[TheRealVille]

How do you ease the plight of the poor other than with perpetual handouts?

For starters, make the wealthy pay their fair share, and get off of the backs of middle class America, paying it for them. Corporate welfare is breaking middle America. Better healthcare(being fixed as we speak). Affordable education. If corporate America can pay .75% interest, so should college student loan debt. There are many things that would help the poor and middle in America, and giving more breaks to the top aren't in the mix. If trickle down economics worked, the gap between the wealthy and middle/poor wouldn't steadily getting wider over the last many years. Since some of you guys love to use the bible in some of your posts, I'll thrown in part of one also.

From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.

[vector]

From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.

that's not in there bible

[TheRealThing]

Yea, we are still seeing the effects of "trickle down". The rich keep spreading the gap between them and the middle. It's already been proven how trickle down doesn't work. Reagan started this "rich" thing that just keeps getting worse. We've already talked about the dead years of the Reganomics. FTR, the deficit grew 3 times in size under Reagan. If you want to talk good economy under a President, you might want to use Clinton.

And of course, even though the top 1% have realized at least 95% of all economic growth experienced under present administration financial policies, that's still Bush's fault right?

The national debt tripled under President Reagan, that's true. The national debt rose from 4.7 Trillion to 5.8 Trillion under Clinton. A good stat depending on how well one can spin the truth but, one in which the hypocrisy of the Dems shows through in vivid contrast as well.

When Clinton came into office he inherited the financial state of affairs left behind by Reagan. Thus, the economic boom times of the era certainly did not find it's birth from the economic policy of Clinton, but of Reagan. None the less, Dems can't get through extolling the prowess of Clinton and insist on giving him all the credit. Though I will give Clinton the nod when it comes to not changing the nation's economic fortunes through mindless EPA regs aimed at the elimination of the use of fossil fuels. Further, his economic policies changed only slightly from the Reagan model. He was at least smart enough to pull back on the liberal's reigns to keep the finances on the rise, even if he did decimate the military.

Nowadays, we are unfortunately on the extreme backside of that time of explosive economic growth. And 6 plus years into the Obama era, our last financial quarter saw the economy actually shrink 2.9%. And, even though Dems insist this is good news, clear minded folks know better. In fact, the national debt has risen from 9.1 Trillion when Obama took office to present day 17.7 Trillion, with many economists predicting a further rise to an astounding 22 Trillion by the time the nightmare is over. So, contrasting the Reagan/Clinton - Bush/Obama eras, the Democrat's argument goes like this; Reagan tripled the national debt, a paltry 1.8 Trillion dollar rise BTW, and Clinton balanced the budget, while actually adding 1.1 Trillion to the debt. While in the other comparison, Bush added 4 Trillion "all by his lonesome," (which according to Obama was irresponsible and unpatriotic). But, unlike the Clinton rationale which gave credit for the work of his predecessor to himself, Obama has been successful in blaming his predecessor for the 12 plus Trillion he will hang on the taxpayer while dodging any responsibility for himself. Pretty darn convenient if you ask me, and pretty self serving too.

There is no real difference between the national debt and the deficit other than separating your own record from that of your predecessors. Except in the case of this administration. I mean, think of how absurd the whole thing really is, is. Dems want to govern so badly, no lie is too great and depth to low to stoop, as the end always justifies the means in their liberal minds. But, they will accept no responsibility whatever for their own actions while governing. Hence the 24/7 blame fest of which all good Dems are part and parcel. Anybody else find that notion moronic?

[TheRealThing]

From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.

that's not in there bible

Oh, so you're suggesting America should apply more Godly principles in governmental efforts? I'll go with that. :Clap:

[TigerBlues]

If Michael Sam makes the roster maybe BK will approach him to endorse the Proud Whopper and all will be good. :1:

Well, that didn't go as planned. Does gay Micheal Sam make a roster anywhere or does Burger King sign him ?

