# The rich don't pay their fair share lie



## Bobm

Separating Tax Facts From Tax Fiction

Great article about the lie the left is always trying to claim that the rich get the benefit of the tax cuts
Friday, June 04, 2004 By Gail Buckner, CFP 
Dear Readers -
I really try to avoid anything that smacks of politics, but I can't help setting the story straight on a popular American myth - repeated with increasing frequency in this election year - that "The Rich" (whoever "they" are) don't pay their fair share of taxes. 
A corollary to this is the assertion that The Rich received the biggest benefit of the so-called "Bush" tax cuts," the political catch-phrase for the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003.* 
Neither position is supported by hard data taken from income tax returns. In fact, in both cases, the opposite is true. 
In other words: The Rich not only pay a disproportionate share of taxes, this share has been increasing since 1990. 
According to the most recent figures available (2001) the Treasury Department reports: 
1- Since 1990, virtually ALL of the income tax collected by the federal government has come from taxpayers who fall in the top 50 percent in terms of income. In 2000 and 2001, this group paid *over 96 percent of total taxes collected.* 2-Most of this tax revenue comes from a very select group: *The top 5 percent of taxpayers*, defined as those who earned about a third (32 percent) of all national income, *paid more than half of all individual income taxes (53.3 percent). *
Those in the top 1 percent in terms of income, paid more than 30 percent of the total amount of income tax collected. 
3-The tax cuts we received in 2001 and 2003 shifted an even larger share of the income tax burden to those with higher incomes. 
How can this be, you ask, when the top tax rate was reduced from 39.6 percent to 35 percent? (An 11.6 percent tax cut.) 
Simple. Income tax rates at the lowest end of the scale were reduced by a much greater extent. For once thing, we replaced the 15-percent bracket with a 10-percent bracket for the first $14,000 in taxable income for a married couple (that's the 2003 figure, this goes up to $14,300 for 2004).** That's a one-third reduction (33 percent). So, for this tax year, instead of owing $2,145 on their first $14,300 of income, a couple will now pay $1,430. 
Because lower-income individuals are paying a smaller piece of the total tax revenue pie, the portion paid by those with higher income must, by definition, go UP. 
It will be a couple of years before 2002 and 2003 income tax data are in a form that can be analyzed. Nevertheless, the Treasury Department estimates that this year the portion of tax paid by those with higher incomes will increase again. That's because tax provisions such as marriage penalty relief have a bigger impact on taxpayers with lower 
incomes. In addition, some tax breaks phase out once your income hits a certain level. Those with higher incomes see no benefit at all from, for instance, the increased child tax credit. 
When they crunch the actual numbers for 2004, the folks at Treasury predict the average tax rate for the bottom 50 percent of all taxpayers will fall by 16 percent, compared to a 12 percent decline for those in the top 1 percent of income. 
In fact, according to the Treasury Department, *nearly 5 million additional Americans will end up paying NO income tax at all in this year, thanks to the tax breaks ushered in by the 2001 and 2003 Acts. *
The data are also broken down by state. For instance, thanks to changes in the tax code, 12.4 million Californians will pay less (federal) income tax. More than a million Pennsylvania taxpayers will benefit from the reduced tax rates (15 percent) on dividends and capital gains. Nearly 4.2 million Illinois residents will pay less because of the new 10 percent income tax bracket. 1.6 million New Yorkers will see their taxes reduced thanks to the increase in the child tax credit from $600 to $1,000. 
In this country we have what's called a "progressive" tax system. It means that those who can theoretically afford to pay more in taxes, do. But it's important to understand that this doesn't merely refer to the number of dollars that are collected from those with higher incomes. It means that, as your income goes up, so does the tax rate on that income. 
For 2004, a married couple filing jointly pays only 10 percent income tax on the first $14,300 of taxable income. But on income from $14,300 to $58,100, the tax rate is 15 percent. When their income exceeds $58,100, the amount over this is taxed at 25 percent, meaning they give up 25 cents of every dollar of income over $56,800. Once a couple's income reaches $117,250, they lose 28 cents per dollar, and so forth until you hit the top tax rate where 35 cents per dollar goes to taxes. 
In other words, as your income climbs, taxes eat up a progressively larger chunk of each additional dollar you earn. 
That's how the system works. My point is, it IS working, contrary to the political rhetoric you hear. 
*Hey, I understand why politicians make a scapegoat out of The Rich - this group can't be defined by race, gender, lifestyle, or any other convenient demographic characteristic. Besides, are The Rich actually going to unite and take a stand? Can you just see a thousand well-dressed individuals holding a press conference on the steps of the U.S. Capitol to proclaim, "We're rich and we think it's unfair that we pay a larger portion of income taxes?" 
In other words, it's safe to pick on The Rich because: 1) they're easy to resent; and 2) they're not going to defend themselves. *
Just remember that politicians don't have to adhere to any rules about being "fair and balanced."

**Interesting, don't you think, that one side of the current political debate conveniently forgets that it took votes by Republicans and Democrats in Congress to approve the 2001 and 2003 tax cut legislation? *
**$7,150 for someone who files as a single taxpayer.


----------



## buckseye

It's one thing to pay taxes and recieve refunds and a whole different game when you have no write-offs. We know the rich employ people and that is worth protecting, but the wages they pay as income is taxed and the actual working person is the one who ends up paying the tax.

I would like to see a real report from the IRS how much taxes GWBush and other _______ like him have paid in his/their life that wasn't refunded somehow. 8)


----------



## Bobm

Bud, you need to reread the article above the average Joes don't pay much at all in taxes. The problem will be when over 50% of the country pays no taxes at all then the productive in our society will be at the mercy of the government and will be plundered even worse because they( congress) won't have to fear the votes. And that will be the beginning of the end of this countries ecomomic success. Congress has been striving for that situation for many years and they are almost there.


----------



## Plainsman

Buckeye

Yes every salaried person does pay taxes, but under the progressive system as Bobm described. Salaried people do not have write offs, but every business does. This doesn't mean a business person is rich. Far from it, that is why we see business go broke every year. In North Dakota the leading business with write offs would be the farmers. Ask them how many consider themselves "the rich" that are being given preference by these new tax cuts. The tax cuts as I see it benefit the individual and not businesses. I see both political parties as buying votes, just in different ways. The republicans give money back to people who have paid their taxes. The democrats take away from the working class and buy their vote by giving it to the lazy. Oh, I'm sorry ---- the less fortunate. This is simply redistribution of wealth ie socialism. As voters we must decide which is most fair. Do you work, and if so who should have your money? Did you pay taxes on your salary? Who should get those tax returns, you or the guy who partied while you went to college or trained for a job? Let me give you an example (my memory may not lend justice to this story).

A father is talking with his daughter and says I see you have very good grades in college, but your friend Marry is nearly flunking out, what is the problem? The daughter says, yes dad I study hours every night, but Marry goes to parties, has many friends, and never studies. She is one of the most popular girls in our sorority. Her father says maybe you could speak to the dean and he could reduce you're A's to B's and raise Marries D's to C's so she could pass and get her degree. The daughter is furious with this and says, dad that wouldn't be fair. I work hard every night while Marry parties and drinks until wee hours of the morning. I earned my grades dad, and they are mine. Her father says, welcome to the republican party sweetheart.

In ending no one thinks they are rich. The businessman who is a millionaire looks at the businesses worth tens of millions and considers himself the little guy. The farmer with 3000 acres looks at the fellow with 10,000 acres and considers himself the little guy. We all consider ourselves the little guy, and that is why the sock it to the rich ploy works so well.


----------



## buckseye

Most of the people I know who earn wages above minium for a living have write offs. They deduct work clothes, certain travel and lodging expenses, work vehicles when they are being compensated for using their personal vehicle, etc..... the list of write offs is endlesss. I have been in business and the bigger the business the bigger the write offs, the goal of business is to make a bunch of money, but make it look like you didn't and end up with no profits to show by re-investing in themselves.

I say the millions of people making minium wage and paying say $500 to a $1000 a year in taxes are supporting this country more than the rich or business people. In reality our government has so many trade taxes and tarriffis we shouldn't need to pay income tax.


----------



## Plainsman

Buckeye

People making minimum wage I would be surprised if they paid any taxes. Like I said businesses get write offs and wage employees do not. Not that amount to anything anyway. Write off my cloths for work? Get real I would loose because the short form will save me more money. There are two types of people that put out this garbage. Those who are in la la land and believe it, and those who try make other people believe it because they have an agenda. People I know who make minimum wage get back more taxes than they pay in (income tax credit). This is what Clinton called a tax brake, but anyone with half a brain realizes that it is redistribution of wealth not a tax brake. A tax brake is when people who pay taxes pay less, or get more back.


