Millionaires Go Missing: Maryland's fleeced taxpayers fight back.

Originally posted by KidRock
Stopped reading there.

Seems to be a habit you have; just reading the first few words and when they disagree with you, you just stop reading.

Originally posted by KidRock
Everything I post I back up with charts or graphs and sources. It would take a true partisan hack not to see that though, hence you will not get my attention.

You call me a partisan hack? You do nothing BUT post along party lines. You posted an article that you believe illustrates how the rich are being screwed by the current state of American politics. All the article really managed to point out was that the rich will go out of their way to avoid taxes, even to the extent of packing up their belongings and fleeing to that second home..even when the tax hike is minimal. It's just dribble. Not only are you holding this article out to be representative of your feelings, but it actually contradicts it's own title by pointing out that "it's way too early" to tell where that 1/3 of millionaires went and that this is actually typical during a recession.

Originally posted by KidRock
And I have already..with the budget deficit to back up the claims.

Unless you want to try and prove how a 1.84 Trillion dollar deficit will somehow not raise the debt?

Is that what you want to argue?

Originally posted by Ace of Knaves
Seems to be a habit you have; just reading the first few words and when they disagree with you, you just stop reading.

Not disagree, just find incorrect and slandering..never mind feeling sorry for how ignorant the poster is.

Originally posted by Ace of Knaves

You call me a partisan hack? You do nothing BUT post along party lines. You posted an article that you believe illustrates how the rich are being screwed by the current state of American politics. All the article really managed to point out was that the rich will go out of their way to avoid taxes, even to the extent of packing up their belongings and fleeing to that second home..even when the tax hike is minimal. It's just dribble. Not only are you holding this article out to be representative of your feelings, but it actually contradicts it's own title by pointing out that "it's way too early" to tell where that 1/3 of millionaires went and that this is actually typical during a recession.

How does that article go along party lines? It was an article about how if you push people far enough they will just leave and now allow them liberties to be suppressed with tyrannical taxes. Never once did I mention the Democrats or Republicans in this because both are to blame. But again you're showing how partisan you are.

Originally posted by KidRock
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/mar/25/judd-gregg/judd-gregg-says-obamas-budget-doubles-national-deb/

[B]To check the claim, we relied on an analysis from the Congressional Budget Office, released on March 20. The CBO, a nonpartisan arm of Congress, projects that the national debt will go from $5.8 trillion in 2008 to $11.8 trillion by the end of 2013; and to $17.3 trillion in 2019. By that count, Gregg's claim of doubling the debt in five years, tripling it in 10 years, is correct. [/B]

"In January, the CBO projected the one-year 2009 deficit at $1.2 trillion. Remember, that's the 2009 fiscal year, which began in October 2008. That deficit was worse because of the recession, and grew because of a financial bailout plan in the fall. To be fair, we don't think Obama's record ought to be saddled with something that passed under President Bush.

So let's add that $1.2 trillion that was largely started under Bush to the $5.8 trillion in national debt accumulated through fiscal year 2008. That comes to roughly $7 trillion. Under that scenario, the CBO's projections don't quite translate to a doubling of the national debt in 5 years ($7 trillion to $11.8 trillion). Nor does it fully support the claim that the debt would triple in 10 years ($7 trillion to $17.3 trillion). But it's not outrageously off either."

Food for thought.

Originally posted by King Kandy
No, I want you to provide me with specific national debt numbers, not deficit.

I did..look back and read the words DOUBLING..it means multiply the current number by 2 and you have your answer.

Now: Prove how a 1.84 Trillion dollar deficit will somehow not raise the debt?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
"In January, the CBO projected the one-year 2009 deficit at $1.2 trillion. Remember, that's the 2009 fiscal year, which began in October 2008. That deficit was worse because of the recession, and grew because of a financial bailout plan in the fall. To be fair, we don't think Obama's record ought to be saddled with something that passed under President Bush.

So let's add that $1.2 trillion that was largely started under Bush to the $5.8 trillion in national debt accumulated through fiscal year 2008. That comes to roughly $7 trillion. Under that scenario, the CBO's projections don't quite translate to a doubling of the national debt in 5 years ($7 trillion to $11.8 trillion). Nor does it fully support the claim that the debt would triple in 10 years ($7 trillion to $17.3 trillion). But it's not outrageously off either."

Food for thought. ]

Look! Look! The debt wont go up by 10 trillion dollars! It will go up by 8 trillion! Obaaaaaama!

Originally posted by KidRock
I did..look back and read the words DOUBLING..it means multiply the current number by 2 and you have your answer.

Now: Prove how a 1.84 Trillion dollar deficit will somehow not raise the debt?

I have posted multiple graphs and projections. It's time for some of the Obama supporters to convince me otherwise:

Prove how a 1.84 Trillion dollar deficit will not raise the national debt.

Originally posted by KidRock
Look! Look! The debt wont go up by 10 trillion dollars! It will go up by 8 trillion! Obaaaaaama!

Hey, you posted the link I got it from. Best to put the other figures out there, especially when they suggest existing figures could be $10 trillions dollars off (which you seem happy to ignore).

