Lucky...

We can't afford to maintain the most expensive socialist organization in the country, especially where the main benefit is national pride. I recognize that doing away with socialism may be impractical in this modern world, although when downsizing to what we need for defense we could put former military members to work doing something productive using less expensive capital ($4.5B for an aircraft carrier, $2.1B per new bomber built, $112M per new fighter), like infrastructure repair or Obama care. You attributed that quote to Mike, it's Bill's quote. How does the military play into military pride? Just because you think it does doesn't mean it does. A well-run military does, but an oppressive one that practices torture and violates Geneva at every turn does not.....but that's just me.

Why am I not surprised that you see it in that light? Why do you constantly run from issues?

Wait, we went from defining what/who gets taxed - to - tax loopholes - to - reduce spending in 1 paragraph. Let's bring it back: Money (income) gets taxed, not people. As the money gets concentrated in one place, a person, a corporation, etc, the tax that that money gets nailed at increases at a disproportionate rate. The money gets taxed, not any given individual; it's not a conspiracy or a takedown. No way, that faction accepts it, it's the RW maggoted nazis who have a hard time with that one.

Gingrich = too much baggage

In your wildest dreams, how could you extrapolate that? Of course money is taxed constantly, income tax, the net is spent, then sales tax, etc. But to say I'm stating that income should be taxed as income tax twice, that's your dream as a misdirection. Now, money is taxed, not people. Follow the money, right? The IRS focuses on pools of money, which is why earning 7 digits makes you several more times likely to be audited. You want to be left alone, quit making gobs of money (assuming you do). Sitting on your money is not taxable, other than the interest. And if you donate that, it becomes untaxable. Quit whinign about taxes if yopu earn gobs. You have options and 1 is to defer the money.

The millionaire pays no income tax if they make no income on work they may have done or on their investments. But they will pay certain sales taxes depending on their consumer spending? Oh I see, that makes perfect sense if we ignore the thread title: Half of U.S. pays no federal income tax The key being FEDERAL INCOME TAX. Move along.

semantics nazi Outlining what drives the tax systemis semantics?????? That's like describing the parachute deployment procedure as semantic. Sorry you're unable to actually reply - sucks.

One more time kids: Money is taxed, not people. If a millionaire makes no money in a given year, he pays no taxes. If a homeless guy wins the lottery, he pays massive taxes perhaps for the 1st time in his life. MONEY IS TAXED, NOT PEOPLE.

Which is reaffirmed by your party's arrest and confinement of knowingly innocent people. Then being virtually solely liable for the 12.6T debt, the destruction of several economies and gross elitism. That pretty much sums it up.

Ummm....not quite correct. Bush has been in Canada since he left office... Canada is about as foreign as he better go, if you really call that foreign. http://hiscrivener.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/jesus-land.gif

That went out with the Eisenhower admin. There hasn't been a credible president since then, other than GHWB. Pure trash, 24/7.

Don't you hate to be remninded of your party's abhorrent deeds? Maybe that explains your party's fall from grace, minimized to tapping under a shitter stall for cock.

Ok,. let's ditch the source and pay attention to the objective numbers. BTW, I bet you thought Clinton would be a dissaster too, huh? I bet you thought GWB's and Reagan's ideas were good too, huh? Actually a freefall in unemployment as Obama took office, 3.4% incr from Feb 08 to Feb 09 is astronomical. Then it took until October for the stimulus to work and unemp peaked at 10.1%. Now it's down to 9.7 with jobs beng created, so it's dishonest and a ridiculous microcosm to look at 1 week. I didn't hear that, but if you live on teh day or week, you are sure to be thrilled by things like the stock market and other things that constantly vary as a norm. The idea is to look at tremds, that is, unless the trends thwart your arguments. Or because it was inherited in freefall, hit 6500 and as the stimulus/confidence boosted it back up to 10k in a few mnonths, now it's at 11k, unless you want to be semantic and call it 10,997.35. Unless you are an anarchist Republcian, 11kk in great news, the GDP is great news, unemp is great news. Yep, so let em fail or what? Our 5th product and you would let them fail. No doubt GM and Chrysler were poorly managed, but we can't let a huge producer fail withoput expecting severe consequence. Yep, well, we have to take what comes and try to impart projects that will bode to this. You can't just custom order jobs. Don't ya think tax cuts, my friends would fix everything? Worked for Hoover. And then the sky falls. Dude, I understand your party left 2 messes, in Jan 93 in recovery but a 7% unemp mess and now with unemp 8% and screaming. We fixed it then, we'll fix it now so the Redumblicans can impose their tax cuts my friends policies upon us and fuck it all up again. And yet you can't show me one major federal tax increase that HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED that turned into a disater. All you can show me are tax increase scenarios that THEORETICALLY could cause disasterous outcomes, with no supporting evidence. In science, your hypothesis dies while put into practice. Even if you can be like Mike and try to dig out a minor tax cut and try to pretend it created positive things, you have to show repeatability. I can show primary to exclusive repeatability that when taxes are raised, the entire picture look good for all, as taxes are lowered, it turns to despair.

