Iamon lyme: So that's where the 'knickers in twist' troll got to!!

Sorry.. someone tried to eradicate the Hogs Father... caused chaos

Artful Dodger: 6 trillion... *sigh* what's the breakdown? Did he spend it on a wedding or something??

Iamon lyme: Don't waste your time with the atheists. They wouldn't believe it unless they saw it with their own eyes and God Himself would have to appear (which would kill them instantly). Even after that they'd blame it on bad pasta. ( Yet they will beleive in theories based on speculation as long as God isn't part of the equation. )

(V): You must not remember Obama's please right after taking office for the massive spending bills. New spending bills under Obama. His proposal. And under his administration 6 trillion more in debt.

Artful Dodger: (V) wrote... [ Stop trying to use lame economics and selective history!! ]

Yeah AD!! Do you have any proof from scholars historians or archaeologists that can confirm your theory of what took place in the distant past? Can you prove Bill Clinton actually existed... Or how about the past 4 years? The story of Obama the Unknowable is so bizarre and full of impossible scenarios that it couldn't have possibly happened...



...please tell me it didn't happen. I don't WANT for it to have happened. Tell me a NICE bed time story, one that won't get my knickers all in twist.

Iamon lyme: ~ coffee... need drink more coffee ~ reboot brain in 4, 3, 2, 1, ...

I meant to say [ I've also looked at what some former atheists who set out to... ]

...and [ Time travel is not something I can help you with.. ]

Übergeek 바둑이: [ But I WANT to know. ]

So did I, that's why I did not limit my search by refusing to look at what Christian (or impartial) scholars historians and archaeologists had to show. I've also looked at what some former atheists who set to disprove Biblical claims have said.

I don't know why you are unable to access the same information I had found, but I suspect nothing short of a functional time machine can satisfy your thirst for knowledge. Time travel is not something I can not help you with... so my guess is you are happily out of luck finding any proof that may contradict your claim.

Artful Dodger: Any spending already earmarked for DoD? Bank handouts?? Did the rules for accounting suddenly change or the previous years balance sheet predict nothing carried forward??

No. Nor does it work that way in any business or economy.

Stop trying to use lame economics and selective history!!

Marshmud: I think we borrow something like 4 billion a day.

mckinley: It is about faith but it goes farther than that.

(V): Nonsense. Under Obama our debt increasd by 6 trillion. Clinton did NOT do anything near that so don't offer lame excuses.

rod03801: Rod, politicians make deals with leaders of other countries all the time. Before politicians it was the royals, or port owners who collected a royalty.

Iamon lyme:
" Stop the bleeding, and let the country start to recover."

A very good point. I hope the undecided feel that way.

Iamon lyme: I see disaster if Obama wins. He already does things against the constitution, and gets away with it! What will he do in a 2nd term when he doesn't have to worry about re-election!!??
And this is not a baseless fear, as you may recall that microphone that was on (and he didn't know it) when he was talking to some foreign leader, and basically said, wait until after the election, then we can do such n such. (I don't recall the details off the top of my head)
He has to be pushed out!

To me, there are SO many things Romney should be doing, but isn't! He should be reminding people of things like this!

22. Jesus saw some babies nursing. He said to his disciples, "These nursing babies are like those who enter the (Father's) kingdom."

They said to him, "Then shall we enter the (Father's) kingdom as babies?"

Jesus said to them, "When you make the two into one, and when you make the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner, and the upper like the lower, and when you make male and female into a single one, so that the male will not be male nor the female be female, when you make eyes in place of an eye, a hand in place of a hand, a foot in place of a foot, an image in place of an image, then you will enter [the kingdom]."

Bwild: Yes it is taxable as you receive a ssa 1099 at the end of the year but if its your only source of income you pay no tax and most don't even have to file.

Bwild: Nag Hammadi library...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nag_Hammadi_library#Complete_list_of_codices_found_in_Nag_Hammadi

mckinley: I think it would be fair to say that most if not all the major events when 'earthquakes' and 'floods' happened, happened. Even, to some extent the Garden of Eden, thanks to new evidence that the Sahara desert is not a desert, but a cyclic environment that fluctuates between a lush and desert state.

The stories in the OT were more about carrying on wisdom and knowledge then the actual person. The aborigines use a similar system to tell their children how to survive in the bush, as did many early civilisations.

eg... the Greek and their Gods, The Norse with Odin and Loki.

Truth is hidden behind the story, just the story makes it easier to absorb.

mckinley: dead sea scrolls:
http://www.fwweekly.com/2012/09/11/southwest-seminarys-exhibit-dead-sea-scrolls/


http://www.centuryone.com/25dssfacts.html

No. The policies that created the trend to not balance the books started decades ago. Increased military spending, tax cuts which has seen the top rates tumble.

If the tax levels were as they were back before Raygun.. the loopholes wouldn't really matter. But the taxation levels have dropped and the 1% still use loopholes.

Iamon lyme:

> There's load of evidence verifying Old Testament people and events as well.

