Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

Well, like the song says, "The stars might lie but the numbers never do." The numbers at the link below seem pretty unequivocal to me. But then, I'm a numbers kinda guy.

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2011/04/tax ... PE+DIEM%29

IMHO the "soak the rich" gambit is just a ruse to get the non producers excited to go out and vote for whatever $hithead is advicating it at the time.Flat tax for all including the non producers would even it all out

VBshooter wrote:IMHO the "soak the rich" gambit is just a ruse to get the non producers excited to go out and vote for whatever $hithead is advicating it at the time.Flat tax for all including the non producers would even it all out

Consumption tax and do away with the IRS and the stinking tax code...

zephyp wrote:

VBshooter wrote:IMHO the "soak the rich" gambit is just a ruse to get the non producers excited to go out and vote for whatever $hithead is advicating it at the time.Flat tax for all including the non producers would even it all out

Consumption tax and do away with the IRS and the stinking tax code...

Unfortunately we are far more likely to get a consumption/flat/VAT taxes in addition to the current tax code.

Sad but true... We gotta fight on our hands with the Business as usual crowd in DC... A political enema of epic proportion is in need for sure

gunderwood wrote:

zephyp wrote:

VBshooter wrote:IMHO the "soak the rich" gambit is just a ruse to get the non producers excited to go out and vote for whatever $hithead is advicating it at the time.Flat tax for all including the non producers would even it all out

Consumption tax and do away with the IRS and the stinking tax code...

Unfortunately we are far more likely to get a consumption/flat/VAT taxes in addition to the current tax code.

Indeed. Even Bonehead Boehner is now talking about low "revenue" streams. What a crock. It is simply beyond me how anyone could actually believe the solution is to increase "revenue" for an entity that produces absolutely none or nothing.

Generations of budget and power abusing trolls thinking it;s their right and duty to spend it all and never look back,,,,How about a 50% cut to the budget?? Now thats taking the job a little more seriously for sure.. RINO's gotta go to.. A clean flush is the best solution ,,then the work begins to fix all the BS..Or at least make the damn effort!

Gotta say, after a long debate in my class last week I came to what I believe to be the answer to the issue:

"If you give a mouse a cookie, he's going to want a glass of milk."

The issue isn't tax revenue, it's the ridiculous out-of-control spending at the hands of the government. No amount of taxing the "Rich" into oblivion will make up for the "Kid-in-a-candy store" attitude of those in power. We continuously spend well beyond our means as a country, and until we fix this fundamental issue, we'll never make any progress.

As my father told me: "Son, try always to avoid borrowing money. If you must, then pay it back double-time, with interest."

Taking notes Obama?

Just my two cents.
-Alex

VBshooter wrote:Generations of budget and power abusing trolls thinking it;s their right and duty to spend it all and never look back,,,,How about a 50% cut to the budget?? Now thats taking the job a little more seriously for sure.. RINO's gotta go to.. A clean flush is the best solution ,,then the work begins to fix all the BS..Or at least make the damn effort!

***************
I'm assuming you have done your homework, so let's take you at your word. The FY2012 Budget is projected at some $3.7 Trillion dollars. A 50% cut would take federal expenditures down to $1.85 trillion dollars.

Please tell us from what programs would you cut #1.32 trillion dollars in one fiscal year?

Your program cuts would be the start of a very good discussion about the role and responsibilities of the Federal Government. One final question: The 50% budget cut would result in what number of jobs lost?

Thanks
Gat6

Alex wrote:Gotta say, after a long debate in my class last week I came to what I believe to be the answer to the issue:

"If you give a mouse a cookie, he's going to want a glass of milk."

The issue isn't tax revenue, it's the ridiculous out-of-control spending at the hands of the government. No amount of taxing the "Rich" into oblivion will make up for the "Kid-in-a-candy store" attitude of those in power. We continuously spend well beyond our means as a country, and until we fix this fundamental issue, we'll never make any progress.

As my father told me: "Son, try always to avoid borrowing money. If you must, then pay it back double-time, with interest."

Taking notes Obama?

Just my two cents.
-Alex

**********************************
Here's another two cents for yah. To be fair, shouldn't you have also asked if Congressman Ryan was also taking notes since his budget raises the deficit by $6 trillion over the next 10 years. I hope you're not in that camp that says when Republicans create deficits, as every Republican President beginning with RR has done, they don't matter.
Gat6

[quote="Alex"]Gotta say, after a long debate in my class last week I came to what I believe to be the answer to the issue:

"If you give a mouse a cookie, he's going to want a glass of milk."

