|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> Fair Share % /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1353851554 Message started by WebsterMark on 11/25/12 at 05:52:34 |
|
Title: Fair Share % Post by WebsterMark on 11/25/12 at 05:52:34 From the Washington Examiner newspaper: Obama said in his postelection news conference earlier this month, "want to make sure that middle-class folks aren't bearing the entire burden and sacrifice when it comes to some of these big challenges. They expect that folks at the top are doing their fair share as well." House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., echoed this point in a fundraising pitch sent out on Monday: "Voters sent a clear message to Republicans in the election: we must stand up for the middle class and ensure the wealthy pay their fair share." Although Obama and his fellow Democrats repeatedly call on wealthier Americans to pay their "fair share," they never specify what percentage of the nation's tax burden the wealthy would have to bear. As matters stand, the top 1 percent of American households paid 39 percent of income taxes in 2009, according to the most recent data compiled by the Congressional Budget Office, and the top 5 percent of taxpayers paid 64 percent. But income taxes, taken in isolation, do not tell the whole story, because lower-income Americans do pay payroll taxes. But even taking into account all forms of taxation, the top 1 percent still paid 22 percent of federal taxes while earning just 13.4 percent of household income. The top 5 percent paid 40 percent of all federal taxes, despite earning only 26 percent of all income. Just curious to get input from the regular contributors, what percentage would it need to be for each of you to say; ”‘Okay, the top 5% of income earners are paying their fair share.” |
|
Title: Re: Fair Share % Post by srinath on 11/25/12 at 06:07:00 Correct again web. Rich need to pay their fair share. Lets take this example. Mitt RMoney paid 13%. Thus I agree that taking the wide average hides the actual dodgers. Also Mitt claimed he paid atleast 20% over the last 30 years. How was that averaged ? Wide sweeping stats hide all the isolated low and high points. He could ahve paid 30% in the first 10 years where he made 60k/yr and paid 13k the last 10 when he made 40 mill and he may have averaged it like this 30 % and 13% average to 22. As always excellent point Web. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: Fair Share % Post by WebsterMark on 11/25/12 at 06:36:38 okay, whatever..... are you going to put down a % or not? |
|
Title: Re: Fair Share % Post by thumperclone on 11/25/12 at 13:14:41 flat rate for all no exemptions/deductions % ?? |
|
Title: Re: Fair Share % Post by srinath on 11/25/12 at 14:45:07 That number you put up webster is really glossing over the egregious cases of tax fraud and tax loophole exploitation. It also says income of the top 1% ... does that mean capital gains is excluded from that statistic. I think so. Most rich people make 90% of their income as capital gains, taxed - wiki to the rescue - In 2008–2012, the tax rate on qualified dividends and long term capital gains is 0% for those in the 10% and 15% income tax brackets. After 2012, dividends will be taxed at the taxpayer's ordinary income tax rate, regardless of his or her tax bracket. After 2012, the long-term capital gains tax rate will be 20% (10% for taxpayers in the 15% tax bracket). After 2012, the qualified five-year 18% capital gains rate (8% for taxpayers in the 15% tax bracket) will be reinstated.. Anyway - I dont like the flat tax. It penalises the true job creators. So the rough back of the napkin numbers. I think it needs to be progressive, capital gains needs to be redefined to really really really isolate the true business men from the fakes. So start @ 0% obviously for those under say 3/4th the poverty line in the MSA with exemptions to that for people living under section 8 or rent control, and only the amount over that is taxed, with slices of say 3-4% for every 10K over that till about 3x the poverty line. Past that, to about 10X the poverty limit it would climb at a lower rate say 2-3%. I'll use 3% and 2% in this example but you'd get the general idea. Say poverty = 13,333, you make 10K you're home free. You make 13.33K You pay 3% on $3,333. You make 20K, you pay 3% on 3333, and 6% on the other $6666. You make 30K, you pay 3% on 3333, 6% on 6666, and 9% on 10k. You make 40K, - as above but you pay 12% on the last 10k. You make 50K, - as above but