PDA

View Full Version : If top 5% paid 40% of taxes, what is their 'fair' share?



Eric Johnson
11-25-2012, 08:06 AM
http://washingtonexaminer.com/examiner-editorial-if-top-5-paid-40-of-taxes-what-is-their-fair-share/article/2513985

http://tinyurl.com/cy4l6b6

Opinion: Editorials

Riding a wave of confidence after his re-election victory, President Obama is eager to collect scalps from the class war he appears to have won. Americans, 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.

- more -

road kill
11-25-2012, 08:09 AM
It doesn't matter what they pay.
It won't change a thing.
Obama knows that.
It was all a scam to get the little guy to hate the FAT CAT!!!
Class envy.....Obama's war on "the man!!"

It was all about VOTES.....bottom line.

Franco
11-25-2012, 08:25 AM
My candidate, who has ridden off into the sunset, suggested that if we lived by The Constitution that we would not be paying any Federal Income Tax! He was widely rejected and thus I expect taxes to rise for everyone.

The American voter has demonstrated over and over that they like working for the Federal Government and are opposed to having the Feds work for the people!

luvmylabs23139
11-25-2012, 10:19 AM
He bought votes and will always win because all the people that screw the actual taxpayer are the majority.
He can go to double hockey sticks and take his darn leaches with him!!! I'm sick of paying his leaches way.

luvmylabs23139
11-25-2012, 10:21 AM
Let me add may that idiot rot in H*ll and take his leaches with him.

murral stark
11-25-2012, 06:58 PM
Let me add may that idiot rot in H*ll and take his leaches with him.

You say he bought votes by making promises. True. Tell me, did Romney make promises to his monetary supporters? That is a simple yes or no question. You are a business owner. Do you have employees? If so, do you consider them "leeches" or an asset to your business?

HPL
11-25-2012, 07:21 PM
You are a business owner. Do you have employees? If so, do you consider them "leeches" or an asset to your business?


Seems a bit of a non sequitur to me. Also, one really can't compare folks who work in the private sector with govt workers.

duk4me
11-25-2012, 07:24 PM
Let me add may that idiot rot in H*ll and take his leaches with him.

Nice Christian attitude..............

HPL
11-25-2012, 07:41 PM
Rotting in hell is certainly a christian idea (although as I understand it, hell might be a dry heat, which could possibly forestall rot).

murral stark
11-25-2012, 08:32 PM
Seems a bit of a non sequitur to me. Also, one really can't compare folks who work in the private sector with govt workers.

Seems to me that anybody that "expects" to get paid is a leech in her post. Has shown disdain for people with kids in the past too.
I am also waiting on the response as to whether Romney made promises, a.k.a tried to buy votes. Bunch of sore losers that need to get over it and move on.

HPL
11-25-2012, 09:24 PM
Back to the original question. I think that this isn't as simple a question as it might at first seem. It might seem fair for everyone to pay the same percentage of their income. Unfortunately, defining "income" has become pretty complicated. Perhaps one should pay a percentage based on what percentage of the national wealth one owns. For 5% to pay 40% of the taxes appears to be grossly unfair, but if that same 5% controls 80% of the nation's wealth, then perhaps it's not so unfair. Maybe the best solution would be a consumption tax (no not for people with TB) that is to say a national sales tax. I don't know. "Fair" share is very difficult to define.

Buzz
11-26-2012, 09:23 AM
If you are going to discuss this, it might help if you first took a look at some facts.

You guys get upset that the bottom "47%" pay no taxes. Lets go ahead and keep trying to squeeze blood from a stone while guys like Rmoney skate.

For example:

http://currydemocrats.org/in_perspective/financial_wealth_pie_chart_650px.jpg

road kill
11-26-2012, 09:31 AM
If you are going to discuss this, it might help if you first took a look at some facts.

You guys get upset that the bottom "47%" pay no taxes. Lets go ahead and keep trying to squeeze blood from a stone while guys like Rmoney skate.