The issue isn't tax revenue, it's the ridiculous out-of-control spending at the hands of the government. No amount of taxing the "Rich" into oblivion will make up for the "Kid-in-a-candy store" attitude of those in power. We continuously spend well beyond our means as a country, and until we fix this fundamental issue, we'll never make any progress.

As my father told me: "Son, try always to avoid borrowing money. If you must, then pay it back double-time, with interest."

Taking notes Obama?
*********************
As my sociology professor used to say, if humans were mice that study would make perfect sense, since we're not nothing more need to be said.

Even that reality show pimp, Trump, would tell you that there are times when borrowing makes good sense. Credit is the basis for all advanced economies.

Having said that I quite agree about excessive government spending; however, your post left out one of the two major ways government spends. We're all familiar with programmatic spending that's announced in the annual budget, but we forget government spending by way of the tax code.

For example, why should interest on a mortgage be tax deductible? Why should energy companies receive billions in tax rebates? Why should hedge fund manager income be taxed at 15%? Why should the dairy and sugar industries get price supports to keep prices at a certain level? Why is government prevented from negotiating drug prices with pharmaceutical companies thereby increasing drug prices by billions. Why is Warren Buffet's, a multi-billionaire, effective tax rate lower than that of his secretary? Why do some of the largest corporations pay zero taxes? Why do we allow the richest Americans to shelter billions in off-shore accounts? The answer to these questions and more are contained in the pages of the tax code, i.e. some provision placed there by someone.

As one non-partisan think tank wrote: Anyone who thinks the U.S. does not have a revenue and a program spending problem are simply not serious about balancing the budget.

Gat6

VBshooter wrote:IMHO the "soak the rich" gambit is just a ruse to get the non producers excited to go out and vote for whatever $hithead is advicating it at the time.Flat tax for all including the non producers would even it all out

*************************
The tax rate for the rich stands at the lowest level since the 1920s before the Great Depression, so how does returning their tax rate to say even Clinton era levels constitute "soaking the rich?" Where do you get your dichotomy of producers and non-producers? Is Wall Street a producer, or non-producer? If it's a producer, what does it produce?

Gat6
Gat6

You still here? Get Bent!

Now, now Spense, take this opportunity to educate the mindless troll.

gatlingun6 wrote: The tax rate for the rich stands at the lowest level since the 1920s before the Great Depression, so how does returning their tax rate to say even Clinton era levels constitute "soaking the rich?" Where do you get your dichotomy of producers and non-producers? Is Wall Street a producer, or non-producer? If it's a producer, what does it produce?

Gat6
Gat6

I say that Wall Street is a producer. Think about it...individuals, banks, corporations invest their money by purchasing stocks on Wall Street. These investments generate cash for the companies that sold their stock enabling those companies to invest in better/more modern technologies, as well as possibly hiring more workers. In return, the companies that sell their stock pay dividends to those that invest in them.

Now, if the government in turn increases the tax rates for the companies that succeeded in selling their stock to raise capital for technology and/or an increased labor force, that company can no longer afford to make those infrastructure investments.

It is a popular notion to scream from the roof tops to tax the wealthy (individuals as well as corporations). But one must remember who creates jobs. (Hint, it's not the homeless crack head on the dimly lit street corner!) Those that create jobs are the ones who successfully generate cash flow while avoiding taxes as much as possible!

Donald Trump may be a "reality show pimp', but the man is laughing all the way to the bank! Face it, he is no dummy. He did not become one of the wealthiest by doing dumb things. He became wealthy by taking advantage of various investment vehicles.

No, I do not agree with "soak the rich" schemes. This does absolutely nothing to improve the economy, and in fact, does just the opposite. Instead, we should reward the successful ones allowing them to make those infrastructure investments that benefit us all!

I considered a reply but then remembered the countless others who may as well hit their heads on the wall than get Ol Mr Liberal to pay attention. Hence my sentiment about getting bent~ Had others but they were a tad more colorful and better left unsaid for now...

gatlingun6 wrote:

VBshooter wrote:IMHO the "soak the rich" gambit is just a ruse to get the non producers excited to go out and vote for whatever $hithead is advicating it at the time.Flat tax for all including the non producers would even it all out

*************************
The tax rate for the rich stands at the lowest level since the 1920s before the Great Depression, so how does returning their tax rate to say even Clinton era levels constitute "soaking the rich?" Where do you get your dichotomy of producers and non-producers? Is Wall Street a producer, or non-producer? If it's a producer, what does it produce?

Gat6
Gat6

Hi Jimmie. It doesnt matter where our tax rates are or how historically low they happen to be. The issue is spending not revenue. Millions of Americans are forced to live within their means. The government should follow suit. Oh, and "within their means" does not include an endless supply of tax monies. That is inherently ridiculous. I have worked for the government for a long long time and know first hand that there is plenty of fat that can be cut.

Let the twits in DC show us they can cut the cat and be responsible with the money they take in before discussing an increase in taxes. Any other course of action is a non-starter and ludicrous.

By the way, I'll give you a real world example of idiocy I deal with. I'm responsible for a very large initiative tasked down from the White House that will indeed save enormous amounts of money in future years. Several issues: investments are required to realize savings and the WH has decreed that investments will be taken from savings. Almost impossible given our current budget process. More ridiculous is I have some twits demanding to know when we will be implementing measures and others demanding they not be implemented as jobs will be lost.

So, we continue to dilly dally along spending money hand over fist and crying that we need more "revenue" or the sky will fall...

Well, I'm saying BULLCRAP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It should be obvious to any idiot that the name of the game in DC right now -- for all of them -- is make it look like we are saving money when the real issue get more and spend more...I see it from both sides. Left and right. They are all about spending our money, keeping their precious j-o-b, and all the power/perks that go with it....

And, guys like you...pfftt...you are obviously only interested in slavering all over the commie in the oval office just so you can get tingles up your leg...

zephyp wrote:That is inherently ridiculous. I have worked for the government for a long long time and know first hand that there is plenty of fat that can be cut.

Should start with government employees no? The FedGov is the largest employer in the nation. Produces nothing from what I hear on this site all the time, so why not downsize that to barebones levels?

I for one would love to see all federal government personnel (especially politicians) lose their taxpayer funded healthcare. Its downright socialist after all to have such a system in place.

Yarddawg wrote:Now, now Spense, take this opportunity to educate the mindless troll.

gatlingun6 wrote: The tax rate for the rich stands at the lowest level since the 1920s before the Great Depression, so how does returning their tax rate to say even Clinton era levels constitute "soaking the rich?" Where do you get your dichotomy of producers and non-producers? Is Wall Street a producer, or non-producer? If it's a producer, what does it produce?

Gat6
Gat6

I say that Wall Street is a producer. Think about it...individuals, banks, corporations invest their money by purchasing stocks on Wall Street. These investments generate cash for the companies that sold their stock enabling those companies to invest in better/more modern technologies, as well as possibly hiring more workers. In return, the companies that sell their stock pay dividends to those that invest in them.

Now, if the government in turn increases the tax rates for the companies that succeeded in selling their stock to raise capital for technology and/or an increased labor force, that company can no longer afford to make those infrastructure investments.

It is a popular notion to scream from the roof tops to tax the wealthy (individuals as well as corporations). But one must remember who creates jobs. (Hint, it's not the homeless crack head on the dimly lit street corner!) Those that create jobs are the ones who successfully generate cash flow while avoiding taxes as much as possible!

Donald Trump may be a "reality show pimp', but the man is laughing all the way to the bank! Face it, he is no dummy. He did not become one of the wealthiest by doing dumb things. He became wealthy by taking advantage of various investment vehicles.

No, I do not agree with "soak the rich" schemes. This does absolutely nothing to improve the economy, and in fact, does just the opposite. Instead, we should reward the successful ones allowing them to make those infrastructure investments that benefit us all!

***********************************************************************************
"Soak the rich" is a straw-man phrase right out of Luntz's book that has no meaning other than to divide those who should be natural allies. While they argue over a few crumbs, for the wealthiest it's let the banquet continue.

What's the problem with returning tax rates for the so-called rich to Clinton era rates? Millions of jobs were created, and the richest segment of our society got even richer. Was there any shortage of entrepreneurs during the Clinton era, or for that matter during the RR era, or even the Nixon era. the answer is no.

When Clinton raised taxes "supply side" proponents predicted economic collapse. They were wrong, the opposite happened. When President Bush decided to fight a multi-front war on credit while giving huge tax cuts to the wealthiest, job creation was the worse in recent history.

Consider these facts: Between 2000 and 2007 while middle class income was falling, the top 1% garnered 65% of all income growth. This screw the middle class trend goes all the way back to President Ronald Reagan's years. Trickle down economics quickly became "flood up" economics, a sort of Robin Hood in reverse. Less you think this is partisan, the bury the middle class trend continued during President's Clinton's term as well. Over the past 40 years top management pay at fortune 500 corporations increased from 30 to 300 times what the average worker makes.

I don't want to "soak" any segment of society. If there was a fair way to eliminate the income tax altogether, I would be all for it. But I haven't seen it yet, and the "Fair Tax" ain't it!

No one denies that corporations and individuals create jobs. But that's only a part of the story. Jobs are not created willy nilly, they are created in reaction to something. That something is usually demand that CANNOT be filled with the existing workforce. The fact is, they are in business to make a profit, and if they could do it without hiring a single additional worker, they would do so, and that's just fine.

In fact, corporations today are doing more with fewer people. The combination of out sourcing, temps, and an increase in productivity has led to a need for fewer workers. The CBO says that there isn't a straight cause and effect relationship between tax cuts for the wealthiest, and corporations, and job creation. As the CBO showed, tax cuts for the wealthiest is the least effective way to stimulate the economy. Why? Because they don't have to spend or invest it.

Just today we heard that Fortune 500 corporations are enjoying the highest profits since the index kept such records. Combine this with the fact that many of our largest corporations paid exactly "ZERO" taxes, while some even received rebates. We should be awash in new jobs if the job creation mantra was true. Multi-national corporations in 2004 paid a 2.3% effective tax rate. How many in the middle class have such a rate, and how many middle class Americans shelter over $100 billion annually in off-shore accounts.

Does this mean that the wealthy and corporations are evil, or bad guys? Hell no, they are acting in their interest and doing what corporations are supposed to do, i.e. generate maximum profits for the share holders, or owners if private. As Po Go once said, in all this, we have seen the enemy and it's us. I just wonder how long the teetering middle class will continue drinking the "supply side" and "trickle down" economic Kool Aide.

Corporations and wall street are doing just fine today. They are awash with cash, and profits. Are they hiring on a large scale? Nope. Why should they, if they can rake in tremendous profits without adding workers.

As for Wall Street, you correctly stated what the old Wall Street was all about. But with hedge funds, derivatives, and other little understood exotic financial instruments the new Wall Street turned into "casino capitalism" where apparently no risk was too great. All it took for that house of cards to collaspe was for the "beat cops" (The regulators) to look the other way while greed, fraud, stupidity, arrogance, and all manner of crap ran amok. In the blink of an eye trillions disappeared. Why? Because the dollars really didn't exist, they were little more than notional profits.

In 1970 the financial industry was 4% of GDP. By 2006 before the meltdown it had more than doubled to 8.3%. At the same time 41% of all corporate profits went to the financial industry. In short, instead of supporting the economy, Wall Street was fast becoming its own economy.

As for that Reality show pimp, Trump, whose 15 minutes of political fame is apparently over, he made his money the old fashion way, he inherited it. Who said Trump was a dummy? What he is, is a hypocrite, a liar, and ignorant about both politics, and foreign policy. Only a fool, or an egomaniac would have the arrogance to think that other world leaders would be afraid of him because he is the "Donald".

He is a self-promoting shill. It's always about him. Trump puts his name on a Van Heusen shirt in which the price is jacked-up. Btw they are made in China, Vietnam, etc. So Trump is no dummy if he gets people to pay inflated prices for a dress shirt, or any item in his clothing line.

I've seen the guy speak at a business seminar. The first part of his presentation was all about pre-nups, never marry without one. Part two was never use your own money, and part three was how to use bankruptcy as a sort of "get out of jail" free card.

Trump's misnamed Trump University is being sued by some former students for fraudulent actions and is under investigation by several State attorney generals, so let's see where that goes.

Isn't anyone interested in Trump producing his surprising information about President Obama's birth? He claimed his investigators uncovered all sorts of stunning stuff. Let's see it? How about putting his investigators up for a press conference? Fortunately, it didn't take long for conservatives to see Trump for what he is on the political scene: an empty suit. He wants to be President, but was too busy to vote for any number of years? I guess he never heard of an absentee ballot.
Sheesh, enough already!!! No more long posts, I promise!

Gat6

zephyp wrote:

gatlingun6 wrote:

VBshooter wrote:IMHO the "soak the rich" gambit is just a ruse to get the non producers excited to go out and vote for whatever $hithead is advicating it at the time.Flat tax for all including the non producers would even it all out

*************************
The tax rate for the rich stands at the lowest level since the 1920s before the Great Depression, so how does returning their tax rate to say even Clinton era levels constitute "soaking the rich?" Where do you get your dichotomy of producers and non-producers? Is Wall Street a producer, or non-producer? If it's a producer, what does it produce?

Gat6
Gat6

Hi Jimmie. It doesnt matter where our tax rates are or how historically low they happen to be. The issue is spending not revenue. Millions of Americans are forced to live within their means. The government should follow suit. Oh, and "within their means" does not include an endless supply of tax monies. That is inherently ridiculous. I have worked for the government for a long long time and know first hand that there is plenty of fat that can be cut.

Let the twits in DC show us they can cut the cat and be responsible with the money they take in before discussing an increase in taxes. Any other course of action is a non-starter and ludicrous.

By the way, I'll give you a real world example of idiocy I deal with. I'm responsible for a very large initiative tasked down from the White House that will indeed save enormous amounts of money in future years. Several issues: investments are required to realize savings and the WH has decreed that investments will be taken from savings. Almost impossible given our current budget process. More ridiculous is I have some twits demanding to know when we will be implementing measures and others demanding they not be implemented as jobs will be lost.

So, we continue to dilly dally along spending money hand over fist and crying that we need more "revenue" or the sky will fall...

Well, I'm saying BULLCRAP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It should be obvious to any idiot that the name of the game in DC right now -- for all of them -- is make it look like we are saving money when the real issue get more and spend more...I see it from both sides. Left and right. They are all about spending our money, keeping their precious j-o-b, and all the power/perks that go with it....

And, guys like you...pfftt...you are obviously only interested in slavering all over the commie in the oval office just so you can get tingles up your leg...

*************************************************************************
Z you are entitled to your opinion; however, I'm going with the President's Commission on debt and the several non-partisan think tanks who say we have both a spending and revenue problem. Most Americans agree with that view.

I wish we would stop equating a family with government because the analogy doesn't work unless that family are counterfeiters producing their own money, and someone else who is independent of the family is charged with managing whatever monies they have. Further, a part of the problem in America is that families do not live within their means, and they are encouraged not to do so. We live in a stuff oriented society where we demand instant gratification.

Can you find fat, waste, abuse, and sometimes fraud in the Federal Government, of course you can. You can find the same in any for profit business, charity, or non-profit entity. What you can't find is a line item in the Federal Budget that says, fat, waste, abuse, or fraud.

The problem with terms like "fat" is that my fat is someone's beef. I remember our governor lecturing the Feds to stop spending shortly after he came into office. Out came the next federal budget wherein the navy decreased the size of it's fleet, and the NATO Headquarters in Norfolk was on the chopping block. In that budget over a thousand jobs would be lost in Norfolk and Hampton Roads area. Did our governor and Congressional delegation say they got it? Nope, they argued instead that the Administration was sacrificing national security.

As we speak, Congress is set to put stuff back into the Department of Defense's budget that DOD does not want. For example, DOD wants to shut down the M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank line for a number of years. Congress is set to say no, keep it open. Even the 2nd engine for the new advanced strike fighter is not dead.

Mr Z I agree that we should have a serious discussion about hard choices that are necessary to get our financial house in order. But that requires us Americans to take a serious look at the federal budget. It's also requires an informed electorate. Myths, political talking points, and ultimatums do nothing.

Bi-partisan ship is the only way we can begin to solve the problem. No party or group can have everything it's way. EVERYTHING must be on the table, that includes spending and revenue.

Here's what we know: eliminating waste, fraud and abuse while worthy goals will not begin to reduce the deficit. Eliminating foreign aid, which is less than 1% of the fed budget won't do it either. In fact, eliminating 100% of the discretionary budget won't do it either.

Bringing the deficit under control means addressing the following:
Medicare and Medicaid: 21% of fed spending
Social Security: 20%
Defense: 20%
Other Mandatory Spending (Vets compensation, food stamps, unemployment compensation, etc.) 17%
Interest on the debt: 6%

That totals 84%! The rest of the federal government operates on 16% of the budget. That's why the recent posturing about discretionary budget cuts was basically a lot of hot air.

Medicaid and Medicare are the fastest growing parts of the federal budget. If totally left alone ultimately they will consume 100% of the federal budget.

The federal workforce per capita has not really increased in size. There are fewer federal employees per capita than there was in the 60s. Besides the gross additions are mostly in the Home Land Security arena. For example, the border patrol has almost doubled since 2001. So drastic reductions in the federal workforce won't get us there either.

So let's stop posturing, drop the name calling, and get rid of the talking points because none of it solves a thing.
Gat6