[TigerBlues]

For starters, make the wealthy pay their fair share, and get off of the backs of middle class America, paying it for them. Corporate welfare is breaking middle America. Better healthcare(being fixed as we speak). Affordable education. If corporate America can pay .75% interest, so should college student loan debt. There are many things that would help the poor and middle in America, and giving more breaks to the top aren't in the mix. If trickle down economics worked, the gap between the wealthy and middle/poor wouldn't steadily getting wider over the last many years. Since some of you guys love to use the bible in some of your posts, I'll thrown in part of one also.

This is why I asked you change your BGR location. You make us look stupid with those kinds of posts.

[TheRealVille]

This is why I asked you change your BGR location. You make us look stupid with those kinds of posts.

How so? Everything in my post is true. We have a trickle down experiment to go by. It didn't work. Name one part of the post that is wrong.

[TheRealVille]

Oh, so you're suggesting America should apply more Godly principles in governmental efforts? I'll go with that. :Clap:

Definitely not, but I thought I'd thrown that verse in since you like to live by what the bible says, unless of course, you are cherry picking from it. :dontthink

[TigerBlues]

How so? Everything in my post is true. We have a trickle down experiment to go by. It didn't work. Name one part of the post that is wrong.

You do understand the people/corporations that employ also have to pay for the insurance, legal, expenses, vacation days, work materials, office space , ect. Let's tax the wealthy more? Hell these are the people that make it happen for everyone to have a chance to even be employed. I can't stand reading this free ride shit anymore, you should have come to the game at Morgan Co last night and support football instead of this worn out idea.

[vector]

And of course, even though the top 1% have realized at least 95% of all economic growth experienced under present administration financial policies, that's still Bush's fault right?

The national debt tripled under President Reagan, that's true. The national debt rose from 4.7 Trillion to 5.8 Trillion under Clinton. A good stat depending on how well one can spin the truth but, one in which the hypocrisy of the Dems shows through in vivid contrast as well.

When Clinton came into office he inherited the financial state of affairs left behind by Reagan. Thus, the economic boom times of the era certainly did not find it's birth from the economic policy of Clinton, but of Reagan. None the less, Dems can't get through extolling the prowess of Clinton and insist on giving him all the credit. Though I will give Clinton the nod when it comes to not changing the nation's economic fortunes through mindless EPA regs aimed at the elimination of the use of fossil fuels. Further, his economic policies changed only slightly from the Reagan model. He was at least smart enough to pull back on the liberal's reigns to keep the finances on the rise, even if he did decimate the military.

Nowadays, we are unfortunately on the extreme backside of that time of explosive economic growth. And 6 plus years into the Obama era, our last financial quarter saw the economy actually shrink 2.9%. And, even though Dems insist this is good news, clear minded folks know better. In fact, the national debt has risen from 9.1 Trillion when Obama took office to present day 17.7 Trillion, with many economists predicting a further rise to an astounding 22 Trillion by the time the nightmare is over. So, contrasting the Reagan/Clinton - Bush/Obama eras, the Democrat's argument goes like this; Reagan tripled the national debt, a paltry 1.8 Trillion dollar rise BTW, and Clinton balanced the budget, while actually adding 1.1 Trillion to the debt. While in the other comparison, Bush added 4 Trillion "all by his lonesome," (which according to Obama was irresponsible and unpatriotic). But, unlike the Clinton rationale which gave credit for the work of his predecessor to himself, Obama has been successful in blaming his predecessor for the 12 plus Trillion he will hang on the taxpayer while dodging any responsibility for himself. Pretty darn convenient if you ask me, and pretty self serving too.

There is no real difference between the national debt and the deficit other than separating your own record from that of your predecessors. Except in the case of this administration. I mean, think of how absurd the whole thing really is, is. Dems want to govern so badly, no lie is too great and depth to low to stoop, as the end always justifies the means in their liberal minds. But, they will accept no responsibility whatever for their own actions while governing. Hence the 24/7 blame fest of which all good Dems are part and parcel. Anybody else find that notion moronic?

what kind of economy did Obama inherited ?

[TheRealVille]

You do understand the people/corporations that employ also have to pay for the insurance, legal, expenses, vacation days, work materials, office space , ect. Let's tax the wealthy more? Hell these are the people that make it happen for everyone to have a chance to even be employed. I can't stand reading this free ride shit anymore, you should have come to the game at Morgan Co last night and support football instead of this worn out idea.

