there is a reason people can't stand the political boards, it's because of that kind of stuff you just posted.

Am I interested in what Obama is proposing? Sure....I just don't find him to be believeable. As the election approaches, he's moving towards the center trying to pick up votes from moderates...and I find it duplicious this late in the game. Even as the words come out of his mouth, he's nixing Keystone and talking of taxing oil companies.

You are right. I came on to edit my name calling and did. I owe Gut an apology. And I do apologize. If you would remove my name calling here, it would be greatly appreciated.

HitsRus;1075335 wrote:Am I interested in what Obama is proposing? Sure....I just don't find him to be believeable. As the election approaches, he's moving towards the center trying to pick up votes from moderates...and I find it duplicious this late in the game. .

Offering tax credits for remaining in the US...and issuing tax penalties for moving offshore is hardly "moving to the center". It's never been done....and never been offered. The reason for my meltdown was because nobody wanted to comment on his plan. Just bash the president and call him a liar. That, by definition...is partisan politics at it's finest.

If that is what political boards are for...only political sounding boards for the extreme left...or the extreme right....then have fun Hits. I want no part of it.

I apologize to Gut...and to anyone else that I offended here today. I was way out of line in the name calling. I can't promise that I'll never get heated up again, but I promise to never break the rules again here either.

Footwedge;1075438 wrote:I apologize to Gut...and to anyone else that I offended here today. I was way out of line in the name calling. I can't promise that I'll never get heated up again, but I promise to never break the rules again here either.

reps.

wedge...I'm not on here that much...only when I have something to say. I consider myself a conservative leaning moderate....and it seems that it's open season on them. If BHO had come out with this 2 years ago, I might be impressed....sure, I want to look at that...but at this point I want someone else who might be more reliable to deliver.

Footwedge;1075275 wrote:what is so hard to understand here sleuth? You grant tax incentives to build shist here and you penalize those corporations who want to build shist "there"?

...It comes down to this. You want to continue to see the wealth sent offshore...whereby our own private sector jobs are slashed...with labor costs fixed below Adam Smith's "free hand" ( not to mention government dumping, lax safety and environmental laws") and the continual downgrade of our living standard...or do you want to accept the challenge facing us and tell China and Japan (yeah the Japs own obout a trillion of our debt too) to play ball the way the markets were intended to be played?

So Obama states....for the first time EVER....that American fiscal/tax policies will even the playing field from these insidious cheating coscksuckers, robbing our citizenry from our rightful economic growth and rightful piece of the exconomic pie.

Because raising taxes is not "evening the playing field". America has like the second highest corporate tax rates (marginal) in the world, and many are talking about how this is uncompetitive. Other countries are slashing corporate rates while Obama talks out of both sides of his mouth. Do you not see how raising rates here, and then offering "incentives" to lower them doesn't create any net incentive? You do realize those overseas earnings are only taxed when repatriated, so this is a policy that simply isn't going to work. It's a fundamentally opposed approach, and it will fail because Obama doesn't understand how businesses and economics work.

What the liberal class warfarists don't get is the govt can't make the American worker competitive with cheaper and equally talented global labor. Taxes are a horribly inefficient way to try and balance that equation. The goal here seems to be to make the corporations and the wealthier poorer, because you just ain't going to prop-up the lower/middle class via taxes. And ultimately choosing the greater of two evils leaves America weaker and less economically secure. If you want to be like France or Italy or Greece, go for it.

The one thing Obama has done that I agree (execution aside) with is try to push green jobs. But really it's just alternative energy - that's the 21st/22nd century "oil boom". The country that dominates alternative energy will be the dominant economic power.

Footwedge;1075290 wrote:...One last fukcing time. What Obama did in the past has nothing to do with what he stated in his speach.

Sooooo.....Fool me once....Fool me twice....Fool me three times....

Footwedge;1075275 wrote: So Obama states....for the first time EVER....that American fiscal/tax policies will even the playing field from these insidious cheating coscksuckers, robbing our citizenry from our rightful economic growth and rightful piece of the exconomic pie.

And I don't understand what so impresses you about this. It's not unique or insightful or brilliant - it's just a tariff in a different form. Typical protectionist, anti-free trade BS that bubbles up from time to time from the left in the class warfare game. Whether you put a tax on the price directly, or indirectly by arbitrarily propping-up the costs of those goods, the net effect is the same = tariff.

The one thing Obama has done that I agree (execution aside) with is try to push green jobs. But really it's just alternative energy - that's the 21st/22nd century "oil boom". The country that dominates alternative energy will be the dominant economic power.

I think energy is they key that drives everything, including our foreign policy. Keeping it cheap and plentiful for economy is key. That said "green" energy", while important, should not be the exclusive source. Nuclear technology and clean coal technology should also be pushed. That's where I disagree fundamentally with BHO, in that he is using the government and its ability to facilitate development to reward his environmental friends while blocking that same ability for his political enemies. Too much arbitrary picking and choosing...most of which is politcally based.