----------



## buckseye

I guess you have never worn out a 5 dollar pair of gloves or two every workday, and 3 pair of $200 work boots a year either probaly, throw in a broke finger or two and some stitches and you have expense. There are alot of peole who actually work at what is called work.

You are right we all see things from our own angle. Barely but still existing is the so called middle class, everyone is not low or high class in this country.

How do those people you know making minium wage get taxes back, unless they are filing some type of itemized return. If they claim one on their w-2 more is withheld than you get back I believe.


----------



## Plainsman

Buckeye

I had medical bills that were beyond $5000/yr and interest for my house that was beyond $5000/yr and still the short form saved me money. Family medical bills from the early 1970's to the late 1980's was expensive still we always went short form. And yes I have worn out gloves, clothing, metal detectors, cameras, and other equipment that should not have been mine for work. As much as I like to hunt I didn't own a center fire rifle until 1989, and I am 56 years old now. What eats me is now I spend money on nursing home insurance and friends think I am stupid. They say let the government pay for it. While I pay for insurance they buy toys. Everyone wants the government to help them. The government doesn't have money trees. The lazier you and I get the more they have to gouge the productive people.

I don't know how people qualify for income tax credit. All I know is that they can make better than minimum wage and still get more back than they paid in.


----------



## Bobm

Darn Plainsman your are an old coot, no wonder you're so smart. :beer: Its none of my business though but if I was you I would change accountants because you should have some pretty good write offs, with the situation you described unless there are other circumstances,aren't there always  . And no one should feel bad about taking legal deductions god knows they will skin you somewhere else. Your take on nursing home insurance is a real good move though, I told my kids that if they put me in one of those things I will disown them. I'd rather they left me on some ridge in the rockies for a bear to eat :lol: I'm serious about that.


----------



## buckseye

Oh wow plainsman I hope everyone in your family is OK now. I agree with Bob you are a smart ol'coot. And I agree with you about money trees, I have ended up with the short stick a couple times too. I am proud and happy to say I do not live off the government either. I like all your stuff you write in the shooting threads, I can tell I am reading from your experience. Anyways interesting as always 8)


----------



## win4win

Article from last year......

AUSTIN, Texas - I just love the fine print in the president's tax-cut plan. I grant you, the overall effect is pretty spectacular, too - a plan that has almost no stimulative effect but still opens a future of zillion-dollar deficits to drag down the economy. That's the back-asswards of what we need, but it's not the fun part.

Look at these goodies:

Think because you have money in the stock market you might have a stake in eliminating the dividend tax, the centerpiece of the president's tax cut - $300 billion over 10 years? (You probably think you have money in the stock market because your 401K keeps going down - that would be 40 million Americans.) But no! This tax break doesn't apply to your dividends! The money in your 401K from both savings and dividends are tax sheltered until you withdraw the money - then all of it gets taxed as ordinary income. You don't get any tax break on your dividends - that only goes to the investor class. According to Kevin Phillips, 1 percent of investors pocketed 42 percent of the stock-market gains between 1989 and 1997, while the top 10 percent of the population took 86 percent. These people need a tax cut! They haven't been getting their share!

According to the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, the effect of eliminating dividend taxation is that the average benefit for those making less than $10,000 would be $6, and average benefit for those making more than $1 million would be $45,098. Quick, high-schoolers, let's practice up for the those SATs by figuring out by what percentage $45,098 is bigger than $6.

Bush also wants to accelerate the income-tax cuts slated for 2006. Look at this folly. The top 5 percent of taxpayers would get 70 percent of the benefits on that one. The bottom 80 percent would get 6.5 percent of the benefits. Ditto with accelerating the 2004 tax cuts: 64.4 percent to the top 5 percent of taxpayers; 7.7 percent to the bottom 80 percent.

One of those people who can't handle numbers, need something visual to work with? Find the Urban-Brookings charts published in the Jan. 7 New York Times showing who gets how much of this tax cut. You can bareley see the lines that measure the relief until you get above the 99th percentile.

Naturally there will be a lot of spinning on these tax cuts in the weeks ahead, with numbers being tossed around like confetti. We'll probably need John Paulos, the innumeracy guy, to referee. I recommend the Center for Tax Justice (www.ctj.org), whose computer model is widely respected.

Speaking of damn lies and statistics, one of the little games being played in Washington is that the Republicans want to switch to Enron accounting on the economy. They're leaning on both the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation to change the way they make their economic estimates. According to the R's, "static scoring" - as opposed to your "dynamic scoring" - overestimates the cost of tax cuts by ignoring their role in boosting economic growth. Why, claim the R's, tax cuts pay for themsleves! If that's so, why are all the states going broke? Bring on Arthur Andersen and mark-to-market accounting - that'll perk up the economy.

The only good part of the Bush's tax cut plan is the $400 increase in the tax credit per child - at least that spreads it around a little. Naturally, that's the one part of the plan right-wingers hate.

As we all wade into these numerical battles over exactly how much of this tax cut goes to the very rich, the more fundamental question is whether it's a good idea - either economically, or in terms of social justice, to have the very rich get very much richer than they already are.

Contrary to the paranoid fantasists on The Wall Street Journal's editorial page, populists are not motivated by some burning resentment of the rich - we don't spend our lives in an envious funk that someone else is better off than we are. "No skin off my nose" is the general attitude, with others coming in at "Lucky them" or "Good for them." The problem is that the rich are screwing up our democracy. Less than 0.1 percent of the U.S. population gave 83 percent of all itemized campaign contributions for the 2002 elections, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. According to the Houston Chronicle, just 48 wealthy Texas families provided more than half the campaign funds for the major Republican state candidates this fall.

How dumb do you have to be not to be able to connect the dots here? Law, policy and regulation are consistently shaped to favor the rich over the rest of us, and that, dammit, is not fair, it is not right, it is not the country we want and for which we are asked to sacrifice.


----------



## win4win

Bobm said:


> ...virtually ALL of the income tax collected by the federal government has come from taxpayers who fall in the top 50 percent in terms of income. In 2000 and 2001, this group paid *over 96 percent of total taxes collected.*


The top-earning 25 percent of taxpayers earned more than 65 percent of the nation's income and paid more than three out of every four dollars collected by the federal income tax (77%) in 2001. There were 32.2 million tax returns in the top 25 percent, all with adjusted gross incomes (AGI) over $56,085.


----------



## buckseye

That comes out to $28.00 an hour. So 32 million of the 200 million or so that work are doing OK, its to bad for the rest of them!! Man the rest of the country is hurting if thats all they are making, it makes more sense now about touting how much taxes the rich pay. 8)


----------



## Bobm

WIn for Win if you read the article I posted again you will see I didn't write it it clearly states the author. 
The article you posted is already proving incorrect for the follow reasons
1)your article states the tax cut will not stimulate the economy it already has the economy is currently haveing record growth in every category
2) your article states 401 K which for the most part are invested in stocks are down, the fact is the stock market is up over 2000 points and climbing
3Your article says


> The money in your 401K from both savings and dividends are tax sheltered until you withdraw the money - then all of it gets taxed as ordinary income. You don't get any tax break on your dividends - that only goes to the investor class


*Thats a blatant lie *everybody gets a huge tax break they don't pay any taxes on the money now or the interst accumulation and when they with draw it most people and all small investors are in a lower or no tax bracket
Your rticle says


> According to Kevin Phillips, 1 percent of investors pocketed 42 percent of the stock-market gains between 1989 and 1997, while the top 10 percent of the population took 86 percent. These people need a tax cut! They haven't been getting their share!


*Another blatant distortion *first they didn't "pocket" the gain unless they cash in the investment which means the paid taxes on it and the real distortion is of course the richest investors gat the most gain thy had much more invested, no socilist writers like this complain about the rich when the market plummets and the biggest investors take the biggest loss.... and what most leftist socialists don't seem to understand is that the stock market has always come back and is a long term strategy so all these gains and losses never matter unless you sell you investment. 
Your article says


> Contrary to the paranoid fantasists on The Wall Street Journal's editorial page, populists are not motivated by some burning resentment of the rich


Yes in fact thats exactly what they are motivated by :******: 
Lastly the tax credit for children is an income transfer not a tax credit as your article stated it takes money from someone that earns it and gives it to someone that didn't simply because they have a kid, I have 5 kids and benefitted immensly from it this year. I'll tell you how unfair the tax code is my brother( who is unmarried and has no children) and I have nearly identical incomes he paid over 7000.00 of taxes this year I paid nothing with the deductions I have, nothing. How could this be fair?? 
Go to fairtax.org if you want to see a truly fair tax system 
And note I'm not accusing you of writing the blither in the article you posted, I do like to see the opposing viewpoint it gives me a chance to comment on it 
thanks :beer: 
:lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## buckseye

> I'll tell you how unfair the tax code is my brother( who is unmarried and has no children) and I have nearly identical incomes he paid over 7000.00 of taxes this year I paid nothing with the deductions I have, nothing. How could this be fair??