For example:

http://currydemocrats.org/in_perspective/financial_wealth_pie_chart_650px.jpg
So Buzz, if/when YOU take 100% of the wealth the top 10% have, what would it solve?
Would it balance the budget?
Would it pay off the debt?
Would it pay to run the Federal Gov't?
If so, for how long??

Just askin'..............

HPL
11-26-2012, 09:48 AM
As I read that, the top 5% holds 71% and the top 10% holds 82% of the national wealth. Perhaps carrying somewhat over 40% of the tax burden isn't so outrageous after all. That graphic looks like a recipe for real class warfare to me if it were more widely distributed.

HPL
11-26-2012, 09:53 AM
Anybody else notice that the percentages of wealth actually add up to 102% in that graphic?

road kill
11-26-2012, 10:01 AM
Anybody else notice that the percentages of wealth actually add up to 102% in that graphic?
Yeah, the devil is always in the details, ain't he??????

Buzz
11-26-2012, 10:07 AM
Anybody else notice that the percentages of wealth actually add up to 102% in that graphic?


Yes I noticed, and I assumed it was because the actual percentages not whole numbers but fractions, and that they were rounded up to the next whole number. For example 42.5% was probably rounded up to 43%.

road kill
11-26-2012, 10:09 AM
Yes I noticed, and I assumed it was because the actual percentages not whole numbers but fractions, and that they were rounded up to the next whole number.
Gee........glad UB didn't post this blatant inaccuracy.:D
It is always dangerous to ASSUME!!!

Marvin S
11-26-2012, 10:26 AM
Gee........glad UB didn't post this blatant inaccuracy.:D
It is always dangerous to ASSUME!!!

:) :) :) :) ........

smillerdvm
11-26-2012, 10:57 AM
Gee........glad UB didn't post it.
It is always dangerous to ASSUME!!!

Huge difference. UB frequently posts things that are completely made up and incorrect at their core. What some would call a bald faced LIE
You are going to compare that to a ROUNDING ERROR?
I was taught in grade school that rounding fractions up or down was acceptable for ease of reference and other purposes. Sometimes that can result in the sum of the parts being greater or lesser than the whole. 102% is well within the realm of possibility with a graph with this many segments

UB on the other hand posts stuff that insults your intelligence it is so whacky.
For instance if he posted up a graph like this it would have some ridiculous premise such as the top wage earners or taxpayers only have1% of the wealth, while they carry 50% of the tax burden. Or if he had a "rounding error" it may make the sum of the parts equal 300 or 400% of the whole

Now if you have some info of substance that says the figures quoted in this chart are grossly inaccurate please share those figures and your sources with us

I wont be holding my breath for you to make any post with substantive knowledge or information, because past experience with you shows that that really ISNT HOW YOU ROLL!!


just sayin.........

huntinman
11-26-2012, 11:02 AM
Huge difference. UB frequently posts things that are completely made up and incorrect at their core. What some would call a bald faced LIE
You are going to compare that to a ROUNDING ERROR?
I was taught in grade school that rounding fractions up or down was acceptable for ease of reference and other purposes. Sometimes that can result in the sum of the parts being greater or lesser than the whole. 102% is well within the realm of possibility with a graph with this many segments

UB on the other hand posts stuff that insults your intelligence it is so whacky.
For instance if he posted up a graph like this it would have some ridiculous premise such as the top wage earners or taxpayers only have1% of the wealth, while they carry 50% of the tax burden. Or if he had a "rounding error" it may make the sum of the parts equal 300 or 400% of the whole

Now if you have some info of substance that says the figures quoted in this chart are grossly inaccurate please share those figures and your sources with us

I wont be holding my breath for you to make any post with substantive knowledge or information, because past experience with you shows that that really ISNT HOW YOU ROLL!!


just sayin.........

You come with that all by your self? Good job!:rolleyes:

hotel4dogs
11-26-2012, 11:04 AM
Anybody wonder how they GOT that wealth? Do you suppose some of them actually WORKED, a foreign concept to a lot of Americans these days....

huntinman
11-26-2012, 11:06 AM
Anybody wonder how they GOT that wealth? Do you suppose some of them actually WORKED, a foreign concept to a lot of Americans these days....