you pay 14% on that last 10k. 60k - as above but 16% on that last 10k. 70k - as above but 18% on the last 10k. 80k - as above but 20% on the last 10k. 90k - as above but 22% on the last 10k. 100k - 24% on the last 10k. 110k - 26%, 120K - 28%, 130k - 30%, 133.33k 32%. I'd let it stay @ that 2% past that too. Or make it 4, 3 and then drop to 2. It makes for a progressive system. Not regressive like we have had. Of course the final risk with a progressive system is that once you hit say north of 50-60%, you get disincentivized to make more $$$ ... however this is income - capital gains is separate, capital gains is what creates jobs, this is income tax for corporate fat cats, the fools that drove the country into the ground - the Blankfeins, the Rajarathnam's, the Lay's, the Fastow's, the Madoff's, the Mozillo's, the Greenbergs etc ... True capital gains is the dude down the street who is building a subdivision, he may have a whole year where he sells 3-4 houses. He may be working for 10 years to build a 50 home subdivision, guess what ... he had to plonk down 20 million to buy the land, put roads, plumbing, electricals etc etc ... he'll make $$$ but it will take him 10 years to see that $ back, and another 10 to make $. I know I've made things before for GS500's and savages too. You get preorders, and its all gone by the time you buy material ... you pay the welder and the powdercoater ... you're in the red for a few g's. If you did it right, you have pre-sold maybe 1/2 the number you made. The other 1/2 is what you really start to get out of the red. I'd in a lot of cases be happy to see 5% or even less. I'd be happy not not lose $$$ ... That is where capital gains comes in. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: Fair Share % Post by justin_o_guy2 on 11/25/12 at 18:29:52 Who cares who pays what? Do the math,, we are underwater,, besides, Ive heard debts dont matter,, so, lets stop paying taxes & just print everything,, |
|
Title: Re: Fair Share % Post by Starlifter on 11/25/12 at 19:25:25 Interesting article: Ten Numbers the Rich Would Like Fudged The numbers reveal the deadening effects of inequality in our country, and confirm that tax avoidance, rather than a lack of middle-class initiative, is the cause. November 19, 2012 | Like this article?Join our email list:Stay up to date with the latest headlines via email. 1. Only THREE PERCENT of the very rich are entrepreneurs. According to both Marketwatch and economist Edward Wolff, over 90 percent of the assets owned by millionaires are held in a combination of low-risk investments (bonds and cash), personal business accounts, the stock market, and real estate. Only 3.6 percent of taxpayers in the top .1% were classified as entrepreneurs based on 2004 tax returns. A 2009 Kauffman Foundation study found that the great majority of entrepreneurs come from middle-class backgrounds, with less than 1 percent of all entrepreneurs coming from very rich or very poor backgrounds. 2. Only FOUR OUT OF 150 countries have more wealth inequality than us. In a world listing compiled by a reputable research team (which nevertheless prompted double-checking), the U.S. has greater wealth inequality than every measured country in the world except for Namibia, Zimbabwe, Denmark, and Switzerland. 3. An amount equal to ONE-HALF the GDP is held untaxed overseas by rich Americans. The Tax Justice Network estimated that between $21 and $32 trillion is hidden offshore, untaxed. With Americans making up 40% of the world's Ultra High Net Worth Individuals, that's $8 to $12 trillion in U.S. money stashed in far-off hiding places. Based on a historical stock market return of 6%, up to $750 billion of income is lost to the U.S. every year, resulting in a tax loss of about $260 billion. 4. Corporations stopped paying HALF OF THEIR TAXES after the recession. After paying an average of 22.5% from 1987 to 2008, corporations have paid an annual rate of 10% since. This represents a sudden $250 billion annual loss in taxes. U.S. corporations have shown a pattern of tax reluctance for more than 50 years, despite building their businesses with American research and infrastructure. They've passed the responsibility on to their workers. For every dollar of workers' payroll tax paid in the 1950s, corporations paid three dollars. Now it's 22 cents. 