That what I have been saying all the time, the single people without deductions pay a larger share of taxes 8)


----------



## Bobm

Individually yes but as a group no, simply because of two reasons 
1) single people are usaually young and in a lower tax bracket
2) there are not a lot of older high paid single taxpayers compared to the number that are married


----------



## buckseye

> there are not a lot of older high paid single taxpayers compared to the number that are married


I agree their money is hidden in tax shelters, I don't feel sorry for people as much as I used to.


----------



## Southwest Fisher

I agree that the highest percentages of income makers does have a large share of the tax burden, with the highest 1% putting in a little over 20% of all income taxes. But why should they get over 36% of the tax cut? Does that seem fair? Also, how about the fact that payroll taxes max out at $76,000. That means a Fargo chiropractor who makes $80 grand and an Exxon CEO making $18 million pay the same rate for payroll taxes. And remember, no one who will receive a tax cut can do so w/ out filing a return in the first place, so they probably can;t hide too much. Supply-side ecomonics are the enemy of a strong national economy, and any econ professor can show you charts from non-partisan sources which confirm the effects that Reaganomics had on our country. But I suppose all those people whom have taken the time to study and understand economics are just biased liberals who don't use real facts like the ones that the Heritage Center p[uts out, huh?
By the way, Bobm, unless you are making over $500,000 a year, don't you think that the same rich people who watch you fight for their right to not pay their fair share have to be just laughing their a**es off at people like you? Because I here very few rich conservatives complaining about the plight of their middleclass counterparts. Think about that, and exactly who your sticking up for.


----------



## win4win

Bob

I just used the quote button I know you didnt author the article....same as I didnt author the article I posted. If I had I would have begged someone to shoot me in the head! :lol: I was actually backing up the info you posted.

:beer:


----------



## Bobm

SF says


> I agree that the highest percentages of income makers does have a large share of the tax burden, with the highest 1% putting in a little over 20% of all income taxes. But why should they get over 36% of the tax cut? Does that seem fair?


Yes its fair they are paying the lions share of taxes so they should get the cut its really just math. 
SF says


> That means a Fargo chiropractor who makes $80 grand and an Exxon CEO making $18 million pay the same rate for payroll taxes.


Thats the right thing to do they both get the same benefits so why shouldn't they pay the same price. If you follow you logic to its conclusion then a guy that makes 18 mill should have pay 1000.00 for a loaf of bread. Taxes are supposed to be a means for paying for government not a punishment for being resourceful and making good decisions.
SF says 


> Supply-side ecomonics are the enemy of a strong national econo
> my, and any econ professor can show you charts from non-partisan sources which confirm the effects that Reaganomics had on our country


98% of college professors economic or otherwise are leftists that hate Ronald Reagan and lie about his record Supply side was and still is the best way and the record has been distorted by historical revisionists
SF says


> Think about that, and exactly who your sticking up for.


I sticking up for whats right if someone is productive and earns their money honestly then *its their money not the governments * To allow the government to seize the money and redistribute to people that have made bad decisions in life to buy votes should be a crime. Socialism has failed every where its been tried and still socialis think they should be able to get the government to take money at the point of a gun from the people that made good decisions and give it to the countries non- productive poor decision makers. *No one should be punished for being smart making good decisions and working hard and thats exactly what the " paying their fair share " line is code for, its nothing but envy. * uke:


----------



## FACE

I often thought also that if I busted my balls I to could strive to be an extremely highly paid individual, but the truth of the matter is that the levels of stress and the high responsibilities that those that are very wealthy have usually are very high. And as for southwest fisher... by all means if you want to make 18 million as an exxon ceo go for it!!! I personally don't think that will ever happen! Sure I feel many of those types are overpaid but I'm happy with any amount of help I recieve. Kinda like those that win millions in the lottery and b!tch about only getting 55% of the total prize. Boo Hoo... I feel really sorry for them!
I'm also reminded of the past post (I can't remember where it was) but it was of the ant and the grasshopper story and the new modern version!! Made me laugh so hard because it was too true!!!!!!!!


----------



## Southwest Fisher

Bobm,
Could you dance around the truth w/ your selective answering any more? My God, it's like reading a transcript of Bob Novak at his best! I admitted that the top 1% pay 20% of taxes, why don't they get 20% of the cut, not 36%, and you made it sound like I made your point - huh? SOunds like some "fuzzy math" on your part, buddy. And after my economics quote, I preempted your (ooh so) typical rebuttal w/ the part about how I'm sure that you'll say how all professors are just a bunch of liberals, AND YOU STILL THREW THAT OUT THERE! C'mon, Bobm, try something new, your rhetoric is so c'liched, my former college advisor and favorite professor is a strict Republican, and people that try to twist arguments w/ the same old crap without ever realising any change just embaress him. By the way, by your logic, 98% of all college professors, which by all means are undeniably highly educated to get where they are, disagree w/ you. What about that math?
Bob, I respect your decision to serve your country, without ever having to be drafted, I really do. That is patriotism. But I cannot condone all of the men in this administration whom where not willing to rsik there own a**es for America thirty years ago, but have no problem sending people like my friends and myself to do their dirty work now. Wolfowitx, Cheney, Perle, that whole lot is known as the "Chickenhawks," but as far as I'm concerned, the last part should be another four letter word.


----------



## win4win

I am on the conservative side of the fence and I dislike supply side economics with a passion. I do not think it is the most effective method just the most widely accepted.


----------



## Bobm

Sf you are a completely mathmatically challenged. My point is we all get the same benefits from government roads, defense, schools ect.( although weathy people can escape haveing to send their kids to our publically funded schools) and we should all pay the same amount for the government, *Thus and pay attention to this concept thus one percent of the people should pay 1 % of the taxes period not a penny more* not 20% not 10% not 5% I repeat they should pay 1% and anything more is an income transfer its theft at the point of the gun by nonproductive socialists can you understand it now????????????
IF any percentage of the group is paying more than the percentage of the population they represent they are paying more than their" fair share" to coin your leftist favorite phrase. *And in the case of the group you are demonizing they are pay twenty times their fair share.*
That BS about people in our government not being qualified to send soldiers into battle becasue they didn't fight in a battle is idiotic as well.


----------



## Southwest Fisher

No, idiotic would be supporting those who won't fight for their country but expect others to do it for them. And that's exactly how it is, pal! They refused to go, but expect others to go for them, DO YOU GET IT YET, WTF?
You're telling me that we can set up a tax code wherein everyone gets put into a percentage bracket based on income, and then each bracket 1-100 is responsible for 1% of the federal taxes, no matter how high or low they were on that scale? Wow, and people like you refer to those like me as socialists. Damn, very progressive, Bob - oops, sorry about use of that word. But be careful, buddy, if your fellow right-wingers find out about that funny stuff you're smoking (and you MUST be if you think that tax plan makes any sense) well they just might kick you out of the militia!


----------



## Bobm

Where did I say that the tax code should have anything to do with income level????? I am sayin just the opposite! The tax code should be abandoned and there should be a National sales tax I favor the one on fairtax.org read it. Nothing about the current system is fair at least not to the people that pay taxes.
The idea that everyone that is a political leader must have served in the military to be qualified to send troops into battle is ridiculous and never going to be practical because not everyone serves. And the idea that only someone that did serve can tell when to apply miltiary force is stupid. The political leaders don't have to understand the nuts and bolts of military thats what generals are for, all politicians need to do is set policy period. They are administrators.


----------



## Southwest Fisher

I'm not talking about all, I'm talking about this particular group of winners! All the big supporters of the war happened to be those who didn't bother to serve! Doesn't that bother you in any way? How can they justify that, especially now that we have so little to show for it? My friends and former platoon members are there right now getting blasted at nightly, and our government won't even dish out the money to equip them properly - they're doing night route recons w/ 5Ton dumptrucks and no slings for their weapons! Two MRE's a day! And our government is worried about a missile defense shield and tax cuts. You do not cut taxes before or during a war, or you get what we have now. I would call this whole thing a joke, except a guy from my old company died for it, so I really cannot laugh. I just shake my head and listen to people like you act like this is the second act of the European Theater circa 1944. I think that C-in-C actually had the respect to attend his fallen soldier's funerals.
I'm gonna quit before we get ostracized by the rest of this forum's community. Have a good one, Bob.


----------



## Southwest Fisher

Just caught something - yeah, I'm no detective. Does anyone else wonder why someone from Georgia is so worried about the state of outdoor activities in North Dakota? Seems a little weird...