If that were true, we would be hearing it to the four winds. The reality is that there is archelogocal data, as you say, clay tablets, etc. Yet none of them prove conclusively that any of the main people in the Old Testament existed. Scholars can't agree on the interpretation of that data because the data is weak and in many cases not concrete enough.

> It's been convenient to say in the absence of any evidence that something didn't happen or a place didn't exist, until that place or some recorded history is found. And then after evidence is found, ignoring it is what it is... willful ignorance.

But where is the evidence? To me it is not willful ignorance, it is lack of evidence plain and simple.

> By the way, the word "ignorant" is another one of those magic words liberals love to toss out... it's intended to have the same effect as words like "birther" or "conspiracy nut". Personally, I like the term "double standard"... that pretty much says it all.

This has nothing to do with "liberals", it has to do with backing your claims with concrete evidence.

> Life is too short to spend trying to convince someone of something they don't want to know.

But I WANT to know. I want to see the evidence, rather than have you make excuses for presenting none. I love to read the evidence. It is interesting and important. So why say that we don't want to know?

It seems to me that you are making a lot of excuses since you are unable to back up your claims that there is "loads" of evidence out there.

Iamon lyme: I think that's exactly right. If Obama makes a slip up, they say nothing. If Romney farts, it's all over the news for weeks. I've seen Debbie Blabbermouth Schultz caught in a lie and when confronted, she lied about it. When a video was played showing she lied, she still lied and denied. And the press lets her get away with it. Only Fox confronted her.

Artful Dodger: Romney's biggest problem right now is the press. If the press took a neutral approach to reporting, instead of covering for Obama while attacking Romney, then I think most Americans wouldn't have a problem seeing Romney as the better choice. The press does have the power to make or break a candidate, especially when polling indicates the race is close.

Actually, polling is another one of those tools used by some in the press to give misleading impressions. I heard of a recent poll giving Obama a slight edge, but then learned Democrats were being over polled by as much as 10%. If Republicans and Democrats were equally represented, that slight edge would disapear... just one more piece of evidence that the press seems to think its their job is to convince the voters who they should vote for. If I'm remembering correctly I believe the press has been called the fourth estate, because they have taken on the role of "king maker".

Iamon lyme: " Stop the bleeding, and let the country start to recover." a big thumbs up there!

Marshmud: isnt social security taxable income?

Marshmud: Just because Romney isn't another Reagan doesn't mean he can't start to turn things around. And Art is correct when he says anyone would be better than Obama. If Obama is re-elected (it could happen) my hope would be that he spends all of his time playing golf and flying off to one place or another, and if not that then just sitting in the Oval office tossing crumpled up pieces of paper into the waste paper basket or chatting with Oprah or playing with his kids... anyway, you get the picture.

I would like for things to rapidly turn around, but I know that won't happen with any next new leader. The problems we have are too big for anything resembling a quick fix, but frankly I think the worst we could expect from Romney is that he could stop the bleeding... right now that's good enough for me. Stop the bleeding, and let the country start to recover.

Marshmud: I'm not running for president. If that was aimed at me, I was not complaining about anything you said. In fact I was agreeing. Someone else seems to be complaining?

Marshmud: It's sad that Romney is the best we could do. And sadder that even with the mess that Obama has created the race is still up for grabs. Clinton would be better. Reagan the best.

Artful Dodger: Why is our party having such a time to give us a good leader? Romney makes me hurt where I never thought I could, lol. I think some are afraid to take on the next 4 years and rather see someone else fail.



If we had no debt, like the clinton/ early bush days...we wouldn't even have this type discussion. Now since we do, is our solution to cut all our social programs....or even giving the rich more tax breaks? Its going to take a drastic solution. I just assume some people will just get hostile and riot and destroy property...Guess I just keep stocking ammo. lol

Marshmud: I have a friend who drives a better car, owns a more expensive car, buys stuff all the time, and pays zero federal taxes. He's exempt. He's a Vietnam vet, retired, and his wife is disabled. But if he can afford a 35 thousand dollar truck (or more - a gas hog too!) then why can't he at least pay something? He's capable of working but in the nearly 10 years I've known him he hasn't worked. He owns an RV and travels. But we never hear Obama asking these folks to pay at least something.

The rich, if they were to be taxed more, would do nothing for our debt. One stat I read said that what could be raised by taxing the rich more would be spent within 8 days under current spending. It's all a big lie by the liberals that the rich don't pay enough. The truth is that the tax codes are poorly written and it's the legislators that created the tax loopholes that everyone can use to avoid paying too much. Thousands of pages of tax codes that even the creators don't fully understand. We spend too much. Government is too big. They suck at running things (see the postal service for example). The government spends to spend. 16 trillion in debt and it's climbing and Obama created the bulk of it.

If I could I'd throw out all the liberals and all the far right and only keep those in the middle. That's the only way this country will thrive. Maybe Ron Paul is the best choice but he couldn't possibly win. But anyone is better than Obama. Even Mickey Mouse.