You mean it didn't come from Obama's STASH??

hotel4dogs
11-26-2012, 11:19 AM
that would be the 47%, not the top 5%....


You mean it didn't come from Obama's STASH??

road kill
11-26-2012, 11:37 AM
Huge difference. UB frequently posts things that are completely made up and incorrect at their core. What some would call a bald faced LIE
You are going to compare that to a ROUNDING ERROR?
I was taught in grade school that rounding fractions up or down was acceptable for ease of reference and other purposes. Sometimes that can result in the sum of the parts being greater or lesser than the whole. 102% is well within the realm of possibility with a graph with this many segments

UB on the other hand posts stuff that insults your intelligence it is so whacky.
For instance if he posted up a graph like this it would have some ridiculous premise such as the top wage earners or taxpayers only have1% of the wealth, while they carry 50% of the tax burden. Or if he had a "rounding error" it may make the sum of the parts equal 300 or 400% of the whole
rationalization; the second strongest human drive!

Now if you have some info of substance that says the figures quoted in this chart are grossly inaccurate please share those figures and your sources with us

I wont be holding my breath for you to make any post with substantive knowledge or information, because past experience with you shows that that really ISNT HOW YOU ROLL!!


just sayin.........
Often imitated, never duplicated.....

Isn't that sweet.
You really are a nice person, aren't you?

You know nothing about how I roll, you just HATE my politics.

HPL
11-26-2012, 11:49 AM
Anybody wonder how they GOT that wealth? Do you suppose some of them actually WORKED, a foreign concept to a lot of Americans these days....


Well, for any in the top 10% who are there as the first generation, yes, I imagine that they did work for it, but one does wonder how some who work attain such peaks while others who seemingly work just as hard, just as much, doing jobs that are just a worthy, just get by. Interestingly, I was just reading an article about psychopathy and how many who become "captains of industry" have characteristics that put them fairly high in the psychopath spectrum. Lots of narcissists in that group.

I don't think that I begrudge the small business owner that becomes a millionaire (or multi-millionaire) or the engineer or chemist etc. Nor do I begrudge the innovator who takes a big risk and becomes as rich as Croesus. I think I have a lot of respect for the working man who manages to save his money, and invests wisely and gets rich. (pretty much begrudge lawyers every penny they get). I think where I begin to have some disgust is when I see people with "salaries" in the millions per year. I just can't help it. If I own stock in that company, I'm wondering if maybe they couldn't raise my dividend just a bit.

Buzz
11-26-2012, 12:03 PM
#1) Iterestingly, I was just reading an article about psychopathy and how many who become "captains of industry" have characteristics that put them fairly high in the psychopath spectrum. Lots of narcissists in that group.

#2) I think where I begin to have some disgust is when I see people with "salaries" in the millions per year. I just can't help it. If I own stock in that company, I'm wondering if maybe they couldn't raise my dividend just a bit.


Item #1: My dad was just talking to me about this. Can you give me a link so I can read the whole thing for myself?

Item #2: This is one thing that amazes me about those who are bothered by a government worker making a good living providing services, but the CEO making several hundred million $$$ doesn't register on their disgust meter. In this day and age, most of us rely on investing in an IRA or 401K for our retirement security, so we all have "skin" in the game...

Marvin S
11-26-2012, 12:28 PM
Item #2: This is one thing that amazes me about those who are bothered by a government employee making a good living providing services, but the CEO making several hundred million $$$ doesn't register on their disgust meter. In this day and age, most of us rely on investing in an IRA or 401K for our retirement security, so we all have "skin" in the game...

The average salary for government employees is a little over 60% higher in this state than the average real worker :confused:. One cannot even begin to compare the benefit portion in any terms but if someone wants to argue it I'll be glad to oblige :).

As for the CEO's you have a vote as most of us who own stock do, my "NO" vote is registered but does not reach the 1/2 way mark as yet. I do what I can & send e-mails to those columnist who either are for or against these obscene CEO salaries as I do to my reps who are not fiscally cautious.

How many Government employee retirement funds made money from Romney's stint @ Bain Capital? For you lefties, that should be food for thought :-P.