----------



## Bobm

Could it be because I hunt in ND and the issues about Nrs and commercialization affect and interest me. And what difference does it make, see folks this is the problem with leftists they can't make a logical factual argument so they try to disparage peoples character and insinuate nonsense. But come to think about it.... they do have the market on nonsense cornered. :lol: 
I have seen and heard from too many soldiers rotated back from Iraq that wholeheartedly support the mission and don't share your BS about supply problems, which by the way if they exist are the result defense budget cuts of our previous administration. We are catching up as quickly as possible. And I was in the army too remember, sometimes you have to make do with what you have its not a job for wimps and you know that full well.


----------



## swift

Here's a little example of how the rich have it so easy. My wife and I make good money we work 7 days a week. We went to school for 10 years to be in our profession we pay $40,000/ year in income tax. We cannot write off the interest from our HUGE student loans because we make too much. We did not have children. we were married before the marriage penalty was in effect. We are employees so we can't write off any business expenses. Now we have a child but last summer when the rest of the parents received their tax cut checks from President Bush we did not again because we make too much.

My brother is a roofer, he works very hard, he paid in $1500 in income tax, BUT because he had a couple kids out of wedlock he is entitled to child credit. His RETURN was $3000. How can a tax refund (you know that money you get back for paying in too much) be more than his entire tax liability?

Don't tell me I benefitted more than the next person Because I KNOW what I benefitted.

Why isn't there a cry for a flat tax. Because everyone knows the US cannot survive if we didn't have a small minority footing the lionshare for everyone else.


----------



## Bobm

Swift look at fairtax.org its a non-partisan sales tax which is much fairer than a flat tax and much better for our economy and you would really like it. It will take some study but its the best plan I've ever seen bar none give it a look :beer:


----------



## tsodak

Just a question.... If the tax code is so regressive, why does it seem so blatent that the rich in this country keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer???? If the rich are bearing an innordinate amount of the cost, it should be huritng them more than the lowest level right????


----------



## Bobm

First off your premise is faulty the rich are staying rich and the poor are staying poor is a more accurate statement. While there are many fine details to the reasons the easiest way to explain it it that the rich keep making good decisions and the poor keep making bad decisions. Most rich people in this country are first generation rich which means they earned it by making good decisions on education, investments, lifestyle, ect. and accumulated wealth over their life time. Get rich quick stuff is primarily myth. One thing that has really showcased the decision making factor of wealth is the relatively recent popularity of State lotteries. They are frequently won by people that make bad decisions like buying the ticket (usaully with a pack of cigarettes and a sixpack) in the first place, who then are broke in a couple years or less, and sometimes in greated debt than they were before the won their millions, its truly astounding. I personlly know a jackass that went thru 3.4 million in less than two years and now works on a shipping dock loading trucks. The current tax code hurts us all not just the rich. look at fairtax.org if it was implemented you would have to hide in a cave not to have a job and our economy would experience the greatest growth period in history


----------



## tsodak

Sorry, not buying it.... wealth in this country continues to polarize, with a progressively smaller middle class, the engine of the economy. Also, I may be mistaken, but our unemployment numbers are some of the lowest in the world yes??? Does every household in America have to be a two income household to satisfy??? The whole income structure is going to pot in a handbasket, and that is only partially related to, and to a certain extent ameliorated by the tax code, IMHO.


----------



## zogman

:withstupid: What is IMHO?????


----------



## tsodak

In my humble opinion.....


----------



## Bobm

Having an opinion is great if its based on fact. The middle class you're talking about is moving up not down, and has been for the last twenty years and the so called poor in this country are rich or atleast middle class in other countries, with cars and color TVs, running water ect. 
We have a couple bad years after 9-11 and the dot com bust and all you hear is doom and gloom and now all the sudden our great economy is growing again at record rates. The two person income thing is a direct result of the ridiculous increase in tax rates forcing many people to both work where in our fathers generation taxes were very low compared to today we all work about 4 months a year just to pay all the taxes most of which are hidden. The Federal government is involved in all kinds of things that there is no constitutional support for and we are all paying for it. 
If its not related to good decision making how do you explain successful people, luck?? not hardly. luck is not a consistant enough factor


----------



## Bobm

It's called the U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology program, and it's run by Accenture LLP, a U.S. Company who's parent company is registered in Bermuda. Accenture is based in Virginia. Accenture has a contract to provide security services to the U.S. Government. Some Democrats in Congress are waging a successful campaign to have the law changed and that contract cancelled ... all because Accenture's parent company is incorporated in Bermuda.

So ... why is this company incorporated in Bermuda? Not one out of ten Americans really understands. It's because of our tax laws. Our draconian corporate tax regulations actually force companies out of this country for their own fiscal health.

We'll illustrate this by considering a fictional consulting company called TsodakCorp. TsodakCorp does business in the United States and seven European countries providing deprogramming services for government officials suffering from OCCD (Obsessive Compulsive Compassion Disorder). We'll consider two scenarios; one where TsodakCorp is incorporated in the United States, the other where TsodakCorp is based in Bermuda.

*TsodakCorp, U.S. *Since TsodakCorp is a U.S. corporation federal tax regulations will require TsodakCorp to pay federal corporate income taxes on every single penny it earns. It doesn't matter whether that money is earned in the U.S. or not. If tsodakCorp earns $15 Million in Belgium it will not only have to pay whatever taxes are due on those earnings in Belgium, but in the United States as well. Now the U.S. tax laws will allow a credit to TsodakCorp in the amount of the taxes paid to Belgium, but since U.S. corporate income taxes are generally higher than most other nations, there will be additional taxes due to Washington. *In some enlightened foreign countries there are no corporate income taxes at all. In that case, the U.S. collects the full amount.*
*TsodakCorp Bermuda*. The corporate management of TsodakCorp is getting a bit tired of paying income taxes to the feds on earnings of overseas subsidiaries. TsodakCorp could expand its business and hire additional people if the earnings could be reduced by lowering the tax burden. So TsodakCorp reincorporates in Bermuda. The home office stays in the U.S., as do all but about five employees. But now the tax laws are different. The TsodakCorp subsidiary operating in the United States will pay corporate income taxes to the U.S. government on earnings made in the U.S. The BoortzCorp operation in Belgium, however, will pay income taxes on earnings realized in Belgium, but will owe nothing to the U.S. government for those earnings. That will leave TsodakCorp with additional cash that can be used to hire additional people, expand the business, or pay dividends to shareholders, many of whom, by the way, live in the United States.

So ... if TsodakCorp makes the decision to incorporate to Bermuda, does this make TsodakCorp evil? What has gone to Bermuda? Virtually nothing, just a set of incorporation documents and five administrative employees. Everything else is exactly as it was. Everything, that is, except that now TsodakCorp isn't paying taxes to the U.S. government on earnings from operations overseas. Does it make anything other than good sense for TsodakCorp to make the move offshore?

Let's think about foreign corporations doing business in the U.S. Let's say there is a German company, KrautCorp, that does exactly the same type of work that TsodakCorp does. KrautCorp operates in the United States. TsodakCorp U.S. operates in Germany. KrautCorp will pay taxes to the U.S. government on earnings realized in the U.S., but not on earnings realized in Germany. *TsodakCorp will pay taxes to the German government on earnings realized there, but will also pay taxes on its German earnings to the U.S. government.[/b] Since the tax burden to Tsodak Corp U.S. is higher, KrautCorp has a competitive advantage. It can undercut TsodakCorp prices and still earn exactly the same profit. In other words, the U.S. corporate tax laws give a competitive advantage to foreign corporations. Now that makes perfect sense, doesn't it?
So why are Democrats attacking Accenture, and why are Republicans once again caving in? Because it's good politics. As I said, you can't find one out of ten Americans who understand the tax picture I outlined above. When Democrats start hyperventilating about corporations moving overseas to avoid taxes, they never seem to mention that the only taxes that will be avoided are taxes on overseas earnings. U.S. voters listen to the rantings and ravings of the Democrats and decide that these corporations are evil and should be punished :eyeroll: . If a Republican disagrees with the Democrats' campaign to punish the corporation they are condemned for putting the interests of their corporate friends above the needs of the people. Since the people don't have a clue what's really going on, the charge sticks.

So .. now we have the Democrats in the House, who understand this situation completely, making political points with their ignorant constituents. Republicans are going along because they know that the voters are as dumb as cypress knees on this issue, and they don't want to be painted as favoring "big business" over the American people. 
One more example of how our tax code is screwing all of us. And our politicians knowingly go along with it because it benefits their personal power. And we deserve it because most Americans are more interested in "American Idol" or some nonsense like that instead of important things like learning our tax laws. uke:*


----------



## Guest

Swift, if you pay in $40,000 in taxes, you've got it way too easy. Quit the *****ing about your student loans, marriage tax, etc. You wanted to be what you are, some pencil pushing sissy who really doesn't know the true meaning of the word "WORK".

