idrankwhat

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content

    4,211

  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

  • Feedback

    0%

Everything posted by idrankwhat

  1. idrankwhat
    Apparently, you're still missing the point. The argument that the wealthy pay "their fair share" because the wealthiest pick up most of the tax tab omits the reality that it takes a smaller percentage of their tax to make that contribution. If I pay 7% on my federal return then I will have far less impact on federal tax revenues than the multi billionaire who pays 3%. That's great. Buffett is a good man who really knows how to play the game. He also thinks he should be taxed more than he is. And I certainly never said anything about limiting anyone to $200 million.
  2. idrankwhat
    This implies that you like things exactly as they are. I'd wager that most people, especially here, disagree with you.
  3. idrankwhat
    +1
  4. idrankwhat
    No one is trying to change America, just improve it. We are already socialist-capitalist-communists. The system just needs to be tweaked for sustainability.
  5. idrankwhat
    I'm not. And my point is apparently completely lost.
  6. idrankwhat
    You're right. On closer inspection it appears that Gates only increased his net worth by $10 billion last year, according to Forbes. So zoom out to the extreme, then back in by one. Zoom by two or three if you wish. Regardless, that last, very small percentage of the population has more wealth (and arguably political influence) than the rest of the nation combined.
  7. idrankwhat
    I can't verify the site but this graph seems to get help put things into perspective visually. When people are talking about the super rich we're talking about a scale that most people don't seem to comprehend. That's why statements like "the wealthy pay most of the taxes" is accurate, yet misleading as it only takes a small percentage of their total income to make a substantial contribution. http://www.lcurve.org/ Zoom in first, then out for perspective.
  8. idrankwhat
    Absolutely. And they expect to be repaid, with interest. That's how you get from being "rich" to "super rich". You use your "free speech" to buy access to the brothel we call "Congress".
  9. idrankwhat
    You forgot to mention that the ninth and tenth would be able to write off the expense on their taxes reducing the cost to "0". And the tenth was able to secure a federal subsidy to cover the "loss" (effectively reducing his tax to less than zero) along with his choice of either a cost-plus no-bid contract, an earmark steering all future similar "losses" be covered by the taxpayer (yet remain deductible) or the award of ownership of a sports complex as facilitated by the seizure of land through imminent domain with construction being paid for by a local tax increase.
  10. idrankwhat
    For the record, in January 2009: CBO projects that the deficit this year will total$1.2 trillion, or 8.3 percent of GDP. Enactment of an economic stimulus package would add to that deficit. Sounds like they nailed it. I know, the economy would have fixed itself if Obama would have left it alone, or perhaps tax cuts, my friends. Yea, always worked in teh past. I think you missed my point. The CBO predicted a $1.2T deficit before Obama was inaugurated. That means it didn't matter who the President was, the deficit was going to be about as big as it turned out to be. I try to point that out to those who say Obama just willy nilly tripled the debt when in fact the increase is a hangover of 43's failed reign (and why part of me wishes that George Allen had been elected.....but only a very small part).
  11. idrankwhat
  12. idrankwhat
  13. idrankwhat
    That sucks.
  14. idrankwhat
    While simultaneously trying to make higher education more affordable and accessible for the students and actually profitable for the federal government. Those crafty devils. http://edlabor.house.gov/blog/2009/07/student-aid-and-fiscal-respons.shtml Unless the bank lobby wins....again. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/05/us/politics/05loans.html
  15. idrankwhat
    No. I remember it all too well. Crybaby Gingrich (please let me sit in the front of the plane) shut down the government and FUCKED UP my 10 day climbing trip to Mt. Rainier. Sure, he wanted to balance the budget by cutting entitlements. That's been a stated goal and the government shut down was one method used so far. Others include spending extravagantly in other areas in hopes that we'd eventually have to cut them loose. After the Bush (43) years it appears that they're closer than ever to achieving that goal (except ironically, they're working very hard to protect medicare at the moment...curious indeed). The Republicans talk a lot of smack about balancing budgets and fiscal responsibility....but only when they're not in control of the spending. I guess six years of complete control of both houses and the Presidency isn't long enough to pass a balanced budget amendment.
  16. idrankwhat
    That made coffee come out of my nose.
  17. idrankwhat
    Ron Paul presents a great argument and I agree with pretty much all of it. I don't like the wars in Afghanistan or Iraq and if we would change our energy policy we probably wouldn't be stuck where we are. My problem with the current situation is that we're in them now and I'm not sure as to the best path to get out. There aren't any great solutions at this point. But Paul's right in his assertion that we're doing to ourselves precisely what our enemies have hoped.
  18. idrankwhat
    Well said.
  19. idrankwhat
    I believe I heard Greenspan at the time say this very thing.
  20. idrankwhat
    For the record, in January 2009: CBO projects that the deficit this year will total$1.2 trillion, or 8.3 percent of GDP. Enactment of an economic stimulus package would add to that deficit. Sounds like they nailed it.
  21. idrankwhat
    Would they make more sense if you consider that green energy production does not require $100 billion per year (over $200 billion if you include the Iraq war) in military resources to secure? http://www.nationalpriorities.org/auxiliary/energy_security/full_report.pdf With a green energy economy you have increased exports (makes money), fewer wars (saves money), cleaner water (saves money), a healthier population (saves money), and sustainability (makes sense).
  22. idrankwhat
    Ok, ok. You win. Maybe we can get Obama to move things off budget and fund them all with "emergency" spending requests. From the lack of historical complaints, you guys obviously feel better about the numbers that way. Oooo...and maybe we can start another war so we can have another tax cut! I LOVE conservative math! It's so......."freedomy"!
  23. idrankwhat
    +1 since I can only vote once.
  24. idrankwhat
    Every time I watch it I see something new. When the guy say's "Jesus wrote the Constitution..." I still laugh out loud I really want a full screen shot of the chalk board with SC in the middle.
  25. idrankwhat
    Ooops. We just switched mail servers and clients today. I guess I need to change some habits. Hold on....... Ok....one more time. [url "http://beck.cnnbcvideo.com/?rc=taf&b=b|202278-jsGkYhx&referred_by=17596119-q4AtjVx"]Becks on to us![url]