But I do believe the ability to write off any portion of the interest on a second home should be stopped, along with other benefits not available nor normally exercised by the normal working class. In fact, while we are at it let's make congress a part of all laws enacted :cool:.

2tall
11-26-2012, 12:57 PM
Well, for any in the top 10% who are there as the first generation, yes, I imagine that they did work for it, but one does wonder how some who work attain such peaks while others who seemingly work just as hard, just as much, doing jobs that are just a worthy, just get by. Interestingly, I was just reading an article about psychopathy and how many who become "captains of industry" have characteristics that put them fairly high in the psychopath spectrum. Lots of narcissists in that group.

I don't think that I begrudge the small business owner that becomes a millionaire (or multi-millionaire) or the engineer or chemist etc. Nor do I begrudge the innovator who takes a big risk and becomes as rich as Croesus. I think I have a lot of respect for the working man who manages to save his money, and invests wisely and gets rich. (pretty much begrudge lawyers every penny they get). I think where I begin to have some disgust is when I see people with "salaries" in the millions per year. I just can't help it. If I own stock in that company, I'm wondering if maybe they couldn't raise my dividend just a bit.

I too would like to read that. I have seen the phenomenon in action and would like to see a documented discussion of it. As far as how they earn that wealth, try hostile takeovers, asset liquidation, toxic investments, offshoring, reinvestment of profit into private pockets, etc. Where are the real innovators and creators?

HPL
11-26-2012, 01:07 PM
Guys, I didn't think to keep track of it. I believe it was on CNN.com and the headline was something like "Are You a Psychopath?". The main point was that there is a spectrum to psychopathy just as there is for many mental "disorders" and as there are many functioning folks that exhibit traits indicative of autism, so are there varying degrees of psychopathy. Now I wish I had bookmarked it, but it is probably searchable.

2tall
11-26-2012, 01:11 PM
And here is a very timely commentary by one of the icons of industry.

nytimes.com/2012/11/26/opinion/buffett-a-minimum-tax-for-the-wealthy.html?hp


uh oh. Looks like the link did not work. Take a look at today's NYT. This is Warren Buffet's editorial.

mngundog
11-26-2012, 01:44 PM
And here is a very timely commentary by one of the icons of industry.

nytimes.com/2012/11/26/opinion/buffett-a-minimum-tax-for-the-wealthy.html?hp


uh oh. Looks like the link did not work. Take a look at today's NYT. This is Warren Buffet's editorial.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html

duckheads
11-26-2012, 02:01 PM
Buffet can kiss my dainty white buns! Berkshire purchased the holding company that owns the manufacturer of the products I sell and they have done nothing but cut employees, services, and raises prices since the purchase. A few months ago they raised the price for anything under $3 to $3. So an o-ring that was $.50 is now $3. Easy for someone to live on the backs of the little guy!

huntinman
11-26-2012, 02:12 PM
Buffet can kiss my dainty white buns! Berkshire purchased the holding company that owns the manufacturer of the products I sell and they have done nothing but cut employees, services, and raises prices since the purchase. A few months ago they raised the price for anything under $3 to $3. So an o-ring that was $.50 is now $3. Easy for someone to live on the backs of the little guy!

Sounds like what the libs accused Bain of doing?? (not that there's anything wrong with that)

2tall
11-26-2012, 02:12 PM
Ummmm.... That's what today's "titans of industry" do. At least Buffet is willing to put something back.

mngundog
11-26-2012, 02:19 PM
Sounds like what the libs accused Bain of doing?? (not that there's anything wrong with that)
What are your thoughts on the content of the article?

HPL
11-26-2012, 02:26 PM
The real question here, and I think I have heard it asked once or twice before is; Can we tax our way out of this? If we raised the rates on the uber-wealthy to say a confiscatory 80% or so, would that make any difference? What if we backed that up by raising the rate on the top 50% to, say 50%? Would that get us out of this hole?

cotts135
11-26-2012, 02:28 PM
Seems a bit of a non sequitur to me. Also, one really can't compare folks who work in the private sector with govt workers.