5. Just TEN Americans made a total of FIFTY BILLION DOLLARS in one year. That's enough to pay the salaries of over a million nurses or teachers or emergency responders. That's enough, according to 2008 estimates by the Food and Agriculture Organization and the UN's World Food Program, to feed the 870 million people in the world who are lacking sufficient food. For the free-market advocates who say "they've earned it": Point #1 above makes it clear how the wealthy make their money. 6. Tax deductions for the rich could pay off 100 PERCENT of the deficit. Another stat that required a double-check. Based on research by the Tax Policy Center, tax deferrals and deductions and other forms of tax expenditures (tax subsidies from special deductions, exemptions, exclusions, credits, capital gains, and loopholes), which largely benefit the rich, are worth about 7.4% of the GDP, or about $1.1 trillion. Other sources have estimated that about two-thirds of the annual $850 billion in tax expenditures goes to the top quintile of taxpayers. 7. The average single black or Hispanic woman has about $100 IN NET WORTH. The Insight Center for Community Economic Development reported that median wealth for black and Hispanic women is a little over $100. That's much less than one percent of the median wealth for single white women ($41,500). Other studies confirm the racially-charged economic inequality in our country. For every dollar of NON-HOME wealth owned by white families, people of color have only one cent. 8. Elderly and disabled food stamp recipients get $4.30 A DAY FOR FOOD. Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) has dropped significantly over the past 15 years, serving only about a quarter of the families in poverty, and paying less than $400 per month for a family of three for housing and other necessities. Ninety percent of the available benefits go to the elderly, the disabled, or working households. Food stamp recipients get $4.30 a day. 9. Young adults have lost TWO-THIRDS OF THEIR NET WORTH since 1984. 21- to 35-year-olds: Your median net worth has dropped 68% since 1984. It's now less than $4,000. That $4,000 has to pay for student loans that average $27,200. Or, if you're still in school, for $12,700 in credit card debt. With an unemployment rate for 16- to 24-year-olds of almost 50%, two out of every five recent college graduates are living with their parents. But your favorite company may be hiring. Apple, which makes a profit of $420,000 per employee, can pay you about $12 per hour. 10. The American public paid about FOUR TRILLION DOLLARS to bail out the banks. That's about the same amount of money made by America's richest 10% in one year. But we all paid for the bailout. And because of it, we lost the opportunity for jobs, mortgage relief, and educational funding. Bonus for the super-rich: A QUADRILLION DOLLARS in securities trading nets ZERO sales tax revenue for the U.S. The world derivatives market is estimated to be worth over a quadrillion dollars (a thousand trillion). At least $200 trillion of that is in the United States. In 2011 the Chicago Mercantile Exchange reported a trading volume of over $1 quadrillion on 3.4 billion annual contracts. A quadrillion dollars. A sales tax of ONE-TENTH OF A PENNY on a quadrillion dollars could pay off the deficit. But the total sales tax was ZERO. It's not surprising that the very rich would like to fudge the numbers, as they have the nation. |
|
Title: Re: Fair Share % Post by 360k+ on 11/25/12 at 20:04:29 ...and if elected, I propose a linear progressive tax rate (linear means straight line), based on income, and topping out at $1 billion. In other words, at $1 billion you would be paying 100% in taxes. You might first think... well, I sure wouldn't want to earn $1 billion! And to that I say - precisely! Because there is still a lot of incentive at anything even slightly under, i.e., you are still raking in some pretty good jing at say $900 million (the mathematically challenged may need to think about this). The idea is a concept known as diminishing returns. Keep in mind, the earth's resources are FINITE (not INFINITE) and most don't regenerate! Put another way, there is only so much to SHARE among all of us! If you NEED $1 billion per year, then you are already living far... FAR... F-A-R beyond the mean (average), and anything even remotely intended for you to have in the first place (yeah, it's a concept called greed!). Note that $1 billion is based on an artificial monetary value (the greenback) who's value will vary based on real and/or artificial manipulation against the world economy, and may need to be adjusted periodically. |
|