If you believe in the freedom to bear arms, than having to obtain a "license" flies in the face of it. I believe in it, just that the constitution doesn't specify that as a blank check. If the FF wanted that they would have just made the statement: "The right to bear arms shall never be abridged." They didn't, they made reference to militias and well regulation. Of course we can just ignore parts and the rest is clear.

What are the public policy justifications for this bill? Let's assume the state has a "must issue CCW permit" law. In that event: -What's wrong with a background check to make sure the applicant doesn't have a criminal record or mental illness flag? -What's wrong with some method (or various alternative methods) for assuring the person knows how to use the gun safely? - Making it a crime to carry w/o a permit has at least one salutary purpose: if a cop stops & frisks someone who's acting suspiciously, and he's carrying a gun w/o a permit - and the reason he has no permit is because he's a convicted criminal or has a mental health flag, that allows the cop to stop the person cold right there instead of releasing him. Arizona is already an open carry state. The part you quote regards a CCW license. The law puts the people who want to CCW on the same footing as the people who carry openly. Basically omits theneed to attend the CCW classs.

Nice. Mike's problem is that he subscribes to the old GOP double standard. It took Saint Ronald Reagan 22 months to get out of the "Carter" recession. From a high of 10.8% in December 1982 (already a whole year after St. Ron's election), unemployment gradually improved until it fell to 7.2% in Nov 1984. Yet Mike criticizes Obama for what is a clearly faster, superior performance. Like I said, the Repubs aren't bad guys, they just suck at math. See, they build their arguments from the top-down. They worship all R's, then try to find reasons why the R's are better for the country.

Really? Then how did Clinton's tax increase serve him? Seems like it cost him. The politician maggots who selve-serve are generally wearing and R by their name. It does no good to Obama to help poor people, yet he is. With your hero that just left office, his cuts helped him personally. We could take that to this forum too, a guy like Kallend would be better off with a low tax system, yet he advocates enough taxes to pay for things. Your position makes no sense.

Or perhaps they can make cuts elswhere, like in the corporate boss compensation. If one producer does this, the rest have to follow suit or go out of business.

I think thats just because he is black. Or is it because he's secular? You know those seculars, they're all evil. And radical

Oh tell us why Clinton was called in and questioned about Lewinsky.

If you're going to start that shit, then Oliver North committed a felony, too. You really want to do this? Besides, I thought Clinton was cleared (in a political trial - a low standard of proof), just like Reagan in Iran-Contra, etc. However, Libby was convicted in a crminal court, a much higher standard.

Calling him secular is the irony, perhaps that was too obvious for you to see. Also, the concept that Obama is some secular sinner and Gingrich is the moral Christian monitor of the country, yet he is an adulterer. These are obvious concepts, pretending to not understand them doesn't make them less obvious, it just makes obvious the fact that you don't want to acknowledge the hypocrisy in your party. Also, shall we talk the Clinton impeachment? We know who spearheaded that. I know, I know, it wasabout perjury and obstruction, but what prompted the hearings? Oh yea, adultery ala Gongrich-style. Hillarious Ok, so it's one of your (so called) normal rants - no prob. And you have no substanive realy to the issues - ok.

Yes, but we forgive you anyway. The worst part of this,actually the most humorous, is that you REALLY DO believe that there is no irony in what you post. The real and expected irony os that you never address the issue, but the author. Not real ironic, actually, more like routine.

Yes, but we forgive you anyway. Uh, for what? You're the one here who continually posts their hatred of those whose political views are not inline with your own. This is hatred: How can people be this hypocritically stupid You must be one of those thenthitive types.