The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Cappster wrote:

DarthMonk wrote:Has anyone noticed how a tax cut for someone who makes $20,000 is a freebie or a handout but if you multiply by 100 a tax cut for someone making $2,000,000 becomes an incentive to invest?

Yes, because as we all know, capitalists, love to give out jobs as if they were doing charity work. It has worked so well the past ten years...

So the more government control fails, the more it's the fault of capitalism...

tribeofjudah wrote:

Cappster wrote:

Deadskins wrote:I'm sorry, but that has to be the stupidest reason to vote for one presidential candidate over another that I've ever heard.

Sooooo you would vote for a Muslim candidate who was a successful businessman if they claim to have a *plan* for economic recovery? Would their belief system be of no interest to you?

I would vote for a man who could show improvements overall in our Gov over the last 4 years.

NO Bama has not done so and his job performance is Needs to Improve, no better yet: Failure....sorry charlie

Not willing to give him another shot......

The last two years he's been stuck with an obstructionists congress. Nonetheless, you pretty much side stepped the question: Would you vote for a Muslim candidate?

Cappster wrote:The last two years he's been stuck with an obstructionists congress. Nonetheless, you pretty much side stepped the question: Would you vote for a Muslim candidate?

Can you give any example of anything Obama has proposed other than more government control? Republicans in theory at least are fiscally conservative. How is it obstructionist to not go along with that which is destroying us? Obama's solution as captain of the Titanic is to ram the iceberg again. And Republicans are obstructionist for not going along with that?

Cappster wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Cappster wrote:Uh, someone believing and donating millions to a fraudulent cause, to me, is a valid concern especially when it comes to someone who could potentially push forth policies that will affect my life. If that isn't a concern for you then I cannot help that.

Right, it's all religions, but it's ... THE MORMONS!!!! ...

Bigotry offered as an excuse when you were going to vote for Obama anyway is beyond lame. Obviously it has nothing to do with how you are going to vote.

Yes, calling someone out for believing in a fraud is bigotry. Got it.

And to add that I haven't fully determined that I am going to vote for Obama yet. I am leaning that way, because it will be the most impactful in regards to keeping Romney out of office.

If you re-read what you wrote, you seem to have confirmed what I said.

Romney has a track record in politics, can you give me an example of his advancing Mormonism through government?

Cappster wrote:

Deadskins wrote:I'm sorry, but that has to be the stupidest reason to vote for one presidential candidate over another that I've ever heard.

Sooooo you would vote for a Muslim candidate who was a successful businessman if they claim to have a *plan* for economic recovery? Would their belief system be of no interest to you?

I wasn't referencing the Mormon thing, I was talking about SkinsJock's post about not wanting Pelosi and Reid to be in control for four more years. As if two members of congress should influence your vote for president.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:Right now, 1% of the population pay 40% of all Federal taxes and 5% of taxpayers pay 60% of all taxes. 47% pay zero.

Are you talking about income taxes, when you say this? If not, this is total BS. If you are, then you should include the percentages of the income those portions of the population represent also, so that there is some point of reference.

tribeofjudah wrote:I would vote for a man who could show improvements overall in our Gov over the last 4 years.

So, did you vote for Bush in his second term? Clinton? I doubt you're old enough to have voted for HW Bush for a second term.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:Republicans in theory at least are fiscally conservative.

Easily your funniest post ever.

tribeofjudah wrote:Bill O'Reilly put it this way (like him or not)

This country has 2 choices: nanny state vs. self reliance

This administration wants to give freebies to those who cannot or will not do for themselves. It is a NOBLE gesture, but it leads to disaster.

Take for example Spain and Greece. Those countries are BANKRUPT because of this same thing. Now they want to SCALE BACK.....and people are rioting because they DON'T WANT to give up their......FREE STUFF from the gov.

Riot in the streets? Super Power.........no more!

Spain and Greece are in trouble primarily because of their austerity policies. Try reading the paper. Republicans want to give freebees to the rich and make the middle class pick up the tab. Why is it Republicans believe we have to give freebies to the rich to keep them motivated but cut benefits for the poor and middleclass for the same reason?

Deadskins wrote:you should include the percentages of the income those portions of the population represent also, so that there is some point of reference.

I know the top 1% earn 20% of all income, but they pay 40% of all taxes. This is simple factual data and there are a plethora of sites that cover it. I have no problem being asked to support some sort of claim or difficult to verify information, but for factual data that can be simply Googled, if you don't know it, you should do your own research. It's just IRS data they report, not some sort of think tank study.

crazyhorse1 wrote:Republicans believe we have to give freebies to the rich to keep them motivated but cut benefits for the poor and middleclass for the same reason?

Can you back this up with anything but your Marxist views that the government not taking someone's money is spending because all money is the people's money?

The government takes more money and a higher percentage of money from the "rich." But ... they leave them more dollars because they earned more.

The Middle Class pay very low taxes now. The poor and the lower middle classes pay nothing. How is making the middle class pay no taxes instead of very little exactly going to help the economy?

Deadskins wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:Republicans in theory at least are fiscally conservative.

Easily your funniest post ever.

I hope you mean you're laughing at my point and not that you think I'm nuts for thinking they are not fiscally conservative...

KazooSkinsFan wrote:The poor and the lower middle classes pay nothing. How is making the middle class pay no taxes instead of very little exactly going to help the economy?

First of all, you keep saying "taxes" as if income taxes are the only form of taxation. They are not. Payroll taxes hit the poor and middle classes at a higher percentage of pay than they do on the top wage earners simply because of the ceiling on SS tax. But to answer your question, the middle class puts a much higher percentage of their income back into the economy, than do the rich.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:Republicans in theory at least are fiscally conservative.