Title: Re: Fair Share % Post by Starlifter on 11/25/12 at 20:59:27 Note: Source "Common Dreams" Corporations stopped paying HALF OF THEIR TAXES after the recession. After paying an average of 22.5% from 1987 to 2008, corporations have paid an annual rate of 10% since. This represents a sudden $250 billion annual loss in taxes. U.S. corporations have shown a pattern of tax reluctance for more than 50 years, despite building their businesses with American research and infrastructure. They've passed the responsibility on to their workers. For every dollar of workers' payroll tax paid in the 1950s, corporations paid three dollars. Now it's 22 cents. ******************************************************** Just to make sure the hoi-polloi doesn't get too inquisitive, the big media arm makes sure they're thoroughly engrossed with celeb news or sports instead. |
|
Title: Re: Fair Share % Post by srinath on 11/26/12 at 04:55:34 37282E2934330232023A28246F5D0 wrote:
Dude, not for the rich, they need to pay a higher % than the lower tiers. Printing is fine, its @ this point in time the best thing to do. Using defishits as an excuse to not tax the rich at all is bogus. Deficits are not that important, now pay up is what I would tell the rich. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: Fair Share % Post by WebsterMark on 11/26/12 at 04:58:11 Of course the final risk with a progressive system is that once you hit say north of 50-60%, you get disincentivized to make more $$$ ... however this is income - capital gains is separate, capital gains is what creates jobs, this is income tax for corporate fat cats, the fools that drove the country into the ground - the Blankfeins, the Rajarathnam's, the Lay's, the Fastow's, the Madoff's, the Mozillo's, the Greenbergs etc ... True capital gains is the dude down the street who is building a subdivision, he may have a whole year where he sells 3-4 houses. He may be working for 10 years to build a 50 home subdivision, guess what ... he had to plonk down 20 million to buy the land, put roads, plumbing, electricals etc etc ... he'll make $$$ but it will take him 10 years to see that $ back, and another 10 to make $. I know I've made things before for GS500's and savages too. You get preorders, and its all gone by the time you buy material ... you pay the welder and the powdercoater ... you're in the red for a few g's. If you did it right, you have pre-sold maybe 1/2 the number you made. The other 1/2 is what you really start to get out of the red. I'd in a lot of cases be happy to see 5% or even less. I'd be happy not not lose $$$ ... That is where capital gains comes in. and when that hard working guy good guy keeps this up for years and suddenly finds himself one of the evil rich guys.... Come on you guys..... give me a freaking % that you say okay, they are paying enough. All you talk about is how rich don't pay their share. I just want to know what their share is. |
|
Title: Re: Fair Share % Post by srinath on 11/26/12 at 07:11:13 6E5C5B4A4D5C4B74584B52390 wrote:
I have given you a set of numbers ... read it. The numbers are not static ... its higher when you make more $$$ ... you have to read it. - like this for example - 70k - as above but 18% on the last 10k. 80k - as above but 20% on the last 10k. 90k - as above but 22% on the last 10k. 100k - 24% on the last 10k. 110k - 26%, 120K - 28%, 130k - 30%, 133.33k 32%. I'd let it stay @ that 2% past that too. Or make it 4, 3 and then drop to 2. It makes for a progressive system. Not regressive like we have had. Sorry I post it in numbers and you say ... what is fair share again ... are you even readin, or have you got a few secretaries posting this crap on some broad based drivel ... like here Jennifer, post some crap about rich and fair share - and she goes OK sir, new post or into some other post. You go, OK new post. Then 2 days later, Here christine post some more crap in that fair share thread. Just badger a few people. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: Fair Share % Post by Pine on 11/26/12 at 14:01:17 Though I would be hard pressed to prove it, I thinkt your post ( Starlifter) has an equal amount of hidden statements in it. For instance #7... I would be inclined to think that $100 would have to include all incarerated and all illegals, in order for the number to get that low. Since the number of white illegals is near zero, and since the minorities by far out number white in prisions... then yeah $100 sounds about right. Would I want that number to change based upon that ... not really, not it if is comming out of my pocket which it would need to since folks in prison make near zero. Further I suspect the incomes to illegals would be vastly under-reported... no use snitching on yourself. So such a "fact" is less than useless... it is not representitive. Schools loans- well my daughter is in that predicament right now. And i know she knows I am not all that happy. Currently she is going to public college to get a degree in education- so she is borrowing money to get a job that pays pitiful. Cheap loans... means bad decisions. It also means higher costs- as school increase tuition just so they either build more buildings for all the students or so they have some way to turn back the overflow, So far both sri and Star seem bent on having the Federal government be the judge on who should have how much money..instead of the money earner doing it. I am against any such function of the federal government. I would much rather see this at the state level ( if any at all). As to answer for the OP.... Federal tax on the those making greater than 100 times the poverty level ... 25% ( $2.3 million). of gross. http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/12poverty.shtml poverty line of family of 4 is $23,050 also useless info: Since there is an official federal definition of “poverty,” does the federal government also have official definitions for such terms as “middle class,” “middle income,” “rich,” and “upper income”? No. The federal government does not have official definitions for such terms as “middle class,” “middle income,” “rich,” and “upper income.” From here: http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/faq.shtml#differences which the begs question : How are we to answer the question when the group in question are not defined? ;D |
|
Title: Re: Fair Share % Post by WebsterMark on 11/27/12 at 05:35:31 Though I would be hard pressed to prove it, I thinkt your post ( Starlifter) has an equal amount of hidden statements in it. For instance #7... Pine; fyi:remember when you work through his post that Star post lies all the time. It's what he does. (see the post about Fox News for example) |
|
Title: Re: Fair Share % Post by srinath on 11/27/12 at 06:03:40 5C65626978637E0C0 wrote:
I am going to confine my rebuttal to this 1 point. I want the federal govt to play judge here - and this is how. You want the $$$ spigot to be turned off for college loans. I agree there, definitely. However we have been awash in $$$ and college tuition has skyrocketed ... so OK we kill the loan programs. What do you think will happen just by market forces alone ? Over the next few years, between 5 and 15 the colleges will be forced to get a smaller financial foot print. No more huge new football stadiums, no more brand new dorms with 1000's of amenities ... so over a few years, I think it will drop to where it is sustainable via market forces. However that is 15 years you would need to wait. Enter the govt. They can force that to happen right now. They can easily engineer a sudden death for college excesses. That way the only ones screwed are the ones who already have paid. the govt can also lighten the burden on the ones who have taken on loans already ... In fact that will accelerate the downward spiral of costs by getting the private loan business out of the market. I dont think the costs ever are going to come down without serious govt intervention in that market. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: Fair Share % Post by justin_o_guy2 on 11/27/12 at 19:39:45 I dont think the costs ever are going to come down without serious govt intervention in that market. Thats when the costs started up.. |
|
Title: Re: Fair Share % Post by srinath on 11/28/12 at 11:50:05 627D7B7C61665767576F7D713A080 wrote:
Not exactly, however govt has been intervening in the worng direction though ... obviously its kept the costs high ... the govt needs to prick the bubble, and prevent colleges from deflating slowly ... deflate quick ... and let debt get written off in chapter 11 etc etc ... Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: Fair Share % Post by Jerry Eichenberger on 12/04/12 at 10:18:39 A couple of things: First, I get sick and tired of hearing how the taxpayers paid to bail out banks during the recession. Those were loans, not gifts. They have been repaid, and in some instances, such as when the Treasury took shares of companies in addition to making the loans, the gov't has gotten a huge profit. Nothing wrong with that, let's just not twist the facts. Next, what is "rich"? To a poor Mexican peon or slum dweller in Rio, $5,000 per year is beyond his wildest imagination. For Americans, what is rich? Income test or asset test? Yes, those very few who are at the top of the Fortune 100 list, measured by assets held, probably inherited their wealth, such as the Walton hiers, and the like. But if your definition of rich gets down to those whose wealth is measured, say, at around $50 Million or less, most of them earned it themselves in the first generation. A big problem is on the horizon again, at that's the effect on farmers of increasing land values. Forget real estate taxes, I mean inheritance taxes. If the fiscal cliff isn't resolved, the amount of an estate that isn't taxed is only $1 Million, and all over $1 Million is taxed at 55%. The exemption is currently $5 Million. With land values in Iowa farm country hitting $14,000 per acre in some autumn land sales, $1 Million is 71.4 acres of land. A farmer can't even earn a mediocre living on a farm that small. So, asset tests of wealth are stupid and horribly unfair. |
|
Title: Re: Fair Share % Post by Serowbot on 12/04/12 at 10:54:31 Make an exemption for farmers?... :-?... |
|
Title: Re: Fair Share % Post by Jerry Eichenberger on 12/04/12 at 11:05:04 All asset tests of wealth are stupid, at least using the results to tax inheritances. Ohio finally saw the light, and our state death tax has been eliminated, beginning 1/1/13. So don't die in Ohio for the next 27 days. One's assets are purchased, in the lifetime of the one who first acquired them, with after tax dollars. Why, then should that person's estate, and the estates of all of his generations of heirs after him, pay the gov't again? Totally illogical to have any inheritance tax. Why should the gov't get 55% of the value of the farm from my wife's grandfather's estate, then again from her father's estate, and lastly, again from her own estate? See how dumb that it? It's legalized theft. The same logic applies to any business - maybe a family hardware store, restaurant, or whatever. |
|
Title: Re: Fair Share % Post by srinath on 12/04/12 at 11:05:07 Yea yea yea, and there is already an exemption for farm based business. Besides, you can exempt some people and some categories of people, but the GOP wants to crunch the middle class while protecting the rich under the guise of calling them "job creators". If the "job creator" wasn't "creating a job" cos there was profit to be made, they can stop creating ... we dont need charity jobs. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: Fair Share % Post by Jerry Eichenberger on 12/04/12 at 11:17:59 The farm based exemption goes away withthe fiscal cliff. Even though we're farmers, why is it fair that farms be treated differently than a family owned restaurant? Because the farm lobby is far stronger than the restaurant association. Like other liberals, you divert the discussion - tell me how an inheritance tax is logical, fair, or sensible - please stay on point. We're not talking at all about job creation - we're talking about inheritance tax, and its inherent fallacy. |
|
Title: Re: Fair Share % Post by Midnightrider on 12/04/12 at 12:02:42 http://rtr.org/vid/6544 |
|
Title: Re: Fair Share % Post by WebsterMark on 12/04/12 at 12:05:23 I'm sitting in a McDonalds in Dumas, TX as I write this. There is nothing around here except farms and ranches. Whole darn area looks like a scene out of Tremers.... Of course this is Texas so they have some perspective, but you're correct; if this were other states and the owner of one of these farms died, tell me what justification is there for Uncle Sam getting ANYTHING? Death tax should be just that, dead. |
|
Title: Re: Fair Share % Post by srinath on 12/04/12 at 12:55:53 The target of the tax raise is the high salaried employees. That is why the tax rates have to increase based on income. Looks like you 2 are talking about the same thing, you dont want your tax to go up based on assets - static assets inherited or farmed or otherwise, static assets stay un taxed cos they are post tax, as in they have been taxed already. So Republicans closing loopholes will screw both of you out of your farms and the inheritance there of ... anyway, dont worry, Elizabeth warren will help solve your problems, remember Vote Warren in 2016, america's first woman president. Thank you. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: Fair Share % Post by Midnightrider on 12/04/12 at 18:30:02 Sri I hope you're right. She has a head on her shoulders and she knows how to speak the truth! |
|