...So by the end of four years we'll have a 20 trillion national debt? Is that your claim. Because none of your sources backed that up at all, in fact they say after TEN years the debt would be only 17 trillion.

Originally posted by KidRock
And I have already..with the budget deficit to back up the claims.

Unless you want to try and prove how a 1.84 Trillion dollar deficit will somehow not raise the debt?

Is that what you want to argue?

So, perhaps the rich should pay their taxes...

Originally posted by Ace of Knaves
So, perhaps the rich should pay their taxes...

Yeah, because the top 10% of this country only pay 68% of the countries taxes. Who do they think they are?

While the bottom 50% pay an outrageous..3%

sort of OT, but I have always hated the way this conversation has been framed.

The rich, as in rich enough to move away to avoid taxes, pay more in absolute and relative terms, sure, but they are so much less adversely affected by their contributions than any other bracket (with the exception of the very poor, who largely pay no tax).

Taxes aren't right in any instance, and government spending (re: rampant corruption and waste) is probably a better place to target fiscal reform than is raising taxes, but to frame the rich as "hard done by" or "having their liberties oppressed" is pretty BS. If that is the case, then one would have to appeal to concentration-camp-esque imagery to describe the plight of the middle class.

In any sense that considers how adversely affected people are by their government, a flat tax is ridiculous (unless it is so low that nobody is put out), and this pandering to the "suffering" [sic] of people who could buy each of us several times over is entirely reflective of our martyr complex society that never wants to address real social problems.

Originally posted by KidRock
Prove how a 1.84 Trillion dollar deficit will not raise the national debt.

Originally posted by Quark_666
Maybe try not exaggerating, and we'd get a lot farther without everyone stating the obvious so much.

Don't tell me, tell the white house.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/White-House-forecasts-higher-rb-15199396.html?.v=6

Originally posted by KidRock
Not disagree, just find incorrect and slandering..never mind feeling sorry for how ignorant the poster is.

How does that article go along party lines? It was an article about how if you push people far enough they will just leave and now allow them liberties to be suppressed with tyrannical taxes. Never once did I mention the Democrats or Republicans in this because both are to blame. But again you're showing how partisan you are.

If the poster is ignorant, then perhaps you should debate his points and educate him. Instead, you call names. It shouldn't be too long before you're claiming victory.

You go along party lines. You posted it, along with any number of your other threads, to illustrate your continuing point that America is finished because the democrats won the elections. Your point is that "tax payers are fighiting back' against this government invasion of their wealth. All it really manages to do is illustrate the lengths to which those poor rich people will go to avoid, take advantage of or outright break tax laws to get what they want...and they're the only ones that can afford to do it. You think that's just a kick ass 'Merican spirit of fightin back. To me, it sounds like shirking responsabilites. But, then again, your own article can't seem to track down where this 1/3 of millionaire level filers went, so I certainly can't say for sure where they went.

Originally posted by Ace of Knaves
If the poster is ignorant, then perhaps you should debate his points and educate him. Instead, you call names. It shouldn't be too long before you're claiming victory.

You go along party lines. You posted it, along with any number of your other threads, to illustrate your continuing point that America is finished because the democrats won the elections. Your point is that "tax payers are fighiting back' against this government invasion of their wealth. All it really manages to do is illustrate the lengths to which those poor rich people will go to avoid, take advantage of or outright break tax laws to get what they want...and they're the only ones that can afford to do it. You think that's just a kick ass 'Merican spirit of fightin back. To me, it sounds like shirking responsabilites. But, then again, your own article can't seem to track down where this 1/3 of millionaire level filers went, so I certainly can't say for sure where they went.

I educate all the time, post sources, graphs, charts and quotes. Then people get mad because it proves them and their arguement of "Obama said he would lower the deficit" wrong.

Originally posted by inimalist
Taxes aren't right in any instance, and government spending (re: rampant corruption and waste) is probably a better place to target fiscal reform than is raising

Absolutely

Originally posted by inimalist
If that is the case, then one would have to appeal to concentration-camp-esque imagery to describe the plight of the middle class.

We call them FEMA camps here.

Originally posted by KidRock
I educate all the time, post sources, graphs, charts and quotes. Then people get mad because it proves them and their arguement of "Obama said he would lower the deficit" wrong.

In that instance, Obama said he would do exactly that. But, he isn't responsible for their tax hikes this soon, so I'm not sure what he has to do with this.

This thread isn't about raising the national debt. This thread is about 1/3 of millionaires fleeing their homeland to find greener pastures and lower tax rates, where they're free to roll naked on their stacks of untaxed, neatly ironed thousand dollars bills and the raging erect middle finger they have while they're doing it.

Originally posted by KidRock
Don't tell me, tell the white house.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/White-House-forecasts-higher-rb-15199396.html?.v=6

Originally posted by Quark_666
it annoys me that I was trying to tell you that you were exaggerating and you responded as if I was telling you that you were responsible for the national debt.

I assumed you meant I was exaggerating the 1.84 trillion dollar deficit, correct? Or was I wrong to think that?