True republican. Not a very politically smart one, but a true republican nonetheless. :Thumbs: The economy is driven by the consumer/spenders, which are the workers in the middle that make up the majority, not the owners.

[TigerBlues]

True republican. Not a very politically smart one, but a true republican nonetheless. :Thumbs: The economy is driven by the buyers/workers, not the owners.

Understood, but there has to be need first and someone to provide it and take the risk to do so. To say I'm not a politically smart one is an uneducated guess.

[TheRealVille]

^ FTR, since you suggested I go to the football game, I'm not a Tiger fan anymore. The people in this school system caused me to move my kid to Prestonsburg, along with several other Paintsville parents. I'm not a "blueblood", but when several lifetime bluebloods choose to move to another system, it should say something about the system. Personally, I wouldn't care if the school system in town went broke, and had to incorporate into the county system.

[Harry Rex Vonner]

For starters, make the wealthy pay their fair share, and get off of the backs of middle class America, paying it for them. Corporate welfare is breaking middle America. Better healthcare(being fixed as we speak). Affordable education. If corporate America can pay .75% interest, so should college student loan debt. There are many things that would help the poor and middle in America, and giving more breaks to the top aren't in the mix. If trickle down economics worked, the gap between the wealthy and middle/poor wouldn't steadily getting wider over the last many years. Since some of you guys love to use the bible in some of your posts, I'll thrown in part of one also.

Your answer was just what I expected when I asked the question. Although it is incoherent and rambling, your message is clear. Take from the haves to give to the have nots. Take from the producers to give to the non-producers. Take from the whet to give to the chaff. Take from those who exhibit self responsibility to give to those who whine about their perceived rights.

Yes, TheRealVille, you are a "true believer" in your boy's socialistic idea of redistribution of the wealth. If your side ever wins, I'll just get some tater chips, some Twinkies, a case of Pepsi, and a pack of cheap cigarettes and lay in bed and watch Oprah all day. I won't need to work. The Federal Sugar Daddy will take care of me.

[Harry Rex Vonner]

True republican. Not a very politically smart one, but a true republican nonetheless. :Thumbs: The economy is driven by the consumer/spenders, which are the workers in the middle that make up the majority, not the owners.

Sorry, Comrade TheRealVille. Owners produce the jobs to hire and pay your beloved workers. Remember, poor people don't produce any jobs.

[TheRealVille]

Sorry, Comrade TheRealVille. Owners produce the jobs to hire and pay your beloved workers. Remember, poor people don't produce any jobs.

Republican v Democrat. I don't mind the owners making money for their risk. I do care that they don't pay their fair share of the taxes, and cause the middle to pay it for them. You have a true "have" mentality, and would rather the middle pay the haves taxes for them, or let them hide their money overseas. I wouldn't call that mentality American.

[jetpilot]

Saw this in the Lexington Communist-Bleeder today: Read it over and over very slowly until it starts to sink in TRV. US government the biggest pickpocket in the world, and everyone except you and a few more liberals knows it. For a lot of liberals, if the tax rate was 95% they would still be screaming inequality and wanting it raised to 97%.