The Jawa Report: Hitler Raps Gangnam Style http://shar.es/uiK3H via @sharethis

Artful Dodger: I agree Dan. I'm tired of spending my hard earned cash on ground beef while I watch The person in line in front of me use food stamps to get steak and shrimp while their kids have Reeboks and designer clothes and watch them leave in a new car.....

rod03801: Of the 47% that pay no tax, 70% of them are the working poor...17% are on SS. All I meant was that welfare folks are not bankrupting our country and I'm tired of each party blaming each other. The democratic process now is like this board. Blame the other guy without a solution yourself.

You can't even comment on this board without someone complaining.

The Jawa Report: French Mag Pictures Mohammad's Junk (Update: It Begins ...) http://shar.es/uikFG via @sharethis

Marshmud: I'm actually not blaming the taxpayer. I'm really speaking to the dishonesty in the message of "fair share." Even if the rich paid more, it wouldn't amount to much. Not in the big picture of things.

We need less government and far less spending. What we do spend needs to be spent wisely. And the tax system needs to be completely redone. It's not fair that's for sure but it's not fair for all of us. Too many regulations and rules that are imposible to keep up with. I don't know about the flat tax but something has to change.

And for the record, I do believe we have to accomodate those in true need and we have to have safeguards for those than struggle. But 50% is a huge number of people and in my view it should be much lower. Most people in the "poor" category have two or more tv's, cell phones, own a home, and at least one car! Seems like there's the "poor" and then there's the truly poor.

Marshmud: Yes, and the strategy of the Democratic party (at least the most left end of it anyway) is to get more and more ppl dependent on the government, as they are most likely to keep voting them in, since they end up depending on the handouts.

It's sickening.

I too was brought up to depend on MYself.

Marshmud: I doubt anyone considers anyone's grandparents as being the problem ppl.

Artful Dodger: Sometimes its not fair to blame the taxpayer for what he doesn't pay. Its the system we have. Alot of what we do today with our social programs are not intended for 2012. For example my grandparents are 100 and 102. SS was not designed to pay benefits for 35-40 years. I was looking at a pay check of hers from 1944 when she was "Rosie the Riveter" at Martin Marietta (Now Lockheed) in Baltimore Maryland. She paid about 25 cents a week into SS. Now she only gets over 1000 per month.

Our tax system sucks. When I was self employed I depended on "cash jobs" to make ends meet. Many in the building trade do so. With our tax system it seemed that I was out to cheat uncle sam just to get by. Just on self emplyment tax (ss tax) I paid 15.3 on every buck I made. So I could of made 20,000 in a year (near min wage) and still paid 3,630.00 alone and no way to deduct from that amount. I may of paid no federal income (FICA) but I paid a lot of tax.....

I'm thankful I depended on the mattress bank of america. No earnings on my money but my parents taught me to depend on myself not the goverment. Today people take advantage of a system that is broke and most know they can do so. Lawyers even advertise to help you get disability benefits....Blame the politicians not the minimum wage earner.

Marshmud: You're right. I should be more specific. It really should only apply to able bodied people (and there are plenty of them). I don't have a problem with people who've supported the system as your grandparents and now they are getting exemptions.

rod03801: Ok.. It would be (using my accountant head) a fair statement if only one tax existed. You yourself have told me this is not the case.

It would be fair if the the fed gov is the only giver of 'gifts' and the setting thereof. I've heard this is not the case. It would be fair if most 'rich' people just paid fed income tax. this is not the case.

Therefore the statement is in itself misleading.

Artful Dodger:

(So clearly there is a problem with the "fair share" as it applies to the bottom 50%. They contribute nothing but suck off the governments tit endlessly.)

That is a bit unfair to suggest my grandparants are sucking off the goverments tit after they paid into the system for over 50 years each...

(V): The quote, and the controversy is ONLY about Federal Income tax. No one else is talking about the other taxes.

(V): The rich pay the bulk of taxes. Around 70%

rod03801: But that is only one tax, and the rich have many many ways of skipping paying tax that our bent accountant firms drool over. This is what is generally meant when not paying their fair share.

N' when some American companies are being given money to stay in business.

By the looks of it, you all pay taxes in some form, to someone.

rod03801: exactly

(V): Yeah, what Rod said.

(V): Depends on where you live!
There's federal income taxes
Some states have income taxes (I live in a state that doesn't)

Some states have sales taxes (I live in a state that doesn't)

Then of course there are "Property Taxes" (Mostly to towns/cities ? But I rent, so I don't know how it goes, honestly. Maybe some goes to the State?)

And then also there is registering your car - some of that goes to state, some to town/city.

And of course any local fines, etc, which of course is quite avoidable.

But again. The thing AD is talking about with that stuff about 49% has to deal ONLY with the Federal Income taxes.

It's ridiculous that anyone can say the "rich" don't pay their fair share, when half the country pays NO federal income taxes

Artful Dodger: *** sigh *** "the governments"

I asked a point of reference. Us UK people can get confused by the myriad of tax systems in the USA.


... How many different taxes at any level may a person of working age pay in the USA .. as an average?

You have Federal Income tax, state payroll tax?? Now.. this is want to know. straight info on HOW MANY fingers are there in the pie.