Do any of you ever consider what the average farmer makes when compared to the costs. (and yes, I realize that most things can be written off, remeber, I'm from WI, the dairy state.) He's not pocketing a lot,and we owe most of our WATERFOWLING enjoyments to them, which is what this site's about!! So with that being said, THANK YOU ALL FARMERS THAT LET US HUNT YOUR LAND!!! :wink:


----------



## Bobm

Waterfowler1 you are in the "Politics that don't relate to hunting forum", and you don't know what you are talking about especially with taxes or what Swift does, for all you know he is a 300lb Karate instructor. His taxes shouldn't be anymore than yours becasue he doesn't get anymore goverment services than you or any other citizen does, he just pays for his and probably yours also. 
You can personally attack me but no one else on this forum please keep that in mind and stick to the discussion topic.


----------



## Plainsman

#1waterfowler

I paid much less taxes than Swift, but then he evidently *earned* more money than I. Stop to think a moment, he went to college on what ? *Loans* you say.? Well evidently he could not afford college. That poor he surely can't be spoiled. *Work*, well there are many forms of that, some of it makes you sweat from physical exertion, some of it makes you sweat from mental fatigue. *Sissy*, where does that come from? Sissies give up and, and, well I don't know what they do.

Hey swift thanks for paying for some of my services. I certainly don't hold good decisions, and good fortune against you. I just wish I had more money. But then doesn't everyone. I don't begrudge anyone anything, I just keep striving for a little more myself. Unfortunately class warfare is a successful political strategy. Everyone thinks they are the underdog, even relatively wealthy, and therein lies the psychology behind the ploy. Whenever I began to relate to the whining I always stop and think about the many people who have it worse. A person shouldn't dwell on what he doesn't have, he should be thankful for what he does have. Anyway, hats off to you Swift, and don't let them get you down.


----------



## Guest

Whatever Bobm, I'm just sick of all the wimps out there saying they work "so hard" for their money. As for attacking you, no biff's man, unless you bring it; no harm, no foul. I kinda agree with some of your comments and views towards taxes out of country, BUT, With some of your "Know it all" antics towards out of country business' makes me think you're someone who makes a lot of jing, so what do you have to worry about? Also, what do you do down in Georgia, if you don't mind me asking? You don't have to answer that.


----------



## redlabel

The best way to explain the taxes is with the following example.

10 guys go out for dinner and their total bill is $100.00. They have such a good time that they decide to do it each week and decide to split up the bill according to who can afford to pay the most.

They split up the bill so that:

3 pay nothing
2 pay $1.00 each
1 pays $3.00
1 pays $7.00
1 pays $10.00
1 pays $13.00
and the guy who makes the most pays $65.00

They enjoy each others company and continue to do this for about a year. One night, the restaurant owner comes over to their table and tells them what great customers they are and to reward them for their business he is going to discount their bill 20% from now on.

They discuss how to split up the bill and realize that if they split it up evenly that 5 of them will be getting money back. After much discussion the restaurant owner comes over and says why don't you split it up much like the tax refund. They think this is a great idea and agree to it wholeheartedly.

The payments are now:
5 pay nothing
1 pays $2.00
1 pays $6.00
1 pays $8.00
1 pays $10.00
and the guy paying the most now pays $54.00 instead of $65.00.

The bill gets paid and everyone is happy until they get outside and one guys says to one of the others that he doesn't think this is fair because you got back twice as much as I did. Another guy says mine is worse because you got back three times as much as I did. Then the 3 that don't pay anything chime in that's it's unfair because they didn't get back anything at all. Then one guy says yeah, but look at him, he got back more than all of us put together. This angers them so much that they gang up on the wealthy guy and beat him up putting him in the hospital.

The next week everything is fine when the meet for dinner, "UNTIL THE BILL COMES AND THEY HAVE TO DECIDE HOW TO PAY WITH ONLY 9 GUYS BECAUSE ONE OF THEM IS STILL IN THE HOSPITAL."

And that my friends an explanation easy to understand and you won't find any liberal democrats explaining it this way.


----------



## Bobm

Waterfowler1. I know about this kind of stuff because about 15 years ago I decided that I wasn't going to be politically stupid anymore and so started studying everything I could find the time to read or listen to about current events and politics. I read about 3 to 4 hours a night and haven't watched TV except news and documentaries for the same 15 years. I guess my hobby is being well informed.
As for what I do. I design and sell large high pressure pump systems to paper mills and food processing plants (mainly slaughter house type operations) in the US, Canada, and Mexico which pays the bill quite nicely. In my spare time I buy houses remodel them myself and resell them, sometimes its really pays off sometime not but all in all its been worthwhile.
I don't own any business over seas my interests there extend only to customers and suppliers.
As for your perceptions about wealth and the so called rich. If you give it a little thought you may be able to admit to yourself that people that have wealth have made good decisions are generally people that have worked very hard to get where they are. And you have been successfully brainwashed by the socialist left in this country and its accomplices in the media to resent them. Once you realize that fact, you will be on the way to greater personal achievement if you so choose. I don't know how old you are but just over twenty years ago a guy like swift would of been paying over seventy five cents of every dollar to the government on the top half of his and his wifes combined income. How much incentive would you feel to go out and start a business if over three quarters of your income was going to be seized by the government?( you can thank Ronald Reagan for ending those tax rates) The way you talk I'm assuming you have a labor type job. I ask you, have you ever got a job from a poor person? The great thing about this country is that if you work hard and make good decisions you will eventually be well off. *Nothing that goes on in your life will have as big an infuence on your life as the actions of your politicians, which is why it is critical to know and understand what they are doing.*Yet most people in this country are politically ignorant, if you doubt that ask 4-5 of your friends who their senator and representatives are in congress and what their stance is on any big issue. They will look at you with the dumbest blank look you ever saw I guarantee it. And if you don't know ask yourself why not? They are making decisions that will affect you for years to come. You really ought to be in their face if they are doing something you don't like, which I can assure you they :lol: . Study, learn, better yourself and look at other peoples accomplishment with admiration not envy and you will find yourself doing better and better. It works every time. Good luck.


----------



## zack

Redlabel, I have been looking for that one for a while in my folders. It really does sum everything up nicely. 
Bobm, very good explanation on overseas taxes. 
My wife and I are also in the upper tax bracket. Every year at tax time, if we paid in more we know we are moving in the right direction. Business ownership is the one way we keep our taxes in check. 
In all fairness, weren't all men created equal..... Not according to our tax code. Bob the national sales tax is truely the answer to leveling the playing field. We, who purchase equipment on a daily basis, still pay, but everyone helps to level the playing field. But for our liberals, It's not fair!
Maybe everyone should buck up and work for a living. Not just 40 hrs a week, try 55 to 70, every week. That is how you get ahead. 40 pays the bills, 55-70 puts you ahead. Don't look at the wealthy and think it is given to them. We get tired of paying our FAIR share. Just because every liberal feels that if the average guy doesn't make as much as the next guy, they'll take it from him to bring him closer to the average. Maybe I don't want to be average.....That's why I work 60+ hours a week. So punish me if I make more than the next guy, But you are not going to get it all and I will be better off next year. God, life as a republican is great.

zack


----------



## redlabel

Zack, I may not have gotten the numbers exactly right, but the meaning still comes through. I don't remember where I got it from but like most of my best ideas it was borrowed from someone else.

I enjoyed reading about the hours you work. I remember so well the time I put in when owning my own business. I also remember when hiring people that we would explain to prospective employees that it would take 45-50 hours per week to be successful (commissioned sales) and they always understood this in the interview process. Invarialby when hired and seeing the first work schedule they would comment that it was more than 40 hours. Go figure.

I now have the best of both worlds. In the field I want to be, commissioned sales, and I no longer have the owners headaches.

I also remember a fellow that worked for us and had 6 or 7 kids.It was about 20 years ago and he made about 50% of what I did. In talking to him over the years I learned that not only did I pay a lot more in taxes than he did, but with his FHA house payments he had more disposable income than I did. But he still complained about the taxes he had to pay.


----------



## zack

Redlabel, Isn't it amazing how all new hires expect to make top dollar without putting in their time. And commission sales are such a dirty word to most. To this day, I still like to write my own paycheck. 
Do you think most people understand "disposable income"? They seem to look only at before tax dollars. I think to be fair, that if you pay 30% to the federal govt, maybe you could get an extra vote in the next election. That seems fair to me. But I keep forgetting that not everything is fair.
You remember the way it is in sales.... 20% of the salesmen make 80% of the money. In voting, the 20% don't have a chance against the 80% especially when it comes to taxes!
Have a great weekend
zack


----------



## Bobm

All men were created equal in the eyes of God but not in the sense of ability or drive. What there is in this great country is equality of opportunity and again this is where the idea of good decisions becomes so critical. What is frustrating is the that the well intentioned policies to help the poor are twisted into vote buying schemes that hurt both the poor by creating a cycle of dependence and us because of the stranglehold the current tax code has on our economy. Poverty in this country barring physical or mental disaster is a choice, and the truly needy people that are sick or mentally retarded need and deserve our help, most of the people that get the income transfers because of our tax code do not. 
Contrast this country with countries run by despots like Saddam where no matter how hard you worked or how much drive you had you can't succeed and you will truly begin to appreciate the USA.


----------



## swift

Waterfowler I'm sorry you have such an axe to grind. I would love to have you spend a weekend with me. I also hope the next time all those Big Mac's you've had clog an artery and cause a heart attack,I or one of my colleagues can muster up enough energy to get our lazy butt out of the the chair we dust and save your miserable life. And how dare you imply that I am complaining about farmers. My job is so similar to a farmer. We both provide people with sustainence, We both stay in the profession we've chosen because we love it, We bothwork long days and really appreciate a thanks when we help someone out. And we both deal with slobs and great people and the slobs stick in our memories longer. Farmers and Ranchers work for every penny they make. And if my taxes can help keep food affordable for everyone in our great country I am glad to participate. If you read my post again you will see I am not complaining about the taxes I pay but when someone tells me that I and others like me don't pull our weight I will respond.


----------



## Guest

Yeah, I'm sorry for the outburst. It's just that I work 70+ hours a week sometimes, outside, in the elements. Hell, I've pushed over 85 a few times! Makes it easy to buy the best!! I'm sure you've worked your butt off getting to where you are today. I guess I shouldn't have opened my mouth.

Now, I pay out over 35% towards taxes somehow, and I still don't know why. I may be including my 401K into that equation. Anyways, imagine what a farmer could do with more money in his/her pockets!!!

BobM, yes I am a foreman/laborer for the largest leafguard gutter company in the US. I did not get to the top by being lazy, BUT, I really appreciate the expert advise you gave in one of the last posts. No sarcasm here, you're definitly right 100%. I definitely need to change the way I view the world. :-?

By the way, that's funny. I am also looking into buying my first house as a TLC BABY and start remodeling very soon, hope it takes off. Leafguard is starting to take it's toll on my little 135 pound ***! Keeps me in shape though!!!


----------



## Southwest Fisher

Yeah, Bob, I really "disparaged" your character by asking an honest question, to which I felt I received an honest reply until you got all defensive and quickly went into Rush-style attack mode. I tell you what, since you like to come here and hunt, next time you do, after the boys of the 141st have returned home, stop by the Armory in Dickinson and tell them that they're just full of b.s. about what happened. Hell, I'd be glad to set it up and introduce you. Clinton's budget cuts? Our military spending is the higher than the nest four highest combined, yet we cannot properly outfit and feed our troops, and you're blaming Clinton? I can admit when the leaders and members of my party do wrong, but you are so damn blinded that you're willing to say that no matter what happens it's somebody elses fault? And that those former troops of mine just can't hack it because they're unhappy about the support they are getting from the Army command? Forgive me if I "disparage" your character here, Bob, but you sound like a real a**hole to me for calling our soldiers liers, and don't say no, you're calling me one, because I'm passing on what they themseles asked metopass on. I don't know if you pheasant hunt at all, Bob, but southwest ND is a haven for pheasants, and I'll make sure that this fall everyone keeps an eye open for Georgia plates and a guy who feels he has to "disparage" our boys to pass off his propaganda.


----------



## Bobm

Sf says


> Yeah, Bob, I really "disparaged" your character by asking an honest question, to which I felt I received an honest reply until you got all defensive and quickly went into Rush-style attack mode.


You have insinuated that I don't hunt in ND, that I hunt with AK 47s, and in this last post you lied about me saying that I said our troups lied. *I can prove all three of these with direct quotes from your posts. Can you show me where I said our soldiers are liars, never happened never will. * This last claim shows You Sir are a proven liar and as such nothing you say can be believed. Soldiers always ***** about something, my buddies and I always *****ed when we were in. I don't doubt that they were short on stuff we were too, at times, thats just the way the military is and as a former soldier you know it. Being a soldier is a hard seemingly thankless job especially after the dishonest way our leftwing media portrays them. The shortages in military spending over 8 years of cuts with Bill Clinton definitely not only weaked us equipment wise but many good soldiers left the military because they did not wish to serve under such a anti-military commander in chief like Clinton. Those shortages cannot be made up overnight, but when the mission starts you go and you make the best of it, thats just one more example of what makes these soldiers such great people. As for your thinly veiled threat that your going to have your friends looking for me, fine tell them to first read all my posts about soldiers. I could use the free beer they will want to buy me. Although I guess you will have to lie to them about me like you have here, because if they read all my posts and all yours the truth will be so clear about which one of us repects soldiers and the country they have taken a oath to defend. I hope they see me and stop so I can have the chance to thank them for their service which I do every time I run into a soldier. Like I said before liberal phonies like you have to lie, disparage, and now threaten because the facts just don't support your argument, and I still think that its fun to point it out :beer: Thanks again.


----------



## Southwest Fisher

Here we go with this fun game:
Bob says:
"I have seen and heard from too many soldiers rotated back from Iraq that wholeheartedly support the mission and don't share your BS about supply problems, which by the way if they exist are the result defense budget cuts of our previous administration. We are catching up as quickly as possible. And I was in the army too remember, sometimes you have to make do with what you have its not a job for wimps and you know that full well."

Well, Bob, it sounds to me like your insinuating that since "its not a job for wimps" and my buddies in Iraq are unhappy with their treatment and lack of supplies and proper equipment, then therefore they must be the "wimps", huh? And you think they're gonna buy you beer? Yeah, you said that (it's in quotes above), and yet tell me that I'm a liar? I never once insinuated about where you hunt, I asked an honest question, and if I started dropping many posts daily onto a Georgia hunting site, I hope somebody there would have the wherewithall to check my reasons, because that's not a ND hunting site. A simple question which your responded to and I left it at that. I didn't ask follow up questions like "where?" and "with whom?" now, did I? Nor did I say anything about YOU personally using an AK47 to hunt with, I referred to the fact that there are morons out there who would if they could, and said that if you HAPPENED to be one of them (since you sure as hell support those losers, what with your posts regarding gun control) then don't dare come near my land. 
Did you notice the fact that again you cannot make a post without throwing out some typical rhetoric where it's not even necessary? it's all the "leftwing media," right? Fox Inc, AOL-Time Warner, and ABC Disney all contain amongst their owners and CEOs some of the largest donors yearly to the RNC and Bush. Liberal media, right. And hey, Mr. Facts, how about this fact for ya: According to Soldiers Magazine, Clinton increased the Department of the Army budget in each of the last six years of his presidency. He did decrease it during the first two, continuing the process of downsizing the military post-war, a process that was started by then-President George HW Bush, and something that has occurred after every major conflict the US has been in. See, that was me not blaming Bush Sr for something. Think you could do the same regarding any Democrat? Doubt it, you're repetitions on here are a joke, all pure partisanship with no regards to anything that isn't pro-GOP.
Like I said, stop by the Armory, we'll see about getting you that beer...


----------



## Bobm

*SF said*


> And then there are guys who want to use AK's and M16's for hunting? Those aren't sportsmen, they're a-holes, pure and simple. And they can't get a deer w/ a bolt-action 30-06. *Be proud of those brothers, Bob! *
Click to expand...

The obvious insinuation in the above is that I am a brother to the above mentioned guys that want to use AKs...thus I want to use one
You clearly used insinuation to lump me in as one of them (although if its legal I don't care what they hunt with)
*Now SF says*


> Nor did I say anything about YOU personally using an AK47 to hunt with, I referred to the fact that there are morons out there who would if they could, and said that if you *HAPPENED* to be one of them


Note the clever insertion of the word *"happened" *and how it clearly changes the meaning remember its hard to hide a lie one this site although you are trying pretty hard :lol:
*SF said*


> Well, Bob, it sounds to me like your insinuating that since "its not a job for wimps" and my buddies in Iraq are unhappy with their treatment and lack of supplies and proper equipment, then therefore they must be the "wimps", huh?


No unfortunately that's the conclusion you have made, I said its not a job for wimps which explains why you got out. My point was soldiers are tough and will deal with it.
*SF says*


> I never once insinuated about where you hunt,


In a previous post SF said


> Are you one, Bobm? Or do you hunt on fenced in game farms like Cheney? Just wondering.


Like I said you are a established liar with a liberal ajenda nothing you say is credible because you lie whenever it suits you and its easy to point that out

And quit your whining about political talk on this "hunting" forum which is what every liberal like you that can't use fact to prove his points ends up doing :lol: If you would read you would see that this is the politics *not related to hunting *forum


----------



## buckseye

Ain't you guys ever seen any of our military surplus, I don't mean old clothes either. You should see our surplus Airforce in AZ, we have more Military equipment than we will ever use.

The most common complaints are cold food and warm water, my friend. OH and ....NO BEER!!!!

SF....be careful don't call any gunowner a looser, just because you don't personally agree with their choices of guns. People kill People....guns are inanimate and can hardly do anything with out the help of a person.


----------



## MSG Rude

SF,

Wow! You and I have talked in related matters before and that seemed to work well but here I am really starting to wonder. What am I wondering you might ask? Where the heck did you come from? Have you ever been Active Duty and if so, where in what MOS? Or, does your information strictly relate to the National Guard?

I am curious because as you know I have been AD for over 16 years now and spent 11 of it as Infantry in some pretty ****ty places. I have always been well supplied with my *NEEDS*.

A little rant here...When I was in the Gulf War we would get care packages sent to the front. By the time they got to us, all the gum, DintyMore beef stews, liccorice(spelling), paper, pens, etc were removed by the REMFS( :lol: ) and what we got was boot laces, laundy soap (and what the hell do you do with laundry soap on the front?) and foot powder! We got everything we needed though, bullets, band-aides, and beans. People still *****ed about not getting the rest of the stuff but we got what we needed. The REMFS sat and *****ed because they ran out of hot water once and the chow in the mess hall was cold and the generator ran out of gas during a football game (No ****, for real!) Every level and MOS *****'s about not getting ****, thats the Military life.

Knowing what I do of you and your profession it makes me wonder W-T-F over?

Reagan (God bless his soul) gave us the best pay raises we ever had. During the dark years (The guy that lied to you on national TV and you loved him for it so voted him in again) did more to CUT the military then ANY PREVIOUS PRES. IN THE PAST! Bush has done more for the AD military and our quality of life then the times before him! We finally make enough where a NCO with 12 years in the military finally does NOT qualify for food stamps.

Proof? Stop by my office sometime and I'll show you my LES (Leave Earnings Statement). I have almost 17 years of historical data.

*For those of you that don't know, I am a Sergeant First Class with 17 years in the Active Army for pay, married with four kids, want to know what I make a month?????????

Base pay = 3219.60
BAS (Basic Allowance for Substance[food]) = 262.50
BAH (Basic Allowance for Housing) = 959.00
SPEC DUTY PAY (Recruiting) = 450.00

Total = 4891.10 I have 17 years on the job and run a 'Personnel Office'

Tax's (Yes people, I pay them too!) with 5 exemptions

Federal = 164.07
FICA- SOC Sec. = 199.62
FICA- Medicare = 46.68
SGLI (Servicemember Group Life Ins.) for 250k = 16.25
AFRH ( Armed Forces Retirement Home) .50
Family SGLI = 7.50
TSP(Thrift Savings Plan{Gov type of 401K but NO matching funds}=220.18

Total = 654.80*

My point? Not the best pay but it is A LOT better thanks to Pres. GWB and he will get my vote again.


----------



## Southwest Fisher

SFC Rude,

My only active duty time was spent in Bosnia, I am an 11B, E5 but about to become an acting PL for one of line companies in MN. 
I'm not talking about some REMFs *****ing about lack of hot water, we've talked before, we may disagree politically but give me more credit than that. My problems relate to my friends and former troops doing night recons w/ 5Tons(which is asking to be shot at, you know that!), getting two MREs a day, while AD guys 15 kliks down the road have Up-armored M1114s and chow halls. What is all of our military spending going to? I'm not a total partisan, if I had my way McCain would be our Prez right now, but the Bush campaign and Rush decided to trash his name and try to taint his military record, I SAW AND HEARD IT MYSELF, and I will never vote for the guy who got his cushy cockpit job thanks to Daddy and then trashed a national hero who suffered like very few of us have, in the name of his country! Bush has never suffered in his life, except for maybe a hangover. And name one thing that he ever had to work hard for? I grew up on a farm, I've worked in the oilfields, drove truck, poured concrete, you name it, and I cannot respect someone who had one chance to do real work in his life and said "Sh** on that!" I am glad for the enlisted pay raise, but sometimes you have to look at the big picture and you will notice that that same military spending budget also includes over $100 million to put towards a missile defense shield. Myself, I think we should be putting more money towards stopping dirty bobmbs, but what do I know. So that's where I'm coming from, any more WTFs? Just because I don't worship at the altar of conservatism doesn't make me less of a soldier, or American. And if you want to see why the GOP has nothing to do with serving your country, check this link out:

http://www.bigeddieradio.com/whoserved.html

Yeah, it may be partisan, but the point remains that those who never served seem a lot more likely to want war then those who have. Isn't that alone worth thinking about?

By the way, Sergeant, I wanted to thank you again for you're fishing spot that you've shared with me, it's been great fun, guess we still have something in common after all.


----------



## Bobm

SF your link "may be partisan" is an understatement its pretty selective to say the least and leaves out plenty of both sides. I will be the first to admit that there a lot of liberals that served honerably though and thats a good thing their service is not questioned its their judgement now that is and the fact that they are willing to take positions which are not good for America if it will help them regain power. I really dislike most all politicians though and feel they are all guilty of this,their main interest is always power. 
I would like to Comment on all this BS about attacking our Previous Senator Max Clelands Patriotism which the media loves to claim. :eyeroll: 
We in Georgia are now oh so thrilled that Teresa Heinz Kerry has seen fit to share with us the reasons behind her switch from the Republican to the Democratic parties. Ms. Kerry, the multi-millionaire supporter of numerous liberal causes, tells us that she made the switch because she became disgusted when Republicans attacked the patriotism of Max Cleland during the 2002 election.

I was right here in Georgia during that election. *I'm here to tell you that the patriotism of Max Cleland was never an issue in Georgia in that campaign. It didn't happen. *

Max Cleland remains a beloved figure in Georgia politics he suffered a terrible crippling injury in the war of my generation but.... and heres the real issue
The fact is Georgian's became alarmed when Max became Tom Daschle's hand puppet after the Republicans took the White House in 2000. Nowhere was Max Cleland's fealty to Tom Daschle more apparent than in his participation in the Democratic attempts to stall the formation of a homeland security department until certain government employee union demands were met. *In short, Max Cleland put the Democratic allegiance to government employee unions ahead of the security concerns of our country. The voters didn't like it, and they turned him out.*

This was not the first legislative mistake Max Cleland made. *At one point he actually introduced legislation in the Senate that would allow law enforcement officers to seize private property without even the merest scintilla of evidence that any crime had been committed. * :******: Max Cleland's legislation called for the confiscation of large amounts of cash being carried by American citizens. Let's say you live in Grand Rapids, Michigan. A man in Ohio wants to buy a classic car from you. You drive the car to Ohio to consummate the sale. The buyer tries to give you a check. You decide to take him and his check to the bank to get cash before you turn over the car. Smart move. You pocket $15,000 in cash, and head back to Grand Rapids. The cops become suspicious when you buy a one-way ticket at the local airport with no luggage. You get searched. They find the $15,000. Under Cleland's law, that money gets taken. Oh, I know. The courts have approved these hideous asset forfeitures anyway. Georgians, however, wanted a Senator who would fight the courts on this matter, not one who would try to legitimize asset forfeiture through legislation.

*The brutal fact of the matter is that Max Cleland was a liberal Senator representing a conservative state. When the voters found out that Max was more eager for the approval of the Democratic leadership than he was the approval of the people he represented, they turned him out.*

The truth is that Teresa Heinz Kerry truly belongs in the Democratic Party. As I said, she is and has been a big-time supporter of leftist causes for quite a while. She was a Republican only because her former husband was. 
Cleland was fired by the voters for being too liberal, if you disagree with him he claims you're attacking his patriotism. He hides behind his injuries, which is sad. I feel sorry for the man because he cannot admit to himself that his policies just won't fly in Georgia.


----------



## Bobm

Back to the point of this thread
Kerry is really ratcheting-up the class warfare game this week. He's using the "fortunate / less-fortunate" gambit, and is referring to tax cuts as "give-aways."

If you've been following this thread you already know my reaction to this "fortunate / less-fortunate" nonsense. Liberals love to refer to economic failures as the "less fortunate" and to those who succeed as "fortunate." This is how they discount the role of the individual in achieving success or wallowing in failure. When someone ignores their education, fails to develop a work ethic, and develops a history of poor decision making resulting in a life on the economic margins they are referred to as the "less fortunate." In other words, they just weren't as lucky as their friends and neighbors. There's no personal fault involved. They can't be blamed for their lot in life. They're just the victims of bad luck.