U.S. tax system driving away companies, citizens



By Megan McArdle
Bloomberg
Jacob Levy, an American professor living in Montreal, made a point on Twitter that more journalists should take to heart: If you're writing about inversions and don't mention global taxation in the first few paragraphs, your article is not serious and anyone with even a smidgen of interest in the issue should stop reading.
Let me explain. Or, in the case of Burger King's planned acquisition of Tim Hortons, let my colleague Matt Levine explain: "The purpose of an inversion has never been, and never could be, and never will be, 'ooh, Canada has a 15 percent tax rate, and the U.S. has a 35 percent tax rate, so we can save 20 points of taxes on all our income by moving.' Instead the main purpose is always: 'If we're incorporated in the U.S., we'll pay 35 percent taxes on our income in the U.S. and Canada and Mexico and Ireland and Bermuda and the Cayman Islands, but if we're incorporated in Canada, we'll pay 35 percent on our income in the U.S. but 15 percent in Canada and 30 percent in Mexico and 12.5 percent in Ireland and zero percent in Bermuda and zero percent in the Cayman Islands."
What is he talking about?
The United States, unlike most developed-world governments, insists on taxing the global income of its citizens and corporations that have U.S. headquarters. Because the U.S. has some of the world's highest tax rates, especially on corporate income, this amounts to demanding that everyone who got their start here owes us taxes, forever, on anything they earn abroad.
This is a great deal for the U.S. government, which gets to collect income tax even though it's not providing the companies sewers or roads or courts. It's not a very good deal for said citizens and corporations, especially because our government has made increasingly obnoxious demands on foreign institutions to help them collect that tax.
Both private citizens and corporations who have a lot of income abroad are deciding that they'd rather renounce their ties to the U.S. than deal with the expense and hassle of letting it tap into income that they have earned using some other country's roads and services.
Practically speaking, global taxation is hard to enforce and loaded with bad incentives, which is why our fellow members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development have moved away from global taxation of corporate income and abandoned global taxation of personal income. If anything, the U.S. has gone in the other direction, by insisting, for instance, that foreign companies report various financial transactions with U.S. citizens to the Internal Revenue Service, and taxing foreign cost of living allowances, which makes it more expensive for companies to employ expats.
On the corporate side, the Obama administration has repeatedly suggested tightening up on tax deferral of foreign income and other credits, which would make it even more expensive to be a corporation based in the U.S.
There's almost no logical argument for global taxation. Yes, most people born and raised here were educated and provided various services by the government to get them to adulthood. But we're overwhelmingly the largest net recipient of immigrants, and most of them were educated and provided services by their governments; we see no problem with us free-riding on all those other nations. Surely there's a statute of limitation on what you owe the government that raised you; 40 years later, should expats still have to file insanely complicated returns to the IRS? That's what we currently demand.
The argument is even weaker for corporate taxation; it boils down to "the police kept people from sacking your first headquarters, therefore you owe us 35 percent of everything you make, forever." Loan sharks and protection rackets offer more reasonable terms.
Most Americans seem to be under the misimpression that companies that invert, or people who renounce their citizenship, are doing so to get a lower tax rate on income they earn here. In most cases, however, including Burger King, they're doing it because the U.S. inexplicably insists on taking a big chunk off the top of all their foreign income, and making their lives miserable in the process.
If we're worried about inversion, the U.S. should follow other developed countries and move to territorial taxation. Otherwise, we should stop complaining when people and corporations decide they'd rather be a citizen of some more sane system somewhere else.

[TheRealThing]

Definitely not, but I thought I'd thrown that verse in since you like to live by what the bible says, unless of course, you are cherry picking from it. :dontthink

I quoted vector, to his and evidently your point. A 40% corporate tax rate seems pretty generous to me, even in light of the biblical standard of vector's reference. At any rate, the more the government takes from industry, the less industry has to spread around by way of wages and benefits. This idea that the American world of business is somehow evil, and needs to be policed with suspicion by Big Brother bureaucrats who have laundry lists of epic proportion themselves, (Lois Lerner anyone?), is hardly the way to go in my book. At any rate, on the one hand you say there is no place in government for Godly principles. And yet with this post, you have demonstrated my position on the matter perfectly. Many times we need to understand that principles of governance can and should be based on our understanding of what is morally right, as you just suggested.

The source of our moral perceptions comes from God's Word. The definition of bad behavior and therefore the authority to judge such behavior, comes from God's Word. That's the standard upon which giving help to our citizens and in fact, the American system of justice in general is founded. But by way of not wanting to cherry pick. God says this about work;
1 Timothy 5:8 (KJV)
8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.

So, by all means, let us who have been given so much, provide a safety net to help folks get by during time of trouble. The cradle to grave entitlements associated with 'Great Society' thinking are a totally different matter.

[TigerBlues]

^ FTR, since you suggested I go to the football game, I'm not a Tiger fan anymore. The people in this school system caused me to move my kid to Prestonsburg, along with several other Paintsville parents. I'm not a "blueblood", but when several lifetime bluebloods choose to move to another system, it should say something about the system. Personally, I wouldn't care if the school system in town went broke, and had to incorporate into the county system.