Not exactly sure how you are comparing them but I assume your premise is that private sector workers are somehow better and more worthy than Govt workers. Your know of course that our soldiers are Govt workers..............

2tall
11-26-2012, 02:29 PM
Read the entire first editorial (today's). We are not going to "get out" of the debt. Just manage it. Last two paragraphs.

road kill
11-26-2012, 02:33 PM
The real question here, and I think I have heard it asked once or twice before is; Can we tax our way out of this? If we raised the rates on the uber-wealthy to say a confiscatory 80% or so, would that make any difference? What if we backed that up by raising the rate on the top 50% to, say 50%? Would that get us out of this hole?

You did:




So Buzz, if/when YOU take 100% of the wealth the top 10% have, what would it solve?
Would it balance the budget?
Would it pay off the debt?
Would it pay to run the Federal Gov't?
If so, for how long??

Just askin'..............

But of course, it remains unanswered as the answer destroys the whole argument.
I'll bet if someone wanted to, they could find a chart to answer every one of these questions.:cool:

road kill
11-26-2012, 02:35 PM
Not exactly sure how you are comparing them but I assume your premise is that private sector workers are somehow better and more worthy than Govt workers. Your know of course that our soldiers are Govt workers..............
Perhaps in employ, but not in treatment or perception by this administration!

cotts135
11-26-2012, 02:36 PM
The average salary for government employees is a little over 60% higher in this state than the average real worker :confused:. One cannot even begin to compare the benefit portion in any terms but if someone wants to argue it I'll be glad to oblige :).

As for the CEO's you have a vote as most of us who own stock do, my "NO" vote is registered but does not reach the 1/2 way mark as yet. I do what I can & send e-mails to those columnist who either are for or against these obscene CEO salaries as I do to my reps who are not fiscally cautious.

How many Government employee retirement funds made money from Romney's stint @ Bain Capital? For you lefties, that should be food for thought :-P.

But I do believe the ability to write off any portion of the interest on a second home should be stopped, along with other benefits not available nor normally exercised by the normal working class. In fact, while we are at it let's make congress a part of all laws enacted :cool:.

Yeah wouldn't that be a novel idea

2tall
11-26-2012, 02:38 PM
Stupid phone, can't seem to copy & paste. Anyway, the 4 to last paragraph addresses the imbalance.

Buzz
11-26-2012, 02:46 PM
The real question here, and I think I have heard it asked once or twice before is; Can we tax our way out of this? If we raised the rates on the uber-wealthy to say a confiscatory 80% or so, would that make any difference? What if we backed that up by raising the rate on the top 50% to, say 50%? Would that get us out of this hole?


I have some thoughts on that, but I need to work on a visual aid first. After I do some work that I can make money on that is...

Buzz
11-26-2012, 02:52 PM
You did:



But of course, it remains unanswered as the answer destroys the whole argument.
I'll bet if someone wanted to, they could find a chart to answer every one of these questions.:cool:


RK, this is kind of a bogus argument below:


So Buzz, if/when YOU take 100% of the wealth the top 10% have, what would it solve?
Would it balance the budget?
Would it pay off the debt?
Would it pay to run the Federal Gov't?
If so, for how long??

Just askin'..............


My guess is, if you took 100% of most folk's wealth and tried to use it to pay off their debts, it wouldn't cover it.

I could liquidate most of my investments and pay off my mortgage, my truck, and my credit card. But I choose not to. I choose to pay it over time.

road kill
11-26-2012, 02:55 PM
RK, this is kind of a bogus argument below:




My guess is, if you took 100% of most folk's wealth and tried to use it to pay off their debts, it wouldn't cover it.

I could liquidate most of my investments and pay off my mortgage, my truck, and my credit card. But I choose not to. I choose to pay it over time.
How does TAKING more from them solve anything?

Maybe we should use our credit card a little less and get out of that debt!!!

SPEND LESS!!!!

I tried it, it really works!!!!
I have more than I owe, it feels really good.................

Evidently when HPL asks the same question it is legit to you and you have thoughts on it???


BTW---I am about to purchase one of the products you and I discussed sometime back.
I hear nothing but good stuff about it, and it is my favorite brand.