And the rich? Their success has nothing whatsoever to do with attention to education, a willingness to work hard and careful decision-making. No ... just as with the poor, the rich can take no personal credit for their success. They were just lucky. This is the way the left absolves all individuals of either blame or credit for their situation. In fact, it's part of their effort to destroy the very concept of individuality.

Look at it this way. If a person becomes wealthy through good fortune or luck then it can't be said that the personal actually earned his or her wealth. And ... since they didn't earn it, there's really nothing all that wrong with taking with taking some of that wealth away and giving it to some other folks who, after all, just weren't lucky. This is where Kerrys "give-away" language comes from. A tax cut is just a "give-away" to the rich. That evil rich person didn't earn that money anyway. It just fell into his hands through luck. The worthy liberal politicians are just trying to even the odds by taking that money and giving it to people who just weren't as lucky, then along comes an evil conservative politician who takes that money and tries to give it to rich people ... rich people who, after all, have plenty already.

This approach presumes that all wealth is owned by the government and that it is the government, rather than the marketplace, which decides where that wealth is to be distributed. So ... if you believe that all wealth is owned by government, then John Kerry is your man. *If you believe that wealth is created by and then owned by the individual, then Kerry and his Democratic Party are your mortal enemies.*


----------



## MSG Rude

SF,

I will fish with you any day! And buy a couple beers after too. But our ideas will never be the same on some issues. I do admit that using the 5tons is like sneaking up on a gorrila with a pocket full loose change and a squeeky shoe! Not very bright at all.

McCain shot himself in the foot. I was too leaning towards him untill I did a little more research on where he stands. SF, he was for cutting more military spending in ALL areas. There were several other issues besides military that I could not come to grips with. Personally , I'd like to shake the mans hand and salute him for his military service. Brass balls man, brass balls. I would still be in the fetal position sucking my thumb and a mental puddle if I went through what that man did!

----------------Side note----------------------------------------------------------

Chris, how about a 'Salute' smily face?


----------



## Southwest Fisher

Bob,

I'm glad you were willing to admit that there are some Democrats that proudly served their country, and well. You mentioned that there were plenty on both sides that the article missed? I think that the point was that a lot of the current "big boys" in DC have military experience, and a lot of them passed up their chances, and its interesting to which ones pushed so hard for the war in Iraq. But in regards to Max Cleeland, you may be very right about him being a liberal in a conservative state. But that does not excuse Saxby Chambliss for running campaign ads that talked about Cleeland while showing pictures of Osama and Saddam - that's just lower than even Lee Atwater could come up with. Mr. Chambliss also told local officials in Valdosta that his Homeland Security plan was to "turn his sheriffs loose to arrest every Muslim that comes across the border." I know of a few Muslims who I went to basic training with that love America, hate al Qaeda, and would be a little upset to hear those comments coming out of anyone's mouth in 2001. Maybe 1951, but 2001? Also, remember when old Saxby (what the hell kind of good-ol-boy name is that? Saxby? I bet granddaddy had one hell of a plantation!) got caught by a journalist who was interviewing Bill Frist asking the majority leader for an ambassadorship for a donor whom had given him "a big old chunk a money?" You may be right about why Cleeland lost, but if you consider this man "Saxby" a fine replacement, well I cannot help but think that's a little f'ed up.


----------



## Southwest Fisher

SFC Rude,

If you can, drop me an AKO address so I can give you the sitrep on that beautiful little lake - I don't wanna bother you at work ande I don't want to tread on this forum (right now Bobm's thinking "Yeah right!"). And by the way, you're the E7, I'll by the beers!

SF


----------



## Bobm

SF as far as I'm concerned you can say anything you want on this forum as long as you don't personally attack anyone and keep it clean, those are Chris's rules its his site and thats about all he requires. I just have to moderate if it gets out of hand which I have tried to do without being overbearing. I like a good debate. 
I don't remember seeing the context of the political ad you mentioned about Osama but it sure doesn't sound like something Saxby would do. Since I doubt the ad was run up there I'm going to guess that its somthing you were told by someone that is taking something out of context. Saxby is well thought of down here and a good American citizen. CLeland has had his head up Daschles rear end for the last four years and the fact is Dashles not well regarded down here which I'm sure doesn't shock you either. Clelands problems were as I outlined in the above post and had nothing to do with an ad about Osama it was his support of goverment employee unions, something else not popular down here. As for the appointment for a donor that doesn't shock me or you either we both know full well no one gives somebody a "big ol chunk of money" without expecting something in return, at least not in politics, they all do it and I agree with you its not right. As for Saxby family owning a plantation this speaks to a rather naive theme that continues to be believed by Liberal Yankees that we southerners are racists. I can assure you that isn't the case we are much more comfortable with blacks than most midwesterners, we live with them, work with them and really don't treat them any different than anyone else. There are more blacks in any county of Georgia then there are in the state of ND a lot more. Atlanta has more successful black millionaires and business men than any city in the North. There also is a big surge in black republicans running for office down here that is parrelling their success in business, funny how productive people usaully end up conservative republicans :lol: . AS for your comments about Muslims there are without question a lot of them that are good people but their great failing after 9-11 was a reluctance to really harshly criticize the terrorists publicly especially the mullahs, their hatred of Israel and their resentment of our support for Israel kept them quiet at the wrong time. Also their support for the politically correct and incredibly stupid position of not profiling Middle Easterners continues to cast their loyalty to this country in doubt. Our whole government is idiotic about this, I fly a lot and have watched little blue haired old ladies getting searched at the Atlanta airport while middleastern men go thruogh the line unchecked, its typical government stupidity we are so damned worried about offending anyone that we do illogical, irrational things..and one of these days it will bite us. All Middleastern Muslims are not terroists but they all look like them so common sense would mean they all should be scrutinized intently. Our Democrat senator Zell Miller has said a lot worse about them because political correctness and liberalism is seen down here as the idiocy it is even by the Democrats, if Zell ran again he would win in a landslide but he can't stand the current state of the liberal owned Democrat party so hes retiring. Hes a great man,on a par with Reagan, if the democrats nominated him for president you would'nt of heard a word of criticism out of me, thats how much I respect him. And he would carry the south without question, I would vote for him( so much for your belief that I blindly follow the GOP), because he understands what the terrorist threat is, unlike the most phony liberal in the senate Kerry. I just don't understand whats happened to the Democrat party. What can you be thinking.


----------



## Bobm

Here a good example of how Muslims think and what life would be like under the "peace loving" religion of Islam
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=38967


----------



## Bobm

John Kerry is getting more specific with some of his spending plans when the people of this country actually make him our president. Yesterday he came out with a plan to increase the child care tax credit from $3,000 to $5,000. What's more, he plans to extend the eligibility for this credit to people who have no job whatsoever.

First of all, let's make sure that we all understand that the meaning of the term "tax credit" has been completely destroyed by our free-spending, vote-buying congress. :******: When you hear "tax credit" you might think of a credit applied against taxes that you actually owe. Not so. *In this day and age the phrase "tax credit" is actually code for "income redistribution."* If you qualify for a refundable tax credit such as the child care tax credit in the amount of $3,000, but you only owe $500 in income taxes against which to apply that "credit," the "credit" will wipe out your $500 tax liability, and the government will then take $2,500 away from some other taxpayer and give it to you. Pure income redistribution. Now Kerry wants to increase this giveaway to $5,000. This means that the government would take $4,500, not $2,500, from another taxpayer to give to the credit recipient.

Things get worse under Kerry's plan. He wants to extend this income redistribution program to single mothers who don't work! In plain language this means that the government would simply write a $5,000 check to every single, non-working mother out there every year and call it a "tax credit." Can't you just see these women stampeding to the polls in November to vote for Kerry! For $5,000 untaxed dollars a year ... why the hell not?

Remember ... *Democrats believe that wealth is distributed, not earned*. Kerry is working the distribution angle to buy votes. What a guy.


----------



## Bobm

Here a little dittty related to this thread
"there soon may be some really nice homes on the market for very attractive prices in New Jersey. The legislature has now passed Governor Jim McGreevey's "millionaire tax." If you live in New Jersey and your household income is over $500,000 a year your state income taxes will now go up by 41%. *This, by the way, from a governor (a Democrat, naturally) who ran on a pledge of no tax increases.* uke:

In the past few years gross taxable income in New Jersey has been falling. In 2001 and 2002 almost 100% of the $9.6 billion decrease in taxable income came from New Jersey residents who had a household income over $500,000. Now the taxes on these people are going up. It might be a good time to own a high-end moving company in the Garden State. Look for the high-producers to look for greener pastures .. pastures where they aren't the target for class-warfare income-redistributionist Democrats."


----------