HitsRus;1075619 wrote:I think energy is they key that drives everything, including our foreign policy. Keeping it cheap and plentiful for economy is key. That said "green" energy", while important, should not be the exclusive source. Nuclear technology and clean coal technology should also be pushed. That's where I disagree fundamentally with BHO, in that he is using the government and its ability to facilitate development to reward his environmental friends while blocking that same ability for his political enemies. Too much arbitrary picking and choosing...most of which is politcally based.

You're correct. I really meant alternative energy more than green energy (the two tend to get confused and, as you point out, they are not equivalent). And of course you're also right that it's more than that, including nuclear as well.

We're sitting on a ridiculous amount of natural gas and coal (coal-to-gas tech) that we could literally be energy independent for the next 200 years, but the global warming hoax means it's off the table because of the carbon emissions.

gut;1075899 wrote:You're correct. I really meant alternative energy more than green energy (the two tend to get confused and, as you point out, they are not equivalent). And of course you're also right that it's more than that, including nuclear as well.

We're sitting on a ridiculous amount of natural gas and coal (coal-to-gas tech) that we could literally be energy independent for the next 200 years, but the global warming hoax means it's off the table because of the carbon emissions.

I'm not for putting all that smog in the air. Global warming myth or truth, adding that much crap to the air is not good. See LA smog or smog in China now.

ptown_trojans_1;1075916 wrote:I'm not for putting all that smog in the air. Global warming myth or truth, adding that much crap to the air is not good. See LA smog or smog in China now.

I'm confident China's air quality regulations are virtually non-existent. Ours, however, are quite a bit more stringent. Hence just another reason why world manufacturing is now being done by the Chi-coms.

Bigdogg;1075227 wrote:Just got back from my annual meeting with my tax man. I asked him what my tax rate was this year. He said I paid 25% to the federal government and combined 40% counting all taxes. So Romney makes millions and pays 13.5 and I pay 25% and people on here think there is no class warfare going on? Wake the **** up you idiots!!!!

If you understood that Captigal Gains is a 2nd tax on things that have already been taxed once, then you would understand.

Bigdogg;1075227 wrote:Just got back from my annual meeting with my tax man. I asked him what my tax rate was this year. He said I paid 25% to the federal government and combined 40% counting all taxes. So Romney makes millions and pays 13.5 and I pay 25% and people on here think there is no class warfare going on? Wake the **** up you idiots!!!!

Unless you're pulling down about 500K a year, your taxman sucks. My effective rate for the past 2 years has been between 6-8% on a six figure income.

fish82;1077232 wrote:Unless you're pulling down about 500K a year, your taxman sucks. My effective rate for the past 2 years has been between 6-8% on a six figure income.

Unless you are retied or have lots of deferred income, I say you don't have any idea what you actually pay. Most middle class workers can not take advantage of the same tax shelters that are out there.

Here is a good chart from the IRS that shows income tax rates and rates for capitol gains. If I could I would use the same tax dodge. It doesn't change the fact that the super wealthy are not paying their fair share.

my effective rate is in the 18% range.

I used to be in the 9% range when we were doing a ton of drilling.

LJ;1077587 wrote:my effective rate is in the 18% range.

I used to be in the 9% range when we were doing a ton of drilling.

Only the little people pay taxes.

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/04/taxes-richest-americans-charts-graph

Bigdogg;1077591 wrote:Only the little people pay taxes.

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/04/taxes-richest-americans-charts-graph

Looks like the rich are funding the country

LJ;1077595 wrote:Looks like the rich are funding the country

Not as much as they should.

Bigdogg;1077578 wrote:Unless you are retied or have lots of deferred income, I say you don't have any idea what you actually pay. Most middle class workers can not take advantage of the same tax shelters that are out there.

Here is a good chart from the IRS that shows income tax rates and rates for capitol gains. If I could I would use the same tax dodge. It doesn't change the fact that the super wealthy are not paying their fair share.

I have mortgage interest, a couple grand in charitable contributions, and less than 1K in business expenses. That's it.

People making over $1 Million/year currently pay an average 25% tax rate, while the US average is 11%. They account for 3% of the AGI, and foot 6% of the bill. If paying the highest average rate of any group, and twice their income share to the total bill isn't "fair," I'd love to hear your ideas on what is "fair." You people bang your pitchforks all day over a couple thousand people who pay 15% on a capital gains driven income. They're a drop in the bucket in the overall picture. They're fun to use to prop up your little class warfare arguments, but that's about it.

Instead of using some baked numbers from the oh-so neutral Tax Policy Center, what say we look at numbers directly from the IRS. That's where my numbers come from.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/09in12ms.xls