Republicans

[Guest]

You know I profess to be republican but these dam republicans in Washington are getting stupider every day. First the speaker of the house now all of them appear to be fight amongst themselves and none of them want to lead. I'm almost ready to change to democrat. OMG what am I saying.

[Guest]

You know I profess to be republican but these dam republicans in Washington are getting stupider every day. First the speaker of the house now all of them appear to be fight amongst themselves and none of them want to lead. I'm almost ready to change to democrat. OMG what am I saying.

And the alternative is Hilary, Pelosi, Reid, Obama, Weiner, etc. I believe the proper choice is pretty evident.

[Guest]

You know I profess to be republican but these dam republicans in Washington are getting stupider every day. First the speaker of the house now all of them appear to be fight amongst themselves and none of them want to lead. I'm almost ready to change to democrat. OMG what am I saying.

really? It's not even a word...how can you judge the intelligence of others when it appears yours is in question?

[Guest]

You know I profess to be republican but these dam republicans in Washington are getting stupider every day. First the speaker of the house now all of them appear to be fight amongst themselves and none of them want to lead. I'm almost ready to change to democrat. OMG what am I saying.

I believe these kind of internal squabbles, at this time, are wonderful and long over due.

It is nothing but a good thing for this party.

They will be stronger and more importantly, more agressive.

[Guest]

I believe these kind of internal squabbles, at this time, are wonderful and long over due.

It is nothing but a good thing for this party.

They will be stronger and more importantly, more agressive.
Nice spin.

[Guest]

Nice spin.

Oh I am sorry.

I thought it was my OPINION, which I thought was what this was about...sharing facts and giving opinions.

Sorry....I messed you up...thanks for the "shot".....it is appreciated that you keep me honest, being all perfect and all.

[Guest]

Nice spin.

Same poster, same theme.

Never a contributing comment, only a sarcastic comment.

Poster who called out this same poster for acting like the judge and perfection was right on.

Judgemental with no opinion except cute comments.

[Guest]

i have heard Daniel Webster speak and was very impressed with him...apparently he is well thought of as the House Speaker from Florida, so he would probably do a great job on the national level, also. he needs to get a good marketer! :)

[Guest]

Let's let a leading Republican Congressman weigh in.

Rep. Peter King on GOP Chaos: 'We Look Absolutely Crazy' (http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/peter-king-reaction-kevin-mccarthy-dropping/2015/10/08/id/695383/)

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Guest;1126885]I believe these kind of internal squabbles, at this time, are wonderful and long over due.

It is nothing but a good thing for this party.

They will be stronger and more importantly, more aggressive

Quote Lincoln, "a house divided against itself can not stand." The Freedom Caucus thru their my way or nothing approach combined with the Hastert rule makes the Speaker of the House position almost impossible. There is no way that can be good.

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Guest;1126885]I believe these kind of internal squabbles, at this time, are wonderful and long over due.

It is nothing but a good thing for this party.

They will be stronger and more importantly, more aggressive

Quote Lincoln, "a house divided against itself can not stand." The Freedom Caucus thru their my way or nothing approach combined with the Hastert rule makes the Speaker of the House position almost impossible. There is no way that can be good.

Bring back John C. Calhoun!

[Guest]

Too many rhinos form the NE in the Republician party, actually the democrats have the majority when you include the rhinos. A republician from anywhere in the NE, Cala, Oregon are rhinos. You know closet liberals.:1rotfl::shocked:

[Guest]

Oh I am sorry.

I thought it was my OPINION, which I thought was what this was about...sharing facts and giving opinions.

Sorry....I messed you up...thanks for the "shot".....it is appreciated that you keep me honest, being all perfect and all.
Hey, it was a complement. I didn't say "typical spin" or"nice try". In fact, it was an excellent spin. You took some pretty negative circumstances and gave them a positive outlook. Well done.
.

[Guest]

Same poster, same theme.

Never a contributing comment, only a sarcastic comment.

Poster who called out this same poster for acting like the judge and perfection was right on.

Judgemental with no opinion except cute comments.
Speaking of judgememtal......

[Guest]

Too many rhinos form the NE in the Republician party, actually the democrats have the majority when you include the rhinos. A republician from anywhere in the NE, Cala, Oregon are rhinos. You know closet liberals.:1rotfl::shocked:

The Donald seems to be the lead rhino with his promises of very big government with the Trump Wall and the bureaucracy it will need to carry out his immigration plan as well as his boosting up the military. Ronald Reagan would not be all that proud.

And how will his tax plan and huge government spending plans play with the vast Federal Deficit?

[Guest]

The Donald seems to be the lead rhino with his promises of very big government with the Trump Wall and the bureaucracy it will need to carry out his immigration plan as well as his boosting up the military. Ronald Reagan would not be all that proud.

And how will his tax plan and huge government spending plans play with the vast Federal Deficit?

I guess now that the Obama admin has doubled the national debt the annual deficit should be interesting, but still doable. Balancing the budget is one thing, but lowering the national debt means you need a surplus and that hasn't happened since Eisenhower. He was the only president to lower the national debt a bit, in my lifetime. So, can Trumps tax plan work? I guess if he is going to give anyone below $50K a pass, then he will have to tax the heck out of the wealthy. And to tax anyone more than anyone else, percentage-wise, would be construed as discrimination according to the constitution. It would be interesting to see what the Supreme court would say about unfair taxation by discrimination between achievers and non-achievers.

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Guest;1126885]I believe these kind of internal squabbles, at this time, are wonderful and long over due.

It is nothing but a good thing for this party.

They will be stronger and more importantly, more aggressive

Quote Lincoln, "a house divided against itself can not stand." The Freedom Caucus thru their my way or nothing approach combined with the Hastert rule makes the Speaker of the House position almost impossible. There is no way that can be good.

I never ever thought of supporting the Tea Party or the Freedom Caucus, but watching the Democratic Party 1) run amok over the rules of congress in order to manipulate 2) show utter disregard for Americans with ACA and Iran 3) give zero respect to any opposition and refuse to listen to anyone but themselves 4) run with great haste to the extreme left....

I am now open to them.

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Guest;1126991]

I never ever thought of supporting the Tea Party or the Freedom Caucus, but watching the Democratic Party 1) run amok over the rules of congress in order to manipulate 2) show utter disregard for Americans with ACA and Iran 3) give zero respect to any opposition and refuse to listen to anyone but themselves 4) run with great haste to the extreme left....

I am now open to them.

Good point. Fight ultra liberalism/socialism with ultra conservatism. Works for me. The Tea Party is starting to look better every day.

[Guest]

I guess now that the Obama admin has doubled the national debt the annual deficit should be interesting, but still doable. Balancing the budget is one thing, but lowering the national debt means you need a surplus and that hasn't happened since Eisenhower. He was the only president to lower the national debt a bit, in my lifetime. So, can Trumps tax plan work? I guess if he is going to give anyone below $50K a pass, then he will have to tax the heck out of the wealthy. And to tax anyone more than anyone else, percentage-wise, would be construed as discrimination according to the constitution. It would be interesting to see what the Supreme court would say about unfair taxation by discrimination between achievers and non-achievers.

A lot of the debt incurred by Obama is a direct result of what he was handed. Remember Romney quote, "47% of the people don't pat taxes." Trump is giving very little, if anything, to people making less than $50,000.

To tax anyone more than anyone else would be construed as discrimination according to the constitution. That is about the most inaccurate statement ever posted here. Different tax brackets have been in place, since at least the 50's. The top tax bracket under Ike was 90%. No one in the top bracket has ever brought a case that would make it to the Supreme Court ever.

[Guest]

A lot of the debt incurred by Obama is a direct result of what he was handed. Remember Romney quote, "47% of the people don't pat taxes." Trump is giving very little, if anything, to people making less than $50,000.

To tax anyone more than anyone else would be construed as discrimination according to the constitution. That is about the most inaccurate statement ever posted here. Different tax brackets have been in place, since at least the 50's. The top tax bracket under Ike was 90%. No one in the top bracket has ever brought a case that would make it to the Supreme Court ever.

You might want to read the link below which is a fair and non biased look at Obama spending, by not only the Washington Post but also AP.

It does the analysis WITHOUT the bail out stuff. I doubt if you will read it and not going to waste space on here with a lot of quotes....but suffice to say...it ends like this...

"The White House might have a case that some of the rhetoric concerning Obama’s spending patterns has been overblown, but the spokesman should do a better job of checking his facts before accusing reporters of failing to do so. The picture is not as rosy as he portrayed it when accurate numbers, taken in context, are used."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-facts-about-the-growth-of-spending-under-obama/2012/05/24/gJQAIJh6nU_blog.html


A good read if you want unvarnished truth instead of the political crap.

[Guest]

In addition and this spending is not reflected in government figures.

This is from the end of June.....

"Oregon may be the only place where state leaders are ordering consumers to pay more for health insurance. But virtually everywhere else, insurance premiums are climbing — sometimes by as much as 50 percent.

And in every case, Obamacare’s benefit mandates, taxes, fees, and onerous regulations are to blame."

"President Obama sold his law as a means to spare people from “double-digit premium increases year after year.”

"Instead, his “inartfully” named — and drafted — Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act has made the situation worse, with insurers asking for the double-digit premium increases the president promised to do away with."

Forbes Welcome (http://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypipes/2015/06/29/obamacares-true-costs-are-finally-coming-to-light/)

You begin to understand why all those closed door secret meeting with only insurance companies in attendance in the WH !!!

The linked article points our a number of states seeking increases in costs.....and adds...

"Increases like these, if approved, will come on top of the average 41 percent hike in rates during Obamacare’s first year.

The only reason the “Affordable” Care Act is even remotely affordable to anyone is because of the tens of billions of dollars in subsidies it hands out to about 6.4 million enrollees.

Obamacare’s backers are quick to point out that these rate requests aren’t final — and that states often dial them back.

But what they don’t say is that these rates are based on hard, historical data — actual claims experience. As insurance industry expert Robert Laszewski said, “A 35 percent rate increase is hardly going to be rolled back to 5 percent.”

Spiraling premiums are precisely what critics said would happen once Obamacare’s benefit mandates, taxes, fees, and regulations took effect.


And it still is not completely in affect yet...more to come

[Guest]

A lot of the debt incurred by Obama is a direct result of what he was handed. Remember Romney quote, "47% of the people don't pat taxes." Trump is giving very little, if anything, to people making less than $50,000.

To tax anyone more than anyone else would be construed as discrimination according to the constitution. That is about the most inaccurate statement ever posted here. Different tax brackets have been in place, since at least the 50's. The top tax bracket under Ike was 90%. No one in the top bracket has ever brought a case that would make it to the Supreme Court ever.

Someone else already corrected you on the debt "handed" to Obama, so I will suggest that you think a bit about the discrimination point. Just because something was done before, does not make it right and the Supreme court has proven this time after time, with such things as civil rights (blacks and women) and even abortion. Just because this country has done something for decades or more, doesn't mean that it won't be changed by a court ruling. I think you have just seen this recently when it comes to gay marriage.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution in part says this:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence[note 1] and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

I do realize that this has been argued over and over again, but I am merely stating an example how one could read this as meaning that ALL TAXES have to be equal (UNIFORM) for everyone. In other words, a flat tax or a "fair tax" would be deemed "Uniform" or equal. Depending on the ideology of the supreme court judges, that could be interpreted in that way.

The point I was trying to make was that making some pay more taxes or at a different rate than others really IS discrimination. Because you are treating one group of people better than others. The rich receive one vote per citizen, the same as the poor. They get nothing more or advantageous for paying more taxes.

I think that someone needs to revisit the tax program and fix it so that some folks are not paying at a higher rate than others. No matter how you word it, if I am paying 15% taxes on my income and another is paying 35%, then that person is being discriminated against or not being treated equally. Do I want to pay more taxes? Of course not! Do I believe that everyone should have some skin in the game? YEP! Because if you are paying your taxes, then you have a right to say how congress is abusing our revenues. If you are not paying taxes, then you really don't care as long as you are not having to support their frivolous spending.

[Guest]

You might want to read the link below which is a fair and non biased look at Obama spending, by not only the Washington Post but also AP.

It does the analysis WITHOUT the bail out stuff. I doubt if you will read it and not going to waste space on here with a lot of quotes....but suffice to say...it ends like this...

"The White House might have a case that some of the rhetoric concerning Obama’s spending patterns has been overblown, but the spokesman should do a better job of checking his facts before accusing reporters of failing to do so. The picture is not as rosy as he portrayed it when accurate numbers, taken in context, are used."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-facts-about-the-growth-of-spending-under-obama/2012/05/24/gJQAIJh6nU_blog.html


A good read if you want unvarnished truth instead of the political crap.

When are you going to stop with the wise ass comments? It is childish to say the least. I have said many times figures lie, and liars figure. The Washington Post, and Carney are both guilty of using numbers to support their argument.

Using total numbers, doesn't give the whole story. The devil is in the details. We have an aging population. More people are collecting social security, and Medicare. So, using total dollars doesn't take this into consideration. One year is not comparable to the previous years. There are other government mandated programs such as food stamps that have the same affect on the total cost of government. A fair evaluation of Obama would be programs that he started and the cost of these programs. Right or wrong?

What that article did not reference was the drop in government receipts due to the great recession. That has a lot to do with the rise in national debt during the Obama years. Less people working equals less taxes collected.

Why is the increase in national debt always a topic of discussion? There will always be an argument that leans to the party that you support. In our current state of politics, common sense is flushed down the toilet. The blame game has taken over.

[Guest]

When are you going to stop with the wise ass comments? It is childish to say the least. I have said many times figures lie, and liars figure. The Washington Post, and Carney are both guilty of using numbers to support their argument.

Using total numbers, doesn't give the whole story. The devil is in the details. We have an aging population. More people are collecting social security, and Medicare. So, using total dollars doesn't take this into consideration. One year is not comparable to the previous years. There are other government mandated programs such as food stamps that have the same affect on the total cost of government. A fair evaluation of Obama would be programs that he started and the cost of these programs. Right or wrong?

What that article did not reference was the drop in government receipts due to the great recession. That has a lot to do with the rise in national debt during the Obama years. Less people working equals less taxes collected.

Why is the increase in national debt always a topic of discussion? There will always be an argument that leans to the party that you support. In our current state of politics, common sense is flushed down the toilet. The blame game has taken over.

Well, oh wise man....I simply posted a link because someone said that the debt increase, or a lot of it, was handed to Obama. That is why the link was posted.

I was not wise in any way. I simply made a comment that it was unvarnished in its presentation. I certainly apologize for my insensitivity.

The other problems you have you will need to take up with the Washington Post and/or the AP !!!

[Guest]

When are you going to stop with the wise ass comments? It is childish to say the least. I have said many times figures lie, and liars figure. The Washington Post, and Carney are both guilty of using numbers to support their argument.

Using total numbers, doesn't give the whole story. The devil is in the details. We have an aging population. More people are collecting social security, and Medicare. So, using total dollars doesn't take this into consideration. One year is not comparable to the previous years. There are other government mandated programs such as food stamps that have the same affect on the total cost of government. A fair evaluation of Obama would be programs that he started and the cost of these programs. Right or wrong?

What that article did not reference was the drop in government receipts due to the great recession. That has a lot to do with the rise in national debt during the Obama years. Less people working equals less taxes collected.

Why is the increase in national debt always a topic of discussion? There will always be an argument that leans to the party that you support. In our current state of politics, common sense is flushed down the toilet. The blame game has taken over.

You ask....

"Why is the increase in national debt always a topic of discussion? "


"In the long run, a growing Federal debt is like driving with the emergency brake on, further slowing the U.S. economy. At any point, debt holders could demand larger interest payments to compensate for what they perceive as an increasing risk they won't be repaid. When this happens, the United States will have to pay exorbitant amounts just for the interest. To current interest payments, see Federal Spending.

Congress realizes it is facing a debt crisis. Over the next 20 years, the Social Security Trust Fund won't have enough to cover the retirement benefits promised to Baby Boomers. That means higher taxes, since the high U.S. debt rules out further loans from other countries. Unfortunately, it's most likely that these benefits will be curtailed, either to retirees younger than 70, or to those who are high income and therefore aren't as dependent on Social Security payments to fund their retirement. Article updated January 3, 2015"

US Debt and How It Affects the Economy (http://useconomy.about.com/od/fiscalpolicy/p/US_Debt.htm)

[Guest]

"From a public policy standpoint, the issuance of debt is typically accepted by the public, so long as the proceeds are used to stimulate the growth of the economy in a manner that will lead to the country's long-term prosperity. However, when debt is raised simply to fund public consumption, such as proceeds used for Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid, the use of debt loses a significant amount of support. When debt is used to fund economic expansion, current and future generations stand to reap the rewards. However, debt used to fuel consumption only presents advantages to the current generation.

Read more: What The National Debt Means To You What The National Debt Means To You (http://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/10/national-debt.asp#ixzz3oDRXjvBA)
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook

[Guest]

Someone else already corrected you on the debt "handed" to Obama, so I will suggest that you think a bit about the discrimination point. Just because something was done before, does not make it right and the Supreme court has proven this time after time, with such things as civil rights (blacks and women) and even abortion. Just because this country has done something for decades or more, doesn't mean that it won't be changed by a court ruling. I think you have just seen this recently when it comes to gay marriage.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution in part says this:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence[note 1] and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

I do realize that this has been argued over and over again, but I am merely stating an example how one could read this as meaning that ALL TAXES have to be equal (UNIFORM) for everyone. In other words, a flat tax or a "fair tax" would be deemed "Uniform" or equal. Depending on the ideology of the supreme court judges, that could be interpreted in that way.

The point I was trying to make was that making some pay more taxes or at a different rate than others really IS discrimination. Because you are treating one group of people better than others. The rich receive one vote per citizen, the same as the poor. They get nothing more or advantageous for paying more taxes.

I think that someone needs to revisit the tax program and fix it so that some folks are not paying at a higher rate than others. No matter how you word it, if I am paying 15% taxes on my income and another is paying 35%, then that person is being discriminated against or not being treated equally. Do I want to pay more taxes? Of course not! Do I believe that everyone should have some skin in the game? YEP! Because if you are paying your taxes, then you have a right to say how congress is abusing our revenues. If you are not paying taxes, then you really don't care as long as you are not having to support their frivolous spending.

All kidding aside, you are the first person that responded without resorting to name calling. Be careful, they might throw you off the island. At least I know that I am dealing with a gentleman, and I will respond in kind.

A flat tax with no deductions will destroy the housing market, therefore, the economy. Most middle Americans homeowners are counting on mortgage interest, and property taxes to reduce their taxes.

The rich don't get anything more for their taxes. You are going to put more money in their pockets. The top 1% can't spend what they have now. What about corporations? Are you going to tax them based upon sales rather than income? A flat tax is a road to nowhere. Simple solutions to complex problems never works.

To change the subject a little, the rich don't get anything for their taxes, but they do get something for the political donations. Would you be in favor of government funded elections? The candidates could not raise money on their own. All political action groups including 501(4)c charitable political action groups would be eliminated.

[Guest]

All kidding aside, you are the first person that responded without resorting to name calling. Be careful, they might throw you off the island. At least I know that I am dealing with a gentleman, and I will respond in kind.

A flat tax with no deductions will destroy the housing market, therefore, the economy. Most middle Americans homeowners are counting on mortgage interest, and property taxes to reduce their taxes.

The rich don't get anything more for their taxes. You are going to put more money in their pockets. The top 1% can't spend what they have now. What about corporations? Are you going to tax them based upon sales rather than income? A flat tax is a road to nowhere. Simple solutions to complex problems never works.

To change the subject a little, the rich don't get anything for their taxes, but they do get something for the political donations. Would you be in favor of government funded elections? The candidates could not raise money on their own. All political action groups including 501(4)c charitable political action groups would be eliminated.

Ahh, I see. So, you are for taking from that have to give to those that don't have. Quite generous with other folks money,huh? And according to you, the rich can't spend all that money they have so you feel it is up to the gov to decide how it is shared. Very generous of you.