Marvin S
11-26-2012, 02:57 PM
At least Buffet is willing to put something back.

Patrick Johndrow described Buffet to a "T". Having had some dealings with the lefties idol through companies I owned a portion of I do not share your sentiment. Buffet will extract something from the administration for his support, rest assured.

HPL
11-26-2012, 03:55 PM
Not exactly sure how you are comparing them but I assume your premise is that private sector workers are somehow better and more worthy than Govt workers. Your know of course that our soldiers are Govt workers..............

I'm sure that you have heard the old adage about assuming. That aside, I was not saying or even implying that civil servants are in any way inferior or not as worthy as those in the private sector. My point is that the comparison is simply not a valid one. When was the last time that you heard of a civil servant (and especially at the federal level) worrying about losing his job because his employer was going to be unable to make payroll? The public sector simply doesn't have the same market pressures driving it that the private sector does. In general there is no competition, and often little real accountability. When was the last time you heard about any real "downsizing" in the govt workforce? It certainly appears to me that a civil service job is a job for life unless one commits some truly egregious infraction. Being inefficient and spending too much of the "employer's" money seldom seems to be cause for dismissal. In the private sector, if I own a business and run it poorly, I suffer the consequences (as could my employees). In the public sector, if the managers are inefficient and run things poorly, it is the client that suffers the most (usually without an alternative for the service provided). I have plenty of friends that are educators, county agents, federal law enforcement, and military, and all are good honest, hardworking folks, but their jobs are much more secure than mine, my wife's, my brother's, or any of the folks I know in the private sector. So, I'll stand by my position that you really can't compare them.

I will also say that I'm pretty sure that the OP was referring to the real takers (those on straight up welfare) when using the term leaches, even if some wanted to interpret it as all who receive government checks.

Uncle Bill
11-26-2012, 04:33 PM
It doesn't matter what they pay.
It won't change a thing.
Obama knows that.
It was all a scam to get the little guy to hate the FAT CAT!!!
Class envy.....Obama's war on "the man!!"

It was all about VOTES.....bottom line.



This is the answer...nothing else needs to be said. Only the mental midgets in the nation think constant spending will continue throughout their lives. The concept of not being able to squeeze blood from a turnip is over their heads. None are smarter than a 5th grader...they voted for the ice cream.

UB

mngundog
11-26-2012, 04:48 PM
This is the answer...nothing else needs to be said. Only the mental midgets in the nation think constant spending will continue throughout their lives. The concept of not being able to squeeze blood from a turnip is over their heads. None are smarter than a 5th grader...they voted for the ice cream.

UB
That's a great line I know I recently read it, where again did you copy it from? the daily sheeple right? Another one of UB's highly valued resource. :D

Uncle Bill
11-26-2012, 05:13 PM
That's a great line I know I recently read it, where again did you copy it from? the daily sheeple right? Another one of UB's highly valued resource. :D

Hey look, on other posts we have already come to the conclusion you have yet to reach 5th grade level, but like a dimwit, you continue to get into the foray as if you have something to offer. You can't even take your own advice:
http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?91187-And-the-hits-keep-on-coming/page3 #26

Please stop attempting to sound educated...it's just not working. Just stick with what you are capable of...being a Minnesota lefty.

UB

mngundog
11-26-2012, 05:19 PM
Hey look, on other posts we have already come to the conclusion you have yet to reach 5th grade level, but like a dimwit, you continue to get into the foray as if you have something to offer. You can't even take your own advice:
http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?91187-And-the-hits-keep-on-coming/page3 #26

Please stop attempting to sound educated...it's just not working. Just stick with what you are capable of...being a Minnesota lefty.

UB
Yep, I just found it, you took it from The Daily Sheeple, nice try again.

zeus3925
11-26-2012, 07:36 PM
Yep, I just found it, you took it from The Daily Sheeple, nice try again.
Gundog: Hey, just see if you can find a nice lace trimmed crying towel and ship it to UB. He is just not over the fact that he lost another election. He hasn't figured out that ornery and mean is what cost the GOPpers the election.

smillerdvm
11-26-2012, 10:04 PM
Perhaps in employ, but not in treatment or perception by this administration!

Would the Wizard of Wisconscin care to enlighten us with a list comparing & contrasting the treatment of our troops by this administration with their treatment by the last administration?

Please dont try to post up previously posted stories by UB about things such as how he changed military funerals. Try to stick to facts

mngundog
11-26-2012, 10:15 PM
Gundog: Hey, just see if you can find a nice lace trimmed crying towel and ship it to UB. He is just not over the fact that he lost another election. He hasn't figured out that ornery and mean is what cost the GOPpers the election.
To be honest Zeus I have to keep that towel for myself, I lost on just about every candidate and issue I voted for: Romney (although he was a very weak candidate), and yes on the two amendments to name a few, however I did write in two candidates and they actually won. :D I guess the difference between me and most of the Conservatives on this board is I don't buy into every conspiracy theory Rush or Fox puts out and I don't defend an individual just because he has the same political beliefs as me.

jeff evans
11-26-2012, 11:02 PM
I'm sure that you have heard the old adage about assuming. That aside, I was not saying or even implying that civil servants are in any way inferior or not as worthy as those in the private sector. My point is that the comparison is simply not a valid one. When was the last time that you heard of a civil servant (and especially at the federal level) worrying about losing his job because his employer was going to be unable to make payroll? The public sector simply doesn't have the same market pressures driving it that the private sector does. In general there is no competition, and often little real accountability. When was the last time you heard about any real "downsizing" in the govt workforce? It certainly appears to me that a civil service job is a job for life unless one commits some truly egregious infraction. Being inefficient and spending too much of the "employer's" money seldom seems to be cause for dismissal. In the private sector, if I own a business and run it poorly, I suffer the consequences (as could my employees). In the public sector, if the managers are inefficient and run things poorly, it is the client that suffers the most (usually without an alternative for the service provided). I have plenty of friends that are educators, county agents, federal law enforcement, and military, and all are good honest, hardworking folks, but their jobs are much more secure than mine, my wife's, my brother's, or any of the folks I know in the private sector. So, I'll stand by my position that you really can't compare them.

I will also say that I'm pretty sure that the OP was referring to the real takers (those on straight up welfare) when using the term leaches, even if some wanted to interpret it as all who receive government checks.


Very well stated..if the government is supposed to be working for us, then why are they getting paid more for performing the same position as one in the private sector? In addition they are also receiving a lifetime pension.... If they are working for US the people and WE are THEIR bosses why is it so? Shouldn't we the people be deciding and voting on their pensions and or terms of those pensions? There are appointees and non government people that vote for there own pensions internally, without a public vote... WE are now working FOR the government, they are not working for us.

road kill
11-27-2012, 06:57 AM
Would the Wizard of Wisconscin care to enlighten us with a list comparing & contrasting the treatment of our troops by this administration with their treatment by the last administration?

Please dont try to post up previously posted stories by UB about things such as how he changed military funerals. Try to stick to facts

I like that, very clever.

Note; It's actually the Wizard of Wisconsin!!!:cool:

Marvin S
11-27-2012, 09:23 AM
I guess the difference between me and most of the Conservatives on this board is I don't buy into every conspiracy theory Rush or Fox puts out and I don't defend an individual just because he has the same political beliefs as me.

So you know for sure that statement is correct :rolleyes:. It would be wonderful to be as prescient as yourself :p. TBS what about those folks who don't listen to the radio nor watch TV other than sports. As for defending others, what makes you believe that is the reason. As for your voting pattern, your postings do not indicate that is true. But it's gotta be great to be Ms Wonderful.

WRL
11-27-2012, 09:44 AM
Very well stated..if the government is supposed to be working for us, then why are they getting paid more for performing the same position as one in the private sector? In addition they are also receiving a lifetime pension.... If they are working for US the people and WE are THEIR bosses why is it so? Shouldn't we the people be deciding and voting on their pensions and or terms of those pensions? There are appointees and non government people that vote for there own pensions internally, without a public vote... WE are now working FOR the government, they are not working for us.

Well said Jeff. Also, why are they in charge of SS? They don't contribute. Why not put someone in charge who has something to lose or win based on the success or failure?

WRL

mngundog
11-27-2012, 10:13 AM
So you know for sure that statement is correct :rolleyes:. It would be wonderful to be as prescient as yourself :p. TBS what about those folks who don't listen to the radio nor watch TV other than sports. As for defending others, what makes you believe that is the reason. As for your voting pattern, your postings do not indicate that is true. But it's gotta be great to be Ms Wonderful.
Marvin, I'm pretty sure that I have said on here at least 10 times that I was going to vote for Romney and I know I NEVER said I would vote for Obama, it seems that most believe they have to defend every Republican candidate regardless to be called a conservative I do not. I will admit that I drift across the lines on one key issue and that is unions, I don't see them as the heart of all evil, I believe there are some good and some bad to be had from them. Romney drifted across the line in gun control, does that make him a Democrat? The other problem probably is I don't fall into all the hype, FoxNews finds a pic of Obama holding a bat while talking on the phone, Fox runs with that for a week talking about the hidden meaning behind the bat and the phone and that carries over to the forum, I myself seen it as a guy holding a bat while talking of the phone and a bunch of guys with there panties in a bunch over nothing, to some because I can't buy into their conspiracies makes me a lefty..........whatever floats your boat I guess. Yes, I would imagine it is great being married to me, I'll start calling my wife Ms Wonderful today. :D

Marvin S
11-27-2012, 12:13 PM
I will admit that I drift across the lines on one key issue and that is unions, I don't see them as the heart of all evil, I believe there are some good and some bad to be had from them.

There is a union thread here, have you been on it? I find it hard to believe that you can sit on this forum, talk about how others thought process goes without knowing them, but can expect that folks here can read your weaseling ramblings & even have any clue as to your support for anything other than your own unique reasoning :rolleyes: :). Which BTW, makes sense only to you.

mngundog
11-27-2012, 12:36 PM
There is a union thread here, have you been on it? I find it hard to believe that you can sit on this forum, talk about how others thought process goes without knowing them, but can expect that folks here can read your weaseling ramblings & even have any clue as to your support for anything other than your own unique reasoning :rolleyes: :). Which BTW, makes sense only to you.
Yes Marvin I know you are still mad at me about the union topic. :D

menmon
11-27-2012, 12:39 PM
It doesn't matter what they pay.
It won't change a thing.
Obama knows that.
It was all a scam to get the little guy to hate the FAT CAT!!!
Class envy.....Obama's war on "the man!!"

It was all about VOTES.....bottom line.

It was an attempt to make the little guy realize that he was being had by the fat cats. Obviously some still don't realize it.

menmon
11-27-2012, 12:40 PM
I told you way back this election would come down to Kings and Pheasants. Thank God the pheasants won.

mngundog
11-27-2012, 12:44 PM
I told you way back this election would come down to Kings and Pheasants. Thank God the pheasants won.
Sambo, for the most part I'm not the spelling police, however this time you should double check what you wrote.:D

2tall
11-27-2012, 12:44 PM
Pheasants???? Roosters or hens? Grouse or those pretty colored ones? God help us if the pheasants ever revolt. Our dogs will be bleeding from the eyes and our scopes will be covered with bird poop!

huntinman
11-27-2012, 12:49 PM
I told you way back this election would come down to Kings and Pheasants. Thank God the pheasants won.

The dogs won't be happy

charly_t
11-27-2012, 02:03 PM
I told you way back this election would come down to Kings and Pheasants. Thank God the pheasants won.

One of your best posts. Don't worry about changing your spelling......it is what makes this a good post.
Been there, done that. Too old to let it bother me.

road kill
11-27-2012, 02:22 PM
I told you way back this election would come down to Kings and Pheasants. Thank God the pheasants won.
When me and Elvis are in the field the "pheasants" never win!!;-)

Just ribbin' you menmon, I know what you meant, even though it's wrong!
I make as many spelling errors as anyone, well not anyone.
But I am not that learned............