Warrior General Games

I meant to say what *I* said, not you. I was making a point that you quoted my response and then made a statement that worked with what I had just said.
It does in fact work with what you said.

What would you have favored instead of the bail out? What do you think would have been the best solution? Why do you think the bail out is a bad solution?

Originally posted by Admerylous
I meant to say what *I* said, not you. I was making a point that you quoted my response and then made a statement that worked with what I had just said.
It does in fact work with what you said.

What would you have favored instead of the bail out? What do you think would have been the best solution? Why do you think the bail out is a bad solution?

It may work to solve this particular problem, but I think it alters business incentives on wall street, thus creating more problems to come. I also think it is a particularly egregious example of Congress's lack of respect for taxpayer money. Finally, and of more interest to me personally, I think it is a destructive precedent for a representative democracy. Much like on wall street, where companies now fear going under less because it does NOT result in corporate disaster (if McCain gets the election, they may even swing a healthy profit!)... if we do not call representatives to task in the upcoming election for directly disobeying the public mandate, their incentives to actually follow the opinion of those they purport to represent will be diminished. That is frightening to me.

I think it is the only solution to the current problem. I feel that our lawmakers and legislatures are now looking back saying, "holy shit, the way we fostered and allowed that to happen was entirely fucked up." Hopefully they properly amend these issues to prevent problems to come. Personally, I am currently in a situation where small private loans are very important to me so I absolutely need this plan to work to keep these lenders afloat.

Originally posted by Admerylous
Personally, I am currently in a situation where small private loans are very important to me so I absolutely need this plan to work to keep these lenders afloat.

Then you need to vote for McCain!

Originally posted by hutchins929
Originally posted by Admerylous

Personally, I am currently in a situation where small private loans are very important to me so I absolutely need this plan to work to keep these lenders afloat.

Then you need to vote for McCain!

Wrong. Obama's economic policies benefit me far more than McCain's.
Hutchins, I'm convinced you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

I'm sure you'd feel at home with these people:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itEucdhf4Us

Originally posted by hutchins929
Originally posted by Admerylous

Personally, I am currently in a situation where small private loans are very important to me so I absolutely need this plan to work to keep these lenders afloat.

Then you need to vote for McCain!

hutchins, you know what the coolest thing about you is? your laser tiger! it's badass.

















besides that you pretty much have no worth.

Joe the Plumber Becomes Debate Focus
By PHILIP ELLIOTT, AP

COLUMBUS, Ohio (Oct. 15) - Who is Joe the Plumber?

He is Joe Wurzelbacher, an Ohio man looking to buy a plumbing business who came to symbolize the notion of "spreading the wealth" in Wednesday night's third and final presidential debate between Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain.

Earlier this week, when Wurzelbacher got a chance to speak with Obama when the candidate visited Toledo, he told Obama that his tax plan would keep him from buying the business that currently employs him.

Sensing an opening in the debate, McCain cited that exchange when the candidates were asked to explain why their economic plans are better than their opponent's. McCain said Obama's plan would stop entrepreneurs from investing in new small businesses and keep existing ones from growing.

"Joe wants to buy the business that he has been in for all of these years, worked 10, 12 hours a day. And he wanted to buy the business but he looked at your tax plan and he saw that he was going to pay much higher taxes," McCain challenged Obama.
"You were going to put him in a higher tax bracket which was going to increase his taxes, which was going to cause him not to be able to employ people, which Joe was trying to realize the American dream," McCain said.

McCain then looked directly into the TV camera and said: "Joe, I want to tell you, I'll not only help you buy that business that you worked your whole life for and I'll keep your taxes low and I'll provide available and affordable health care for you and your employees. And I will not stand for a tax increase on small business income."

Obama denied that was true.

"Not only do 98 percent of small businesses make less than $250,000, but I also want to give them additional tax breaks, because they are the drivers of the economy," Obama said. "They produce the most jobs."

So what did Wurzelbacher (pronounced whur-zell-BAHK-er) think about being at the center of the debate?

"It's pretty surreal, man, my name being mentioned in a presidential campaign," he said minutes after hearing McCain utter his name.

In Toledo on Sunday, Wurzelbacher told Obama that he was preparing the company, which earns more than $250,000 a year, and said: "Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it?"

Obama said that under his proposal taxes on any revenue from $250,000 on down would stay the same, but that amounts above that level would be subject to a 39 percent tax, instead of the current 36 percent rate.

