pBills
-
Posts
4,806 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by pBills
-
-
Yeah, but 20k of them are "You're an idiot", which takes about three seconds to post.
So it's really not that much, time-wise.
Still wasting time. Go do something more productive with your life.
-
Reich is an alarmist and Is so pro union that he can't fathom the fact they made themselves irrelevant 40 years ago.
Dare I say he is right about one thing? We do need a strong middle class in this country. However, this will not come through taxing the wealthy and growing the size of the government.
Not about being pro-union, about being pro-middle class. I think he does make some interesting points about gains and taxes. Granted taxing the wealthy will not be the main answer to fixing the economy, but having tax rates at a smarter level makes sense. Now before I get hammered with those who believe we should never tax rich, what's to say that by lowering or keeping those rates where they are now IS the true answer. I see nothing wrong with raising rates a little bit to about 45%. I will agree with you that growing government and spending cuts should happen. I am sure though that we will disagree on how those cuts are handled.
I would much rather see our government spend money on infrastructure and operating assistance for mass transit that one building roads, etc. in foreign countries. I also agree with him about the middle-class being divided.. a lot of that truly is based on fighting for what jobs remain and over jealous of someone pay or benefits. Much of that is also fueled by being misinformed about unions. If I had a dollar for every post placed here about all union workers are lazy, good for nothing, want to strike all of the time, bullies, etc., etc. I would be loaded. Fact of the matter is that majority of union workers work paycheck to paycheck and receive fair wages/benefits.
Example of people being misinformed. I read a Q$A session on the Washington Post the other day some people were seriously asking questions about metro operators (bus/subway). Saying that those who are failing in one job, get promoted or moved into another job so that they safe. Bus operator not doing well, being moved to the subway, if they continue to fail being moved to the station house. Complete falsehood that for whatever reason people believe. Fact is that unions protect contracts and working conditions for their members, as a whole they do not protect bad workers. Most people usually do not hear about the people fired/let go from their position.
-
More like either you are with us in helping the Libyan people OR you are not.
-
...trying to remember the last time I heard a Democrat speak anything that wasn't mere rhetoric...
I got nuthin'.
Did you try to do the same thing for Republicans? Just asking.
Whatever. You know I could convince you to pee on the nerd fraternity's lawn.
And, tell me how Obamacare doesn't screw the unions out of members,...
Ok, you let me know when the Progressives start voting for anybody other than Democrats....
Modern Whigs...jesus f'ing.....Two things... how does Health Care Reform screw the unions out of members? AND.. I do find it funny how you make it sound like voting for those who you believe best fits your beliefs is bad thing. Even if it is mainly directed towards one party. Do Conservatives vote for anybody other than Republicans? Come on.
-
Stop paying people to have kids and they'll stop having kids. For some baby mamas, pumping out puppies is their job.
I don't disagree with the fact that people should be smart and not have children when they simply can't afford them. However, I do feel for those single moms or dads that bust their butts everyday and do legitimately need help.
maybe comparing yourself with Thomas Jefferson or how about this one
I also liked the post where you say everyone you work with loves you, I really can't express how mind-blowingly impossible that sounds.
HAHAHAHA!!!!
-
No, you just seem cranky and irritable and more nonsensical than usual.
Holy Crap 28,886 posts!! Man I thought I was on here a lot.
-
I laugh at this because it's probably the same people that were saying the Administration were acting fast enough.
-
First, which posters exactly would those be? The only ones I see obsessing over this guy are you far lefties. It's turning into another 'Glen Beck' thread. All we're missing is Bishop Hedd and a Jon Stewart clip.
Second, what exactly is the definition of a "true member of the media"? Blogging isn't considered a mainstream part of the media these days? Really?
Members of the media don't have class. They are in the business of attracting eyeballs and thus, money. Being first and making the biggest splash is how this is accomplished. How can you possibly be an adult and fail to understand how this works in this day and age?
The only people not questioning/protecting Breitbart are the far righties. So what. By the way, I am not far left.
-
It seems like you do all the time. MAJOR ISSUES!!!
No it's called responding quickly so that I can keep on track with my work load.
-
pBills....please provide your opinion on Media Matters and their stated mission.
Thank you.
Well their stated Mission is as follows:
Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501©(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.Launched in May 2004, Media Matters for America put in place, for the first time, the means to systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation — news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda — every day, in real time. .....
I think the difference between them and Breitbart is that he clearly attacks. Give me one good reason why he had to keep the naked photo on his phone... and then show it to Opie and Anthony. Outside of Bill Maher, I don't know anyone else that would do that. Not sure if Limbaugh or Beck would even do that. To me, that shows his true character. He released the information, broke the story... which will have its toll on Weiner. And then he went the extra, not needed step and buried him. No class. Other places like Media Matters or whatever have class.
-
Yeah. It's not like pBills needs his spelling and grammatical errors to point out his stupidity. His daily display of mental incontinence here on PPP does that quite sufficiently.
Yeah, and you are the wisest one here. HAHAHA!!! Watch those fries, make sure they don't burn.
-
That remains to be seen. A Congressional investigation hasn't started yet but the fact that he put himself in a position to be blackmailed is enough for me to want him out of office. It would be for you too if you weren't a complete idiot.
Who said anyone who 'holier than thou'? Why do ignorant people always resort to throwing out random clichés that have nothing to do with the current circumstance in place of a logic argument?
Hs motives obviously are to promote himself, but who really cares? Isn't he just some internet blogger? Why is it important? Why are you upset about the truth being leaked? You really want misconduct by elected officials to never come to light??
And you agreed with that other tool saying a spelling mistake shows lack of education. What does your awesome grammar there show?
If he broke the law, yes he should be out. As far as him being a nasty tool and doing what he did to his wife and family... whether he stays or goes because of that alone I could care less.
So Breitbart is just some internet blogger.. Ok, tell that to those on this board who act as though he's a true member of the media. Not upset about it being leaked... just curious on how. Also, I think he had some other intentions in this besides just "reporting" the photos. No need to go the extra mile and show off the photos to Opie and Anthony. Could have had some class there.
-
It's not just a spelling error, it displays a lack of education. If it annoyed you though, it did it's job.
Oh give me a break. Displaying a lack of education? My ass. You have major issues if you take everything you read on a message board as a true depiction of someone's background/character. MAJOR ISSUES!!
-
Bored? Just making a very minor point, but a point regardless.
No people that point out a minor spelling error are annoying. And what's your point... the usual rant against unions? Get over it.
I guess you were scarred by your teachers... or all of them sucked right?
-
Boy, you are really grasping at anything you can here, huh? You really can't just state that Weiner is a scumbag and leave it at that?
Who cares who the source was or how it was leaked if it's all true? Funny how you guys suddenly aren't such a big fan of the truth.
I said he was scumbag and screwed up... yet, did he break the law or not? Doesn't hurt to ask that question.
I care how it was leaked... especially if Breitbart is acting like he is saving the world and is holier than thou. Does he have more motives than just reporting what he saw on Twitter? I'm sure he does.
-
It's too much.
You must have been taught by a union teacher.And you must be awfully bored to worry about that.
-
Yes, I realize that...but if this guy was as principled as he keeps claiming to be, wtf is he carrying the picture on his phone for, and wtf is he going on the Opie and Anthony show to talk about it?
:thumbsup: I'm curious, what would this Weiner have to do for the liberals on this board to not support him? I've come to the conclusion if he were screwing animals that you guys would have his back. I'm still not getting how Andrew Breitbart and Fox News are the bad guys in the Weiner scandal. It's become pathetic. I'm embarrassed for you guys.
I feel bad for people who think Breitbart is of high character. Seriously, he carrying around this "insurance policy" photo with him on his phone? Then this person of high character show the photo to Opie and Anthony. Either he's not that bright in thinking there would be no harm in doing that or he is a conniving person and did this to completely bury Weiner.
In regards to backing Weiner... I have stated many times I think what he did was wrong on so many levels. Yet, as far as we know he did not break the law. So would I be upset or surprised if he resigned? No.
-
But..but..but...WE CAN'T CUT EDUCATION SPENDING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
p.s. cue one of the liberal asshats with the typical "unions aren't perfect" dodge.
Wondering if she actually is a member of a union. Most Superintendents aren't. And yes, she is making to much.
-
Answer my question: how is that possible relevant to the discussion?
If we are talking about tax rates, I think asking a tax rate question is relevant.
-
It will work and has worked. At least if we use Reagans method. His tax cuts were across the board and it spurred huge economic growth. Everyone prospers when more money is in the hands of citizens and private sector business. Really not that hard to figure out. And things would have continued that way, imho, if Reagan were able to pass a balanced budget amendment. But every time he did he was told it was DOA.
And the funny thing is that the top tax rate under Reagan was around 50% for the majority of his presidency.
-
Why? How is that question relevent to ANYTHING I've said in this thread? What discussion are you having?
Answer the questions:
Do you think the tax rate should be lowered from where it is now? If so, do you truly believe that the trickle-down method that has not worked yet will start to work after such a drop in the tax rate?
-
In other words, if the tax cuts are cancelled, taxes on the poor go up 1%, while taxes on the rich go up 4.4%. The burden falls on the rich.
So what, exactly, are you disagreeing with?
Do you think the tax rate should be lowered from where it is now? If so, do you truly believe that the trickle-down method that has not worked yet will start to work after such a drop in the tax rate?
-
Geez small p I was just asking a question. Please try to answer instead of saying I should have asked something else. Geez that is mean.
Anyway I think I figured out your answer. Here is the thing though:
We have a lot of debt which needs to be paid. Once it is paid we should try not to build it up again. Getting it paid would be great. We can't pay it without rich people and rich people already have a lot of money. We should make a deal with them. We should have temporary tax increases just until the debt is paid off. I say we do this:
$1-10 million: 85%
$10-20 million: 92%
$20-100 million: 100%
$100 million to $1 billion: 108%
$1 billion and over: 124%
Now before all the republicans start saying I have bad math there are two things to say:
1. Rich people can pay more than 100% because they are rich and already have money so don't give me any crap about paying more than 100%. They can take it from their savings.
2. The deal is that the taxes are temporary until the debt is paid which shouldn't be that long. I read yesterday that each household in the US has about $500 k of national debt over their heads. This really isn't all that much for rich people to pay off quickly for everyone. Once the debt is paid we could push taxes on the rich back down to something like 75%. This would be an incentive for rich people to earn more money and pay off the thing quicker. If you were making a billion a year so you were paying 1.24 billion in taxes you would try to earn 2 billion so you could pay 2.48 billion and get the rate back down to 75% so you would only have to pay 1.5 billion the next year. Rich people are usually smart like that and can read between the lines on numbers.
Are you on board with this plan?
Small p I think we agree on this stuff so please stop trying to be rude.
Gangsta way of spelling Crayons... how am I rude?
You are right that yes we do have a lot of the debt that needs to be paid off and yes we should curb spending across the board so that we do not build it back up again. Difference with many people is that some just want to take a hatchet and cut away at Social Programs, not thinking about who they are affecting, etc.
The other item as I mentioned earlier is tax rates. The tax plan created under President Bush should not be extended. One can attribute $2.74 trillion to those cuts. If the Right was really on board in making drastic changes in order to help this country they would remove those tax cuts. Even though, I wouldn't mind seeing them go up to 45% I would be happy with 39.5%.
I would not be for people having to cut into their savings, etc., etc. to fix this economy, just do what is right AND fair.
And if you discount everyone taller than I am, I'm the tallest person in the world.
Don't be a !@#$ing numbskull.
What percentage of government expenditures is consumed by the poor? Simple question, should be able to come up with a concrete answer. Because the question of what percentage of government income is funded by the rich has an easy, concrete answer: roughly 70% (roughly, because I'm going by largely disinterested memory). So until you can provide a hard number, you're comparing some oogie-boogie "but think of the children!" personal approximation to a hard number, which is, to put it bluntly, idiotic. So get back to me when you can base your opinion on real information.
And next time, don't assume that because I point out that the burden of debt repayment will fall on the rich (logically, because THEY'RE THE ONES THAT HAVE THE MONEY TO REPAY THE DEBT), that it's anything more than an observation and I'm at all pining over it, you !@#$ing numbskull.
Of course they have the money they are the ones reaping the biggest benefits from the Bush Tax Cuts!!
On June 7, 2001, President George W. Bush signed into law the first of the tax cuts that would turn the budget surpluses of the 1990's into historic deficits. A new analysis from Citizens for Tax Justice explains that making these tax cuts permanent would almost double the long-term budget deficit.
The richest one percent of taxpayers, with an average income of about $1.4 million in 2013, would get an average tax cut of $68,079 that year if the Bush tax cuts are extended again. The poorest three fifths of taxpayers, with an average income of $29,000 that year, would receive an average tax cut of just $487.
The analysis also finds that the higher a filer's income, the larger the tax cut as a percentage of income. If the Bush tax cuts are extended again, in 2013 the poorest one fifth of taxpayers would receive tax cuts equal to less than one percent of their income, while the richest one percent would enjoy tax cuts equal to 4.6 percent of their income.
How is the bold part fair? Do not extend the Bush Tax Cuts and close loopholes.
-
"Historically low?" When does history begin for you, 1993?
You !@#$ing numbskull. I didn't say anything remotely like that. Get your head out of your ass already.
I repeat: you !@#$ing numbskull. Get your head out of your ass already.
Minus a few years... yes top tax rate is historically low. Link
Dude act your age instead of the constant BS swearing comments.
everyone's going to have to pay more and consume less (in terms of government services) to balance the budget and make a dent in the debt, and the burden of that is going to fall on the richOf course everyone will take a hit and pay more and consume less when it comes to government services... however, how many millionaires are really using or worried about government services? Do they rely on them as much as those making $30K, $40k per year? So yet, again those who are truly using the services because of need will take a hit. Those who don't we reap the benefits of an even lower tax rate.
Precisely who do you think hires the middle class? That's right. Rich people. But in your world, the rich should be taxed more because, y'know, it's not like more taxes and uncertain regulations will keep the rich from hiring more middle-class people, right?
That progressive drum you're beating may as well be your own freaking head. "We need to tax the rich" is always followed with "Why are the rich sitting on their money and not hiring?" as though these are two were exclusive of each other.
So you can guarantee that by giving even lower tax rates that the rich will hire more middle-class people? Not buying it. I am saying that I agree with the tax rate going up as high as 45%. Which is still less than what the god of the Republican Party Reagan offered for most of his Presidency.
Robert Reich draws a bleak picture
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
MANY people here say you should NOT raise taxes on the rich because after all they are the movers and shakers, they create jobs. I was saying that there is nothing out there that guarantees that lowering tax rates or keeping them where they are will create jobs or fix this economy.
I have always had the same username too. Not sure that's something I should congratulate you on.