Title: Re: Fair Share % Post by WebsterMark on 12/04/12 at 19:05:56 Warren speaks with forked tongue..... |
|
Title: Re: Fair Share % Post by Serowbot on 12/04/12 at 19:21:26 6F5D5A4B4C5D4A75594A53380 wrote:
Romney was such a straight talker... ;D... |
|
Title: Re: Fair Share % Post by Starlifter on 12/04/12 at 19:36:28 Elizabeth Warren is one of the most exciting and uplifting Democrat in many years. She is the voice of workingmen and -women, the champion of consumers and homeowners and the fighter for fairness for American heroes who wear the uniform, as well as their families at home. She was wonderful in "Capitalism A Love Story". I don't remember her in Sicko. Both were brilliant documentaries and truly helped to wake up a lot of people to the truth about this system we live under. They see anyone who would dare put one constraint on Wall Street as a rabid socialist/communist/Nazi/fascist. To them, it feels like persecution. I swear they have victim envy. When FDR Democrats like Warren re-take our government Americans will once again see how traditional Democratic values make their lives better, and Akin, Mourdock, and the rest of the crazies will be turned out of office. |
|
Title: Re: Fair Share % Post by srinath on 12/04/12 at 20:49:59 I think webster will cling to the repug's no matter what ... In India there is a saying ... Loosely translated it goes like this - Guess who the last communist in the world will be ... and the answer is ... well It can be Bose, Banerjee, chaterjee, Mazumdar any/all are considered correct and funny. This is what it means ... People with those last names are from west bengal. Yes the man that developed Bose speakers was an ex-pat Injun called Amar Bose who migrated to US is the 50's and setup a speaker shop in the 60's etc etc ... anyway, those guys in west bengal have elected a communist leader in every election ever. The 2 prominent parties (and we have a multi party system in India with coalitions and what not galore ... anyway the 2-3 top parties are all communist in west bengal. Anyway I am hoping Warren will start to put a bite on wall street ... so far I am so glad she sent Brown down the tubes. Hey, she took the browns to the super bowl ... Closing of loopholes will be a freaking noose aorund the middle class, and let the rich slip away scott free ... why ? the middle class spend more of their $$$ on their house payments ... that is a loophole they want to close ... why not just shoot the middle class. Its easier and faster. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: Fair Share % Post by srinath on 12/05/12 at 08:23:25 0C3E39282F3E29163A29305B0 wrote:
Yes she needs that forked tongue to penalise wall street for their transgressions and to help the middle class by taxing the rich. see those 2 needs actually 2 tounges ... she does the best she can with a fork. So here is what we should do, vote for her in 2016 while looking for the right person ... whi has 2 tounges. besides we also need someone who can see a lot better so they can do it more efficiently, and apparently, we only have 3 color cones in our eyes, a australian shallow water reef shrimp has like 16 different color cones. We need a dude with that and 2 tounges (or can be a dudette - maybe Ron paul will come back as a 96 year old with a life expectancy of Bob Dole squared) And man that dude ... I dont know what he's on, but He's like the government's version of Keith Richards. Looks a million years old, and still lived for a 100 more. They had him on TV cos he was hospitalised ... and he's from my hood so to speak, and he look the same as he did in 96. WTH. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: Fair Share % Post by WebsterMark on 12/06/12 at 05:58:51 Elizabeth Warren is one of the most exciting and uplifting Democrat in many years. She is the voice of workingmen and -women, the champion of consumers and homeowners and the fighter for fairness for American heroes who wear the uniform, as well as their families at home. oh my God, i laughed so hard it hurt...... What a dupe you are.... |
|
Title: Re: Fair Share % Post by srinath on 12/06/12 at 08:27:04 4C7E79686F7E69567A69701B0 wrote:
Right you are again web, Warren is the only one who can stop this slide and turn it around. Unless we do know where the fountain of youth is, and send ron paul on an expedition to there ... That dude seems to be wanting to retire ... I'd say, get him some viagra and a 19 yr old floosie and get him back in the mix ... hey it seemed to work for gingrich. Cool. Srinath. |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |