The RICH and greedy

Izack wrote:

<quoted text>Be sure to use barbless hooks and return all wild fish you catch.

If that is your plan then why fish at all? I mean seriously if you are not going to eat why catch why don't you just leave them alone?

Why torture the poor creatures by offering them a free lunch that turns out to be a trick, pokes a whole in their mouth, and results in a traumatic struggle for thier lives that turns out to be just another trick, and they are thrown back in the water. Why would anyone do that just for fun? I mean seriously, I think fishing is enjoyable, but don't do it just for fun, don't do it if you are not going to eat what you catch.

oops...that should have read "....if you are not going to eat what you catch, why don't you just leave them alone"

My Two Cents wrote:

<quoted text>
If that is your plan then why fish at all? I mean seriously if you are not going to eat why catch why don't you just leave them alone?
Why torture the poor creatures by offering them a free lunch that turns out to be a trick, pokes a whole in their mouth, and results in a traumatic struggle for thier lives that turns out to be just another trick, and they are thrown back in the water. Why would anyone do that just for fun? I mean seriously, I think fishing is enjoyable, but don't do it just for fun, don't do it if you are not going to eat what you catch.

I think he followed oslama election promises........

Lies and tricks..........LOL

Here Is One wrote:

<quoted text>
I think he followed oslama election promises........
Lies and tricks..........LOL

>
>
So what politicians do you know who doe not engage in Lies and tricks...LOL?

GRANDPA NICOLAI wrote:

<quoted text>
>
>
So what politicians do you know who doe not engage in Lies and tricks...LOL?

Sad to say but none.......

The closest is Ron Paul....

TWP wrote:

<quoted text>
Hey Road Toa d...
What inspired you to bring the "Wonder z" character back under a different screen name...?

Is he or she related to Wonder Dog? Who do you think "Road Toad" is? Please say so. Your games bore.

TWP wrote:

<quoted text>
Hey Road Toa d...
What inspired you to bring the "Wonder z" character back under a different screen name...?

Hey! My name is Road Toad, aka "Dave," and I am SICK AND TIRED of you accusing everyone under the sun of being ME! If you've got a problem with me, tell me here and now what it is. Road Toad awaits your reply! If it does not satisfy me I will get my club of one to continue doing whatever it is that annoys you most, although you have not been very clear about that so far. But in any case: you've been warned! RT out!

Here Is One wrote:

<quoted text>
So why can't you show what statement I made is "full of it" and then provide documentation to prove it?????
Waiting..........LOL

Here you go again!

Now you are going to go on and on and on with gramps for the next six months on every thread about who said what when, aren't you?

Who cares who I am wrote:

<quoted text>
Here you go again!
Now you are going to go on and on and on with gramps for the next six months on every thread about who said what when, aren't you?

Really???.....LOL

Because I asked him to back up what he said..........LOL

And what are you going to do about it except whine like a baby???

I endorse Willard Romney as the G.O.P. nominee.

I don't agree with Samuelson on much but this one point.

"By all means, Congress should pass the “Buffett Tax,” named after billionaire Warren Buffett, who noted that his 2010 tax rate (17.4 percent) was about half his secretary’s. The explanation is that Buffett’s income comes mostly from dividends and capital gains — profits on sales of stocks and other assets — that enjoy a preferential rate of 15 percent. This is neither socially just nor economically necessary.
Obama’s still-vague Buffett Tax would apparently impose a minimum 30 percent tax rate on incomes exceeding $1 million. Republicans should support it. Economic incentives for risk-taking wouldn’t collapse. Under President Reagan, the top capital gains rate was 28 percent. The economy did fine. And passing a Buffett Tax might improve political truth-telling.

For starters, don’t pretend, as Obama does, that taxing the ultra-rich would solve the deficit problem.

In September, the Congressional Budget Office estimated the 10-year deficit at $8.5 trillion. The nonpartisan Tax Foundation estimates that a Buffett Tax might now raise $40 billion annually. Citizens for Tax Justice, a liberal group, estimates $50 billion. With economic growth, the 10-year total might optimistically be $600 billion to $700 billion. It would be a tiny help; that’s all.“The purpose of the Buffett Rule is not to close the deficit gap,” Buffett has said. Hard choices remain, in part because existing deficit estimates already assume steep defense cuts.

It’s also a myth that all the ultra-rich enjoy low tax rates. In 2007, the richest 1 percent of taxpayers paid an average tax rate of 29.5 percent and provided 28.1 percent of federal revenues, reports the CBO. On their wages and salaries, many of the ultra-rich pay the top income tax rate of 35 percent plus a Medicare tax of 1.45 percent. "

So, raise tax rates on Warren Buffett and others to upper-middle-class levels. But recognize that the anti-wealthy populist rhetoric is mostly political expediency. It distracts from the serious issues the country faces — creating jobs and closing long-term budget deficits."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/buffet...

Sam Lowree wrote:

I don't agree with Samuelson on much but this one point.
"By all means, Congress should pass the “Buffett Tax,” named after billionaire Warren Buffett, who noted that his 2010 tax rate (17.4 percent) was about half his secretary’s. The explanation is that Buffett’s income comes mostly from dividends and capital gains — profits on sales of stocks and other assets — that enjoy a preferential rate of 15 percent. This is neither socially just nor economically necessary.
Obama’s still-vague Buffett Tax would apparently impose a minimum 30 percent tax rate on incomes exceeding $1 million. Republicans should support it. Economic incentives for risk-taking wouldn’t collapse. Under President Reagan, the top capital gains rate was 28 percent. The economy did fine. And passing a Buffett Tax might improve political truth-telling.
For starters, don’t pretend, as Obama does, that taxing the ultra-rich would solve the deficit problem.
In September, the Congressional Budget Office estimated the 10-year deficit at $8.5 trillion. The nonpartisan Tax Foundation estimates that a Buffett Tax might now raise $40 billion annually. Citizens for Tax Justice, a liberal group, estimates $50 billion. With economic growth, the 10-year total might optimistically be $600 billion to $700 billion. It would be a tiny help; that’s all.“The purpose of the Buffett Rule is not to close the deficit gap,” Buffett has said. Hard choices remain, in part because existing deficit estimates already assume steep defense cuts.
It’s also a myth that all the ultra-rich enjoy low tax rates. In 2007, the richest 1 percent of taxpayers paid an average tax rate of 29.5 percent and provided 28.1 percent of federal revenues, reports the CBO. On their wages and salaries, many of the ultra-rich pay the top income tax rate of 35 percent plus a Medicare tax of 1.45 percent. "
So, raise tax rates on Warren Buffett and others to upper-middle-class levels. But recognize that the anti-wealthy populist rhetoric is mostly political expediency. It distracts from the serious issues the country faces — creating jobs and closing long-term budget deficits."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/buffet...

Taxes will never solve the deficit problem as long as there are liberal law makers.....

They will out spend every dime that is collected and it would not matter if 100 trillion was collected..........

The liberals would spend every penny of it......