"And the reason why we're doing that is because 95 percent of small businesses make less than 250 (thousand). So what I want to do is give them a tax cut. I want to give all these folks who are bus drivers, teachers, auto workers who make less, I want to give them a tax cut," he said.

Wurzelbacher protested, saying he's been a hardworking plumber for 15 years and why should he be taxed more.

"It's not that I want to punish your success," Obama said. "I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you that they've got a chance at success, too."

At a later point in the discussion, Obama said: "I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody. But listen, I respect what you do and I respect your question, and even if I don't get your vote, I'm still gonna be working hard on your behalf because small businesses are what creates jobs in this country and I want to encourage it."

Wurzelbacher's name came up again when the debate turned to a discussion of health care policies.

He said Obama's reaction on the tax question left him feeling uneasy.
"I didn't think much of it the first time I heard it," Wurzelbacher said, adding that he still thinks Obama's plan would keep him from buying the business.
About McCain: "He's got it right as far as I go."

Even so, Wurzelbacher declined to say which candidate would get his vote on Nov. 4.
"That's for me and a button to know," he said.

http://news.aol.com/elections/debates/article/ohio-plumber-becomes-debate-focus/213516?icid=200100397x1210919684x1200706880

Originally posted by Admerylous
I think it is the only solution to the current problem. I feel that our lawmakers and legislatures are now looking back saying, "holy shit, the way we fostered and allowed that to happen was entirely fucked up." Hopefully they properly amend these issues to prevent problems to come. Personally, I am currently in a situation where small private loans are very important to me so I absolutely need this plan to work to keep these lenders afloat.

Well then you're exactly the type of situation this bailout was intended to address. I really hope you can get your credit man.

As for Hutchins' big thing... well alot of it is interesting to me, but I don't think it's really very relevant to your discussion with Admerylous dude

Hutchins, I am a student. Hutchins, I am not trying to purchase or run a small business the nets over 250,000 dollars a year. I am not worried about, if I had a business that made over 250,000 dollars a year, a 3 percent tax increase.

Hutchins, point out ANYTHING. Absolutely ANYTHING in the McCain tax plan that favors me more than the Obama plan. Please.

Do you realize you are just mindlessly posting articles and bolding shit that entirely doesn't apply? It doesn't even apply to the VAST majority of Americans.

So now we're supposed to vote for McCain so those who make over or run business that net over 250,000 dollars a year and more don't get a tax increase of 3% while we get a tax cut? Really?

Fuck Joe. Give Rob, Bob, Dale, Sarah, Alex, Steve, Mike, Henry, Chris, Gina, Kristen, Rebecca, Albert, Paula, John, Eric, Dominic, Jerry, and Brendan a (bigger) break.
ps. That's 5% vs 95%, just to put shit into perspective for you.

Originally posted by Admerylous
So now we're supposed to vote for McCain so those who make over or run business that net over 250,000 dollars a year and more don't get a tax increase of 3% while we get a tax cut? Really?

Fuck Joe. Give Rob, Bob, Dale, Sarah, Alex, Steve, Mike, Henry, Chris, Gina, Kristen, Rebecca, Albert, Paula, John, Eric, Dominic, Jerry, and Brendan a (bigger) break.
ps. That's 5% vs 95%, just to put shit into perspective for you.

To be fair, the argument the other way is twofold:

1) Do we believe it's okay to violate one person's rights just to make the world a better place for other people?

2) Will it really benefit other people? On the corporate level, will tax increases drive even more jobs overseas? On the individual level, will tax increases decrease incentives for the most intelligent (almost always wealthy) individuals to innovate and make this world a better place for all concerned?

Personally, I'm not willing to fuck Joe, no matter the wonders which may follow for everyone else. The means doesn't justify the ends.

Originally posted by Admerylous
Hutchins, I am a student. Hutchins, I am not trying to purchase or run a small business the nets over 250,000 dollars a year. I am not worried about, if I had a business that made over 250,000 dollars a year, a 3 percent tax increase.

Hutchins, point out ANYTHING. Absolutely ANYTHING in the McCain tax plan that favors me more than the Obama plan. Please.

Do you realize you are just mindlessly posting articles and bolding shit that entirely doesn't apply? It doesn't even apply to the VAST majority of Americans.

So now we're supposed to vote for McCain so those who make over or run business that net over 250,000 dollars a year and more don't get a tax increase of 3% while we get a tax cut? Really?

Fuck Joe. Give Rob, Bob, Dale, Sarah, Alex, Steve, Mike, Henry, Chris, Gina, Kristen, Rebecca, Albert, Paula, John, Eric, Dominic, Jerry, and Brendan a (bigger) break.
ps. That's 5% vs 95%, just to put shit into perspective for you.

OK, so how many of Rob, Bob, Dale, Sarah, Alex, Steve, Mike, Henry, Chris, Gina, Kristen, Rebecca, Albert, Paula, John, Eric, Dominic, Jerry, and Brendan work for a small business? My guess is more than not. So their employer gets a tax increase. which makes their profits go down. Which in turn makes them down size, because we all know that it will be the little guy that pays in the end. So which ones? which of the Rob, Bob, Dale, Sarah, Alex, Steve, Mike, Henry, Chris, Gina, Kristen, Rebecca, Albert, Paula, John, Eric, Dominic, Jerry, and Brendan's of this country will lose their jobs? So does that put it in perspective to you?

Only about 60% of Americans pay taxes. It isn't possible to give 95% of America a tax cut. Additionally, no Dem administration has ever cut taxes. Additional addition, if he cuts taxes on the bottom '95%', the 3% increase on the top 5% is still not enough to pay for the additional trillion dollars in spending he proposes.

The problem with increasing taxes on small businesses is that most of them are just barely getting by on a slim profit margin as it is. $250k in the business world is practically nothing. Many businesses will shut down because the profit margin will narrow or vanish or they will slip down into the red and won't be able to pay their bills. People go into business to make money. If they don't make a profit, there's no point in staying open.

The point of all this is not to benefit students. It breaks my heart to think of you having to work your way through school like I did, really. If there are no jobs left after you graduate, what will you do with your fancy degree? Burn it in an empty trash barrel to keep warm, I'm sure. Ok, that is a bit of an exaggeration, but the point is that tax increases on the people that create jobs do not lead to more jobs being created or more money coming into the national coffers.

Personally I advocate a flat tax/national sales tax scheme, but that is a completely different subject. (For those that always cry because they have to pay the same as 'rich' folks, please try to realize that 17% of your $15k/year is still less than 17% of Bill Gates' $10m per year.)

To take it further... Those small businesses that don't lower their work force will then have to raise prices which doesn't help the little guy either. Raising taxes on ANYONE is a recipe for disaster. America has a bright future economically. It's only a question of when will it come? If Obama wins the election as I believe he will. Then it's still a ways away.

Where do you think taxes should be increased and where should they be reduced?

Those who make over 250k a year

or those who make less 250k

The best tax breaks in the McCain plan come at the very top and large companies of the tax bracket with little or nothing towards the bottom.

The best tax breaks in the Obama plan come at the bottom then slowly disappear and raise slightly once you make more then 250k.

How the fuck much is Joe going to make anyway, I mean honestly you won't go through with your plan to buy a bussiness because of a difference in percentage between the two plans. For it to be a reason you'd eitheir need to make several million or you'd need the small extra money to help with loan payments since you'd take on substainial leverage.

Originally posted by suckstobesara
Where do you think taxes should be increased and where should they be reduced?

Those who make over 250k a year

or those who make less 250k

The best tax breaks in the McCain plan come at the very top and large companies of the tax bracket with little or nothing towards the bottom.

The best tax breaks in the Obama plan come at the bottom then slowly disappear and raise slightly once you make more then 250k.

How the fuck much is Joe going to make anyway, I mean honestly you won't go through with your plan to buy a bussiness because of a difference in percentage between the two plans. For it to be a reason you'd eitheir need to make several million or you'd need the small extra money to help with loan payments since you'd take on substainial leverage.

You're starting from the current taxing system as a baseline, and acting like we're all treated equally under it, which is stupid. What if the current baseline was under 250,000 pay no taxes, and over 250,000 pay 95% taxes. What you just said would still have the same appeal, but it'd lead to idiotic results.

The wealthy ALREADY pay a way higher percentage than everyone else. The poor already get some of the wealthy's money every year. Taxes are ALREADY increased for the wealthy, ALREADY decreased for the poor and middle class. What justifies taking even more? Just because the wealthy still have more than the poor? Should we tax everything over 250k at 100%? After all, they don't need it, right?

It's a slippery slope dude, and if you slide far enough, our economy will be completely fucked.