Guess that was an easy choice to move your kid to a 95% democratic county instead of a 95% republican school. And your wish it would fold, you can step up and pay your check for the ones out of work because of it. But I digress, let's have everyone else pay for it.

[Harry Rex Vonner]

Republican v Democrat. I don't mind the owners making money for their risk. I do care that they don't pay their fair share of the taxes, and cause the middle to pay it for them. You have a true "have" mentality, and would rather the middle pay the haves taxes for them, or let them hide their money overseas. I wouldn't call that mentality American.

If you ever knew just how much I pay annually in income taxes, you might change your tune a bit. Now, I don't mind paying a lot of income taxes because I have the resources to do so. My complaint is in regard to how my tax dollars are squandered by liberal politicians who use my money to buy votes to keep them in power.

[Harry Rex Vonner]

^ FTR, since you suggested I go to the football game, I'm not a Tiger fan anymore. The people in this school system caused me to move my kid to Prestonsburg, along with several other Paintsville parents. I'm not a "blueblood", but when several lifetime bluebloods choose to move to another system, it should say something about the system. Personally, I wouldn't care if the school system in town went broke, and had to incorporate into the county system.

It is said that, when the weakest student in Johnson County transfers to Floyd County to attend school, the average IQ for each county increases. Johnson County, among other things, is known for good academics. Floyd County actually isn't known for anything positive. Of course, Floyd County is a "haven" for Democrats and welfare recipients while Johnson County tends to be Republican. That, most likely, explains it.

[vector]

http://www.factcheck.org/2014/07/obamas-...14-update/




[Image: http://www.bluegrassrivals.com/forum/pic...tureid=690]

[TheRealVille]

It is said that, when the weakest student in Johnson County transfers to Floyd County to attend school, the average IQ for each county increases. Johnson County, among other things, is known for good academics. Floyd County actually isn't known for anything positive. Of course, Floyd County is a "haven" for Democrats and welfare recipients while Johnson County tends to be Republican. That, most likely, explains it.

My kid had over a 4.0 all through high school, 2 of which were in Johnson, and has been on the Deans list and Presidents list every year since being in college. I have had a job of some sort since I was 13. I have been at my present career since 1990, working a full years hours, every year since starting. Anything else? FTR, did you know that Johnson was the meth "capital" of Kentucky not too many years ago?

[TigerBlues]

My kid had over a 4.0 all through high school, 2 of which were in Johnson, and has been on the Deans list and Presidents list every year since being in college. I have had a job of some sort since I was 13. I have been at my present career since 1990, working a full years hours, every year since starting. Anything else?

Give me about an hour and I'll get you a trophy.

[jetpilot]

My kid had over a 4.0 all through high school, 2 of which were in Johnson, and has been on the Deans list and Presidents list every year since being in college. I have had a job of some sort since I was 13. I have been at my present career since 1990, working a full years hours, every year since starting. Anything else?

How could a student like that have such a problem with a great academic school that would cause him to transfer to a poor academic school a county away from his home?

[TheRealVille]

If you ever knew just how much I pay annually in income taxes, you might change your tune a bit. Now, I don't mind paying a lot of income taxes because I have the resources to do so. My complaint is in regard to how my tax dollars are squandered by liberal politicians who use my money to buy votes to keep them in power.

http://www.presidentialdata.org

[TheRealVille]

How could a student like that have such a problem with a great academic school that would cause him to transfer to a poor academic school a county away from his home?

You must not understand the "blueblood" mentality. Prestonsburg is a very good academic school, btw. 3.25 to 3.80 gpa average.

[jetpilot]

You must not understand the "blueblood" mentality.

Another common trait of liberals that other people "must not understand." LOL. I live in Pikeville. Where the term "blueblood" was practically invented.

[TigerBlues]

Another common trait of liberals that other people "must not understand." LOL. I live in Pikeville. Where the term "blueblood" was practically invented.

That's what the football team has JP, blue blood defense t shirts. Kind of a fabric among the players but I would say TRV is equating it to the blue states vs red.
I'm working on that trophy for you TRV.

[vector]

http://www.presidentialdata.org

Oh my god that can't be right