Easily your funniest post ever.

I hope you mean you're laughing at my point and not that you think I'm nuts for thinking they are not fiscally conservative...

I'm laughing at both the "in theory" portion, and at the fact that "in practice" they are not fiscally conservative at all. They might have different priorities for where the money should go than do Democrats, but Republicans can spend with the best of them.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Deadskins wrote:you should include the percentages of the income those portions of the population represent also, so that there is some point of reference.

I know the top 1% earn 20% of all income, but they pay 40% of all taxes. This is simple factual data and there are a plethora of sites that cover it. I have no problem being asked to support some sort of claim or difficult to verify information, but for factual data that can be simply Googled, if you don't know it, you should do your own research. It's just IRS data they report, not some sort of think tank study.

I agree. So if it's so easy to look up, then why didn't you post it? You're only giving half the equation.

http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays- ... taxes.html
It's interesting that the percentages went down for the top 1% and the bottom 50%, but up for everyone else, in Obama's first year in office (the most recent year on this site).

Deadskins wrote:

tribeofjudah wrote:I would vote for a man who could show improvements overall in our Gov over the last 4 years.

So, did you vote for Bush in his second term? Clinton? I doubt you're old enough to have voted for HW Bush for a second term.

wrong....I don't vote. So call me unpatriotic.

They are all crooks, in bed with the illuminati. Just hope the lesser evil gets the vote.

tribeofjudah wrote:
wrong....I don't vote. So call me unpatriotic.
.

:roll:

Don't vote? Suddenly, I can't hear anything you have to say on this subject... You have surrendered your voice... so, why should anyone listen to anything you have to say about this election?

What? Sorry... can't hear you.

tribeofjudah wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

tribeofjudah wrote:I would vote for a man who could show improvements overall in our Gov over the last 4 years.

So, did you vote for Bush in his second term? Clinton? I doubt you're old enough to have voted for HW Bush for a second term.

wrong....I don't vote. So call me unpatriotic.

They are all crooks, in bed with the illuminati. Just hope the lesser evil gets the vote.

So if you believe that, then how is Obama the lesser of two evils? I mean, they are both doing the Illuminati's bidding, so how can one be worse than the other? BTW, I happen to agree that the fix is in, but I still vote, just so they hear my voice raging against the machine.

Countertrey wrote:

tribeofjudah wrote:
wrong....I don't vote. So call me unpatriotic.
.

:roll:

Don't vote? Suddenly, I can't hear anything you have to say on this subject... You have surrendered your voice... so, why should anyone listen to anything you have to say about this election?

What? Sorry... can't hear you.

That's what Freedom of speech affords me. Hopefully NObama doesn't do away with that......

Deadskins wrote:

tribeofjudah wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

tribeofjudah wrote:I would vote for a man who could show improvements overall in our Gov over the last 4 years.

So, did you vote for Bush in his second term? Clinton? I doubt you're old enough to have voted for HW Bush for a second term.

wrong....I don't vote. So call me unpatriotic.

They are all crooks, in bed with the illuminati. Just hope the lesser evil gets the vote.

So if you believe that, then how is Obama the lesser of two evils? I mean, they are both doing the Illuminati's bidding, so how can one be worse than the other? BTW, I happen to agree that the fix is in, but I still vote, just so they hear my voice raging against the machine.

He's is Barry Soetoro, Illuminati extraordinaire

Romney is "lesser" here cuz he doesn't go by an alias

ok, ok.....trey, deadskin....don't twist my arms: I'm gonna vote, Im gonna vote.

you KNOW WHO I'M VOTING FOR: BIG BIRD....!!!

Countertrey wrote:

tribeofjudah wrote:
wrong....I don't vote. So call me unpatriotic.
.

:roll:

Don't vote? Suddenly, I can't hear anything you have to say on this subject... You have surrendered your voice... so, why should anyone listen to anything you have to say about this election?

What? Sorry... can't hear you.

I couldn't agree more.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Cappster wrote:The last two years he's been stuck with an obstructionists congress. Nonetheless, you pretty much side stepped the question: Would you vote for a Muslim candidate?

Can you give any example of anything Obama has proposed other than more government control?

Proposing a tax cut for a working man implies less government control over his gross earnings. There are many more. They get fillibustered like everything else. Repubes want to control my personal life.

Ever hear this one?

"Obama has added more to our debt than almost all other presidents combined."

Guess what - here are the changes (growth) in debt by percentage since Ford:

Carter - 42% (times 2 would be 84%)

Reagan - 188.6% (2 terms)

Bush I - 55.6% (times 2 would be 111.2%)

Clinton - 35.6% (2 terms!!!)

Bush II - 89% (2 terms)

Obama - 41.4% (times 2 would be 82.8%)

It could be said about every president but ...


Dems do better than Repubes! Repubes are fiscally conservative ... at least in theory!!!! :ROTFALMAO:

Reagan jizzed all over the world. Clinton was awesome and handed Bush II keys to a well-oiled machine. He took only a few months to turn surplus into deficit. He jizzed ala Reagan and handed off a disaster. Growth rate Bush II handed off was 15.9% annual. Obama has lowered that growth rate to 15.1%, 13.9%, 7.8%, and 4.8%. Repubes have opposed him AT EVERY TURN. No wonder Romney could "reach across the aisle." He's reaching to Dems! Repubes in Senate couldn't care less about progress. They have flat out said they'd oppose Obama on everything - even stuff they wanted before he took office.

Obama passed stem cell research bill that allowed Americans to enjoy the advantages of stem cell advances instead of going to second rate facilities in countries like Mexico and hoping the procedure was done correctly..

No doubt who micheal j fox is voting for.