Simple solutions don't work? Where did you get that idea? You must have heard it somewhere. There is no scientific facts to back your claim. How about some historic facts? You make a lot of statements like they are fact, when they are nothing more than amateur suppositions.

Please explain how "You are going to put more money in their pockets" because I keep hearing how you liberals seem to think that if the gov allows you to keep some of your money, that you earned, that it is considered a gift from the gov to the wealthy. I really do find it interesting when you say that if the gov doesn't steal you money, it is really giving you money.

So, what we come back to is discrimination. One group being treated/punished in a different manner than another group. Of course, being the party of slavery, I can see why discrimination is considered normal treatment.

[Guest]

Ahh, I see. So, you are for taking from that have to give to those that don't have. Quite generous with other folks money,huh? And according to you, the rich can't spend all that money they have so you feel it is up to the gov to decide how it is shared. Very generous of you.

Simple solutions don't work? Where did you get that idea? You must have heard it somewhere. There is no scientific facts to back your claim. How about some historic facts? You make a lot of statements like they are fact, when they are nothing more than amateur suppositions.

Please explain how "You are going to put more money in their pockets" because I keep hearing how you liberals seem to think that if the gov allows you to keep some of your money, that you earned, that it is considered a gift from the gov to the wealthy. I really do find it interesting when you say that if the gov doesn't steal you money, it is really giving you money.

So, what we come back to is discrimination. One group being treated/punished in a different manner than another group. Of course, being the party of slavery, I can see why discrimination is considered normal treatment.

You are beyond hope. You provide a link that states a flat tax wouldn't hurt the economy. Simple solution for the simple minded fits you like a tee. You are a worthless human (?) being that couldn't find his ass with both his hands. All you want to do is degrade someone else. The problem is you aren't very good at it. Why, because you don't have the brains that you were born with.

What the hell do you think the graduated income tax has done for decades? But this my idea? You are so far right that no one should take you seriously. Democracy is the furthest thing on your mind. If you don't to everything my way, you are not worth talking to. Your government of choice is a dictatorship.


I really do find it interesting when you say that if the gov doesn't steal you money, it is really giving you money. When the hell, did I say that? I have no idea what that means. Taxing is stealing!

[Guest]

You are beyond hope. You provide a link that states a flat tax wouldn't hurt the economy. Simple solution for the simple minded fits you like a tee. You are a worthless human (?) being that couldn't find his ass with both his hands. All you want to do is degrade someone else. The problem is you aren't very good at it. Why, because you don't have the brains that you were born with.

What the hell do you think the graduated income tax has done for decades? But this my idea? You are so far right that no one should take you seriously. Democracy is the furthest thing on your mind. If you don't to everything my way, you are not worth talking to. Your government of choice is a dictatorship.


I really do find it interesting when you say that if the gov doesn't steal you money, it is really giving you money. When the hell, did I say that? I have no idea what that means. Taxing is stealing!

I have provided NO link regarding a "flat tax." You must be confused.

You are not only confused, but you seem to be a bit bi-polar. Or maybe you have a bit of tourette syndrome. You do enjoy your verbal assaults, don't you?

You speak of Democracy, and yet you feel it is OK to treat others unfairly. I find that humorous.

So, you feel that if the gov allows you to keep your money, they are really giving you money. So, if you lower the tax rate of the wealthy, the gov is GIVING the wealthy money, not allowing them to keep what is legally theirs, right?

Obviously, you are a believer of redistribution of wealth (ie, socialism). So, if my car breaks down and I need to get to work and you have two cars, I should assume that you owe me one of them. After all, you would have more than me and it would be your socialist duty to share your wealth.

[Guest]

What the hell do you think the graduated income tax has done for decades?

You asked what I think the graduated tax has done for decades. I believe that the graduated tax rates unfairly put the burden of financing the government on those that work the hardest and have the most. In my opinion, if you don't contribute, you shouldn't get a vote. I also believe that one person paying 15% of his/her earnings and another paying 35% is unfair and not in the spirit of the constitution, fair play or the American way. And families making $50K a year not paying taxes is unacceptable. A flat tax is fair and equal. A "fair tax" is fair and equal. Both have been studied and deemed workable by economists.

No one wishes to pay taxes. But those that do pay taxes have more right to demand accountability of the gov spending. EVERYONE should have skin in the game or they shouldn't have a voice in how the gov is run.

I do not care how other presidents collected taxes. I do not think they are any more intelligent than me or many other folks. Even I am just as qualified as Obama to run the country, and have way more leadership and management experience. Not that I would ever wish to.

You liberals complain that the rich take their money overseas. Why shouldn't they? America has turned it's back on them. Governments are greedy, as well as those that are on the government dole. Time to ween the spoiled off the gov teat.

[Guest]

I just love how these topics evolve from what they started. Very interesting.

[Guest]

You asked what I think the graduated tax has done for decades. I believe that the graduated tax rates unfairly put the burden of financing the government on those that work the hardest and have the most. In my opinion, if you don't contribute, you shouldn't get a vote. I also believe that one person paying 15% of his/her earnings and another paying 35% is unfair and not in the spirit of the constitution, fair play or the American way. And families making $50K a year not paying taxes is unacceptable. A flat tax is fair and equal. A "fair tax" is fair and equal. Both have been studied and deemed workable by economists.

No one wishes to pay taxes. But those that do pay taxes have more right to demand accountability of the gov spending. EVERYONE should have skin in the game or they shouldn't have a voice in how the gov is run.

I do not care how other presidents collected taxes. I do not think they are any more intelligent than me or many other folks. Even I am just as qualified as Obama to run the country, and have way more leadership and management experience. Not that I would ever wish to.

You liberals complain that the rich take their money overseas. Why shouldn't they? America has turned it's back on them. Governments are greedy, as well as those that are on the government dole. Time to ween the spoiled off the gov teat.

I do not think they are any more intelligent than I.... .just sayin'.

[Guest]

I do not think they are any more intelligent than I.... .just sayin'.

What do you mean, Chi-town? What are you referring to?

Sometimes, I think that "Intelligence" is over rated. There's something to be said about common sense.

[Guest]

What do you mean, Chi-town? What are you referring to?

Sometimes, I think that "Intelligence" is over rated. There's something to be said about common sense.
M, I was just having a little fun correcting a blatant grammarical error since the post referenced intelligence. I agree with you totally about the importance of common sense. I know a few book smart people who are stupid in life. A lot of our best leaders had no cum laude prefixes or were mensa candidates. They were smart enough and wise enough. And they could figure things out.

[Guest]

M, I was just having a little fun correcting a blatant grammarical error since the post referenced intelligence. I agree with you totally about the importance of common sense. I know a few book smart people who are stupid in life. A lot of our best leaders had no cum laude prefixes or were mensa candidates. They were smart enough and wise enough. And they could figure things out.

Now, you have gone too far. Correcting one's grammar. By the way, I believe it is grammatical :D

[Guest]

"intelligence" as measured by what?

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Guest;1126991]

I never ever thought of supporting the Tea Party or the Freedom Caucus, but watching the Democratic Party 1) run amok over the rules of congress in order to manipulate 2) show utter disregard for Americans with ACA and Iran 3) give zero respect to any opposition and refuse to listen to anyone but themselves 4) run with great haste to the extreme left....

I am now open to them.

Dear Guest: I am not a Tea Party member but this nation of ours has gone so far to the extreme left that it will take something like the Tea Party to pull it toward center

The Republicans are ineffective because other than the Freedom Caucus (40 members) the remaining Republicans either vote with Democrats or are unwilling to take a stand. Voters sent the 40 or so member of the Freedom Caucus to get this nation going in the right direction .

The Republican party is in disarray because there is infighting among the Freedom Caucus, the Establishment and Evangicals

[Guest]

Now, you have gone too far. Correcting one's grammar. By the way, I believe it is grammatical :D

I believe you are right. Someone asked me some time ago where my grammar was. I said, "In the kitchen baking cookies." Thanks for the correction.

[Guest]

I believe you are right. Someone asked me some time ago where my grammar was. I said, "In the kitchen baking cookies." Thanks for the correction.

I've gone back on several occasions AFTER pushing the send button and realized that I have left words out, or butchered them so bad that they were beyond recognition. My go-to reasoning/excuse is me having a senior moment.

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Guest;1127074]

Dear Guest: I am not a Tea Party member but this nation of ours has gone so far to the extreme left that it will take something like the Tea Party to pull it toward center

The Republicans are ineffective because other than the Freedom Caucus (40 members) the remaining Republicans either vote with Democrats or are unwilling to take a stand. Voters sent the 40 or so member of the Freedom Caucus to get this nation going in the right direction .

The Republican party is in disarray because there is infighting among the Freedom Caucus, the Establishment and Evangicals

And now, I hate to say it, the Republicans are self-destructing. This election should have been in the bag, but we will probably give it to the left, on a silver platter.

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Guest;1127573]

And now, I hate to say it, the Republicans are self-destructing. This election should have been in the bag, but we will probably give it to the left, on a silver platter.

NAH.....get rid of Trump first.

THEN become aggressive and stand their ground and it will work out.

Great candidates once Trump is history !

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Guest;1127609]

NAH.....get rid of Trump first.

THEN become aggressive and stand their ground and it will work out.

Great candidates once Trump is history !

Trump will not be the Republican nominee - but he WILL run as a third party. He will siphon off votes and Hillary wins!

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Guest;1127676]

Trump will not be the Republican nominee - but he WILL run as a third party. He will siphon off votes and Hillary wins!

With her legal troubles (which seem to be getting worse by the day), Hillary won't even be a viable candidate by this time next year.

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Guest;1127721]

With her legal troubles (which seem to be getting worse by the day), Hillary won't even be a viable candidate by this time next year.

What MOST dems already know.....that's why....heeeeerrrrreeeee comes Joey!!

[Guest]

And the alternative is Hilary, Pelosi, Reid, Obama, Weiner, etc. I believe the proper choice is pretty evident.

No doubt, Hilary!!!!

[Guest]

No doubt, Hilary!!!!

BS!

[Guest]

REPUBLICANS is the subject and this is what they are saying on that other site.

This from a poster named MARY who also posts on here, regarding the Republican problems naming a speaker...

"Based on today's inaction by the Republican controlled House, it looks like a declaration has been made. The so called "Freedom Caucus", aka the tea party, which is really just home grown terrorists, have split from the Republican Party. They are in fact a third party.

Now, the Dems should be declared the majority, by lawsuit if necessary, and
should be granted all rights and privileges therein. We should be electing our new speaker of the house.
It's time to put the tea party nut jobs in their place and stop kowtowing to these cowardly punks, hell bent on the destruction of our country!"

Then after a short rebuttal, mentioning how the sharp move left made the Tea Party, this appeared from JOHN who also posts and read on here (he loves to talk ABOUT posters by the way)

"There is only one truism. Your beloved tea party, aka domestic terrorists, has Ben taken over by corporations looking to further line their packets. They feed their propaganda to the angry old white bigots, you, and you buy their crap. They have clearly demonstrated they have no plan for governing nor do they want to. All they ( you ) want is to line your pockets further, instill your religious doctrine on everybody, and keep the illegals and " darkies" at bay. You are a prime example of a disgusting human being, the classical angry old white man, along with your dutiful wife looking to step back in time 100 years or more. We're mad as hell and are not gonna take your ********* crap anymore!

New third party - Discussion on Topix (http://www.topix.com/forum/city/the-villages-fl/TTLMML8AN4BBNU99F)

Point is that this kind of pure hate talk is what is going to do in the left in this next election and for the future.

[Guest]

Yesterday's Daily Sun had a great political cartoon. It showed Ben Carson running with two workers from the looney bin with nets chasing him. The caption was, "See, Carson does have a following!"

[Guest]

I guess they got tired of portraying Hilary with COPs chasing her. I wonder how much it is going to cost Bill to keep her from going to jail. It's not their money anyway. It's money belonging to his "charity" ha,ha,ha. Pretty neat how they "donate" money to the charity, take a tax break on it, and then use the money for travel and food. Wonder how I can get in on some of that action.