|
Post by stevegm on Sept 28, 2016 11:19:51 GMT
Taxing people more for making more is bullshit. Punishing success is a load of crap. Get me Steve Forbes in office and let's go Flat Tax. How about a straight "consumption tax" and forget about income tax?
I don't mind a flat tax idea, but it just has to be so low, in order for the lower middle class to survive...not enough goes in the kitty.
Litereally dozens of better idea's out there, than what we're stubbornly sticking to.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2016 11:32:08 GMT
Taxing people more for making more is bullshit. Punishing success is a load of crap. Get me Steve Forbes in office and let's go Flat Tax. They need to start taxing everybody. Why is the EIC permanent? Why are there people that pay no income tax? I paid taxes when I was 13 and worked at Market Basket.
|
|
|
Post by walktheline on Sept 28, 2016 12:30:29 GMT
Now congress is stumbling on passing a funding bill (AGAIN!) to keep the government going. This time it's because it doesn't include a boat-load of cash for Flint's water issues. My own congressmen has addressed this and while he's sure that Flint will be taken care of via separate legislation he's helping to hold up the funding bill because he's being a loyal party guy. Screw him and the rest of these useless assholes. We need term limits. Reps get no more than 3 terms (6 years total) and senators no more than 2 4-year terms. It solves numerous problems. Nobody can make holding a single office into a career, where the motivation becomes to get reelected rather than doing a good job. Term limited office would likely attract some different kinds of people who would be happy to hold office relatively briefly and get stuff done in their limited time. They would not be competing against the kind of machinery that exists to keep the career politicians in place, so theoretically it could drive down election spending. How bad do things need to get before change happens?
|
|
|
Post by islamorada on Sept 28, 2016 12:54:57 GMT
Taxing people more for making more is bullshit. Punishing success is a load of crap. Get me Steve Forbes in office and let's go Flat Tax. They need to start taxing everybody. Why is the EIC permanent? Why are there people that pay no income tax? I paid taxes when I was 13 and worked at Market Basket. Excellent, a flat tax eliminates many a tax attorney, tax courts, and the IRS auditing. Any other tax will increase the bureaucracy and actually cost more. Just what we need as a nation, more bureaucracy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2016 15:12:05 GMT
Now congress is stumbling on passing a funding bill (AGAIN!) to keep the government going. This time it's because it doesn't include a boat-load of cash for Flint's water issues. My own congressmen has addressed this and while he's sure that Flint will be taken care of via separate legislation he's helping to hold up the funding bill because he's being a loyal party guy. Screw him and the rest of these useless assholes. We need term limits. Reps get no more than 3 terms (6 years total) and senators no more than 2 4-year terms. It solves numerous problems. Nobody can make holding a single office into a career, where the motivation becomes to get reelected rather than doing a good job. Term limited office would likely attract some different kinds of people who would be happy to hold office relatively briefly and get stuff done in their limited time. They would not be competing against the kind of machinery that exists to keep the career politicians in place, so theoretically it could drive down election spending. How bad do things need to get before change happens? I would say that things need to go badly for the people in power before anything changes. Or new people are in power. We're living a reality where a group that idolizes the Boston Tea Party is mocked and people who open up the State Department to paid access are the arbiters of fact and morality.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2016 19:02:04 GMT
Trump blew it. While he didn't have any whoppers (aside from the odd Sean Hannity comments that obscured an earlier interview in Esquire) he didn't make a convincing case for himself or against The Hag. He needed to let Hillary speak instead of making the debate about a referendum against him. The Hag is old hat with a lousy record and is trusted less than Bigfoot is believed. If you look at the debate like dynamics in music, he was the loudest and most forceful defending himself, which isn't good. For some reason he didn't highlight his exceptional tax rate for companies that repatriate money. Or the Clinton Foundation. On the other hand, The Hag wins on points only. I don't think anybody is more enthusiastic about her now than earlier. She keeps trying to show people "the Real Donald Trump" which failed 16 candidates in the primary. She tried to land a few zingers that nobody even realized were jokes and showed little more than vacant rhetoric too tired to even include promises. The election is a week later and she's an early snowstorm from losing Michigan or Wisconsin. Trump had a chance to close the deal and he settled for a call back. The call back bus never comes... I saw a bit of her campaigning today and understandably, it looked like a victory lap. She had a glide in her stride. Last night I thought Trump began in pretty good form when he was suggesting the States was outsmarted by its partners in trade while linking Hillary Clinton as a member of the entrenched political establishment. Trump hit a slippery slope after that. He was all over the road with his responses. Still, President Obama didn't perform well in his first go against Mitt Romney in 2012, supposedly giving the Republican nominee some juice heading into the next one. We saw the President up his game in the following match-ups. I'm not comparing Trump to Obama as a master debater but for those supporting him, I'm just suggesting the possibility Trump can improve for the next set-to and perhaps begin to draw in folks who haven't yet made up their minds. Yeah, he'll improve. This was his first side by side debate. I thought he lost steam. In like a lion, out like a lamb. The debate was like watching Don Cherry for ninety minutes. I don't think he can beat Hillary on points (she's basically an actress delivering scripted lines) but he can make a strong case for being about change and there is plenty of fodder to bring up with the Clintons. The Hag can't hide behind a commanding, genuine stage presence like Bill. The Clintons want to change the paradigm for trustworthyness to what's been said during the campaign and he has to move past the nonsense and attack her record.
|
|
|
Post by islamorada on Sept 28, 2016 20:46:30 GMT
I'm ok with Hillary winning the election if Trump trips on his dick. The message is more important than the results. Trump needed to temper his commentary. I will tune in on the next debate.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2016 21:11:07 GMT
I'm ok with Hillary winning the election if Trump trips on his dick. The message is more important than the results. Trump needed to temper his commentary. I will tune in on the next debate. Yeah, he couldn't lead with the typical incendiary nonsense. If you judge him on a first debate, it wasn't all that bad. I remember seeing clips on Frontline of Mitt Romney's first debate against Ted Kennedy, and man, that was ugly.
|
|
|
Post by RichHillOntario on Sept 30, 2016 0:23:29 GMT
I saw a bit of her campaigning today and understandably, it looked like a victory lap. She had a glide in her stride. Last night I thought Trump began in pretty good form when he was suggesting the States was outsmarted by its partners in trade while linking Hillary Clinton as a member of the entrenched political establishment. Trump hit a slippery slope after that. He was all over the road with his responses. Still, President Obama didn't perform well in his first go against Mitt Romney in 2012, supposedly giving the Republican nominee some juice heading into the next one. We saw the President up his game in the following match-ups. I'm not comparing Trump to Obama as a master debater but for those supporting him, I'm just suggesting the possibility Trump can improve for the next set-to and perhaps begin to draw in folks who haven't yet made up their minds. Yeah, he'll improve. This was his first side by side debate. I thought he lost steam. In like a lion, out like a lamb. The debate was like watching Don Cherry for ninety minutes. I don't think he can beat Hillary on points (she's basically an actress delivering scripted lines) but he can make a strong case for being about change and there is plenty of fodder to bring up with the Clintons. The Hag can't hide behind a commanding, genuine stage presence like Bill. The Clintons want to change the paradigm for trustworthyness to what's been said during the campaign and he has to move past the nonsense and attack her record. Following the debate, Trump's been alluding to mentioning Randy Bill and the Lewinski episode. I'm still not sure what impact that has on increasing his chances of drawing in undecided voters out there. I keep hearing different versions of how he prepared/didn't prepare for the debate. He came out of his corner with coherent gusto but steadily devolved into scatter-gun mode. Maybe he could better practice his discipline should Clinton start with the digs.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2016 1:56:44 GMT
Yeah, he'll improve. This was his first side by side debate. I thought he lost steam. In like a lion, out like a lamb. The debate was like watching Don Cherry for ninety minutes. I don't think he can beat Hillary on points (she's basically an actress delivering scripted lines) but he can make a strong case for being about change and there is plenty of fodder to bring up with the Clintons. The Hag can't hide behind a commanding, genuine stage presence like Bill. The Clintons want to change the paradigm for trustworthyness to what's been said during the campaign and he has to move past the nonsense and attack her record. Following the debate, Trump's been alluding to mentioning Randy Bill and the Lewinski episode. I'm still not sure what impact that has on increasing his chances of drawing in undecided voters out there. I keep hearing different versions of how he prepared/didn't prepare for the debate. He came out of his corner with coherent gusto but steadily devolved into scatter-gun mode. Maybe he could better practice his discipline should Clinton start with the digs. Definitely. He can't lose debating on the issues. The Clinton need this election to be about Trump. He takes the bait every time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2016 3:05:49 GMT
Yeah, he'll improve. This was his first side by side debate. I thought he lost steam. In like a lion, out like a lamb. The debate was like watching Don Cherry for ninety minutes. I don't think he can beat Hillary on points (she's basically an actress delivering scripted lines) but he can make a strong case for being about change and there is plenty of fodder to bring up with the Clintons. The Hag can't hide behind a commanding, genuine stage presence like Bill. The Clintons want to change the paradigm for trustworthyness to what's been said during the campaign and he has to move past the nonsense and attack her record. Following the debate, Trump's been alluding to mentioning Randy Bill and the Lewinski episode. I'm still not sure what impact that has on increasing his chances of drawing in undecided voters out there. I keep hearing different versions of how he prepared/didn't prepare for the debate. He came out of his corner with coherent gusto but steadily devolved into scatter-gun mode. Maybe he could better practice his discipline should Clinton start with the digs. So much for that idea. www.google.com/amp/s/www.yahoo.com/amphtml/news/dismissing-risks-trump-goes-bill-clintons-past-221020939--election.html?client=ms-android-verizonHe's going to lose this election.
|
|
|
Post by UtahGetMeTwo on Sept 30, 2016 3:35:52 GMT
How bad do things need to get before change happens? Bad, a chain reaction. Need the baby boomers out.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2016 14:07:08 GMT
Wow, now the Hag is looking down her nose at Bernie supporters. "They are living in their parents' basement," Clinton said. "They feel they got their education and the jobs that are available to them are not at all what they envisioned for themselves. And they don’t see much of a future." Here's more from Clinton: "If you’re feeling like you’re consigned to, you know, being a barista, or you know, some other job that doesn’t pay a lot, and doesn’t have some other ladder of opportunity attached to it, then the idea that maybe, just maybe, you could be part of a political revolution is pretty appealing." Exactly whom is this lady trying the represent? We can't elect somebody that's only interested in governing the Times comment section. www.yahoo.com/finance/news/hillary-clinton-muses-over-bernie-055642327.html
|
|
|
Post by UtahGetMeTwo on Oct 1, 2016 14:36:49 GMT
I don't think he can beat Hillary on points (she's basically an actress delivering scripted lines) but he can make a strong case for being about change and there is plenty of fodder to bring up with the Clintons. The Hag can't hide behind a commanding, genuine stage presence like Bill. The Clintons want to change the paradigm for trustworthyness to what's been said during the campaign and he has to move past the nonsense and attack her record. Following the debate, Trump's been alluding to mentioning Randy Bill and the Lewinski episode. I'm still not sure what impact that has on increasing his chances of drawing in undecided voters out there. I keep hearing different versions of how he prepared/didn't prepare for the debate. He came out of his corner with coherent gusto but steadily devolved into scatter-gun mode. Maybe he could better practice his discipline should Clinton start with the digs. When Dumpster tries to discuss issues he looks stunned and sounds confused, because he is. Then there is his tax plan, it's laughable at best. The worst thing for Drumpf is to try n discuss simple questions on how he will keep jobs in the US or his foreign policy. Donnie can't discuss anything with poise because Dumpster can't get past his own hot air. The Orange Racoon should just stick to tweeting at 3AM and having his son spend hundreds of thousands of dollars, that came through a joke of foundation, at one of the Drumpf golf course properties. That's right, act like your raising money for charity then use that money to spend at a Drumpf property. I got in the wrong business, I tell yah.
|
|
|
Post by RichHillOntario on Oct 2, 2016 19:03:15 GMT
|
|
|
Post by RichHillOntario on Oct 2, 2016 19:13:37 GMT
Following the debate, Trump's been alluding to mentioning Randy Bill and the Lewinski episode. I'm still not sure what impact that has on increasing his chances of drawing in undecided voters out there. I keep hearing different versions of how he prepared/didn't prepare for the debate. He came out of his corner with coherent gusto but steadily devolved into scatter-gun mode. Maybe he could better practice his discipline should Clinton start with the digs. When Dumpster tries to discuss issues he looks stunned and sounds confused, because he is. Then there is his tax plan, it's laughable at best. The worst thing for Drumpf is to try n discuss simple questions on how he will keep jobs in the US or his foreign policy. Donnie can't discuss anything with poise because Dumpster can't get past his own hot air. The Orange Racoon should just stick to tweeting at 3AM and having his son spend hundreds of thousands of dollars, that came through a joke of foundation, at one of the Drumpf golf course properties. That's right, act like your raising money for charity then use that money to spend at a Drumpf property. I got in the wrong business, I tell yah. I've wondered if making vague statements is a specific strategy. Like when Trump says as President, he'd "take out ISIS fast." If he had a grand design and disclosed it, isn't there a good chance their members are watching somewhere going "So, the infidel Trump would do 'A'? Okay. We'll be ready for that by doing 'B'"
|
|
|
Post by neelycam on Oct 3, 2016 0:08:28 GMT
Lol Trump claims 1 billion dollars in losses at a casino in one year. Lol a retarded orangutan could make money at a casino.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2016 1:06:59 GMT
Lol Trump claims 1 billion dollars in losses at a casino in one year. Lol a retarded orangutan could make money at a casino. Well, no. Carl Icahn bought those same casinos and they just declared bankruptcy. (Mostly to do with the downturn of Atlantic City and Trump taking a gamble on that town that never materialized). And the successful casinos are owned by Indian groups that are tax exempt You ought to stick to speculating about local ordinances in your hometown of Elk Butt, Saskatchewan. I'm sure there are some big time issues in play, like how many times removed a cousin can be while still being eligible for marriage, where bears can shit, and where those shitting bears can be shot.
|
|
|
Post by neelycam on Oct 3, 2016 1:40:51 GMT
Lol Trump claims 1 billion dollars in losses at a casino in one year. Lol a retarded orangutan could make money at a casino. Well, no. Carl Icahn bought those same casinos and they just declared bankruptcy. (Mostly to do with the downturn of Atlantic City and Trump taking a gamble on that town that never materialized). And the successful casinos are owned by Indian groups that are tax exempt You ought to stick to speculating about local ordinances in your hometown of Elk Butt, Saskatchewan. I'm sure there are some big time issues in play, like how many times removed a cousin can be while still being eligible for marriage, where bears can shit, and where thositting bears can be shot. [bra. Lol he is a retarted orangutan. And I guarantee where I live is 100 times nicer than your redneck knuckle dragging shit hole. Check out okanagan valley. B C
|
|
|
Post by neelycam on Oct 3, 2016 1:49:34 GMT
A place where a lot of the nhlers move to when they sign big contracts. Doh
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2016 2:38:13 GMT
Well, no. Carl Icahn bought those same casinos and they just declared bankruptcy. (Mostly to do with the downturn of Atlantic City and Trump taking a gamble on that town that never materialized). And the successful casinos are owned by Indian groups that are tax exempt You ought to stick to speculating about local ordinances in your hometown of Elk Butt, Saskatchewan. I'm sure there are some big time issues in play, like how many times removed a cousin can be while still being eligible for marriage, where bears can shit, and where thositting bears can be shot. [bra. Lol he is a retarted orangutan. And I guarantee where I live is 100 times nicer than your redneck knuckle dragging shit hole. Check out okanagan valley. B C I don't care where you say you live. I doubt you have two nickels to rub together because you're a loser.
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Oct 3, 2016 3:39:15 GMT
Now congress is stumbling on passing a funding bill (AGAIN!) to keep the government going. This time it's because it doesn't include a boat-load of cash for Flint's water issues. My own congressmen has addressed this and while he's sure that Flint will be taken care of via separate legislation he's helping to hold up the funding bill because he's being a loyal party guy. Screw him and the rest of these useless assholes. We need term limits. Reps get no more than 3 terms (6 years total) and senators no more than 2 4-year terms. It solves numerous problems. Nobody can make holding a single office into a career, where the motivation becomes to get reelected rather than doing a good job. Term limited office would likely attract some different kinds of people who would be happy to hold office relatively briefly and get stuff done in their limited time. They would not be competing against the kind of machinery that exists to keep the career politicians in place, so theoretically it could drive down election spending. How bad do things need to get before change happens? I don't know, but if you want to get an answer, elect the orange tire fire.
|
|
|
Post by neelycam on Oct 3, 2016 4:04:02 GMT
[bra. Lol he is a retarted orangutan. And I guarantee where I live is 100 times nicer than your redneck knuckle dragging shit hole. Check out okanagan valley. B C I don't care where you say you live. I doubt you have two nickels to rub together because you're a loser. Lol nice comeback potzi Now go jerk off to your trump poster
|
|
|
Post by walktheline on Oct 4, 2016 15:00:28 GMT
This election is starting to live up to expectations again after a lull. The New York Times and any left-leaning media outlets are desperate for anything that makes trumpet look bad. There’s plenty of that but nothing that really hurts him any further than his blather has already. So they’ve latched on to the tax thing. NYT finds a couple pages of a filing from the ‘90’s that shows trump field a YUUUGE loss, one that theoretically would allow him to avoid fed taxes for years. Illegal? NO, the tax code allows you to deduct part of your business loss over a number of years. I did hear a woman on the radio who tried to make a case that it’s tax fraud. The hag has been harping on the tax issue, of course. Trump paid more in real estate taxes last year than she probably has paid in taxes during her life. He’s employed enough people whose collective fed taxes paid alone would probably keep the government afloat for 6 months.
The pretense of neutrality and fairness is gone. They’ll ride this non-issue until it’s beaten to death or trump does something else dumb, which should be soon. In the meantime it will be interesting to watch the media largely ignore, then spin the Hag’s 2010 suggestion during a cabinet meeting that they drone Julian Assange.
|
|
|
Post by UtahGetMeTwo on Oct 4, 2016 18:35:51 GMT
Gotta think that Trump will sue the NY Times for doing something illegal like posting someones tax returns like that.
The corporate CEOs want someone like Clinton in the WH so that there will be no change at all.
|
|