BILL O'REILLY FEARS AN OBAMA TAX INCREASE ON THE RICH

This has to be one of the dumbest things Bill O'Reilly has said- Bill O'Reilly said if Obama taxes him 50% he doesn't think he(O'Reilly) will have a job: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fqbnaKABAE

Are you fucking kidding me??? First off- Obama can't tax anyone anything that will strictly be the job of Congress. Second, millionaires are paying some of the lowest tax rates in 50 years- that's a fact. Third, Bill O'Reilly makes 10 million on his Fox news salary alone- not counting his millions from books- so let's say hypothetically he's left with a 5 million a year salary- wow how is poor Bill going to live off 5 million a year???
Gosh Bill you are going to have so much trouble putting food on the table and paying for gas with a 5 million a year salary after taxes. Gosh Bill you can forget about saving money for your child's education. Darn it Bill instead of being able to purchase a 400 k Rolls Royce you are going to have to settle for a 150k Bentley- gosh it must really suck making 5 mil a year after taxes.
Bottom line folks is Republicans don't get it and this is another reason why they will catch hell in 2012- did you guys see Mitt (Rich Boy) Romney's response to what is rich? : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrowyyByHL8 what kind of bullshit answer is that- so does Romney really want a maid to be rich? the janitor to be rich? the cashier at 7-11 to be rich? Romney is out of touch with Americans and so is the whole GOP party.

Almost true. I don't think Ron Paul is out of touch with Americans...well, maybe I am wrong because Americans sure hate freedom and liberty the way they vote!

Almost true. I don't think Ron Paul is out of touch with Americans...well, maybe I am wrong because Americans sure hate freedom and liberty the way they vote! Originally Posted by Houston65

What I can say about Paul is that he speaks the truth on most issues- but it's the truth that Americans don't want to hear or are afraid of- for example Paul believes in legalizing "illegal" medicine and legalizing prostitution. Also, Paul was correct that Americans have killed far more innocent people in Afghanistan and Iraq than the 9-11 attacks by fat and I mean by far- there are estimates that anywhere between 50,000 to 100,000 Iraqi civilians lost their lives in the Iraq war- that's not counting the soldiers that's INNOCENT civilians.

What I can say about Paul is that he speaks the truth on most issues- but it's the truth that Americans don't want to hear or are afraid of- for example Paul believes in legalizing "illegal" medicine and legalizing prostitution. Also, Paul was correct that Americans have killed far more innocent people in Afghanistan and Iraq than the 9-11 attacks by fat and I mean by far- there are estimates that anywhere between 50,000 to 100,000 Iraqi civilians lost their lives in the Iraq war- that's not counting the soldiers that's INNOCENT civilians. Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

It is sad those people died but I think it is important to consider how many Sadam would have killed directly or indirectly in the same time period. For the past several years the killing has primarily been done by Iraqi's not the US. If the idiots in Iraq had decided the wanted a peaceful nation with a government they selected far fewer people would be dead, far fewer US personel would be there. The responsibility is theirs. It is also why it would have probably been best to stay out of it and let Sadam contiue killing who he wanted.

As for the stupid prostitution and drug laws I say go Ron go. He will not win this battle but the longer he continues to fight the more people will start hearing his message and the next Libertarian will have it a little easier. Eventually, change may actually occur.

It is sad those people died but I think it is important to consider how many Sadam would have killed directly or indirectly in the same time period. For the past several years the killing has primarily been done by Iraqi's not the US. If the idiots in Iraq had decided the wanted a peaceful nation with a government they selected far fewer people would be dead, far fewer US personel would be there. The responsibility is theirs. It is also why it would have probably been best to stay out of it and let Sadam contiue killing who he wanted.

As for the stupid prostitution and drug laws I say go Ron go. He will not win this battle but the longer he continues to fight the more people will start hearing his message and the next Libertarian will have it a little easier. Eventually, change may actually occur. Originally Posted by Laz

don't know if Iwould agree sure Saddam was a peice of shit- but I think more Iraqis would be alive today- at least he had the control under the control- the current regime may still need the U.S for protection- Saddam surely had no connections with Al-Queada or OBL- Saddam was a moderate muslim- very moderate- he believed in education of women he wasn't the radical type like OBL- but he still was piece of shit- I still think Ira would have been better stabilized if he were in power- the only ones who truly lived in fear were the Kurds- the shiites were the majority in that country but had really no power.

Lets not forget how many AMERICAN lives have been lost....way more than what occurred on 9/11. Let's also not forget just how many buildings over 46 stories fell that day...and just how many planes supposedly hit those buildings. Seems to be 2 planes and 3 buildings....makes you wonder doesn't it?

Lets not forget how many AMERICAN lives have been lost....way more than what occurred on 9/11. Let's also not forget just how many buildings over 46 stories fell that day...and just how many planes supposedly hit those buildings. Seems to be 2 planes and 3 buildings....makes you wonder doesn't it? Originally Posted by Houston65

Please tell me you are not a conspiracy theorist. I can handle and respect logical arguments against going into Iraq. Hell, I can even make them which is why I respect their opinion on that. But people that think the WTC was demolished by us to create this drive me nuts.

A hit dog always barks. The Republicans can't take the heat on this issue if the Democrats really put in on correctly.

Here are some great stats by Paul Krugman:

As background, it helps to know what has been happening to incomes over the past three decades. Detailed estimates from the Congressional Budget Office — which only go up to 2005, but the basic picture surely hasn’t changed — show that between 1979 and 2005 the inflation-adjusted income of families in the middle of the income distribution rose 21 percent. That’s growth, but it’s slow, especially compared with the 100 percent rise in median income over a generation after World War II.


Meanwhile, over the same period, the income of the very rich, the top 100th of 1 percent of the income distribution, rose by 480 percent. No, that isn’t a misprint. In 2005 dollars, the average annual income of that group rose from $4.2 million to $24.3 million.


So do the wealthy look to you like the victims of class warfare?

. . . The budget office’s numbers show that the federal tax burden has fallen for all income classes, which itself runs counter to the rhetoric you hear from the usual suspects. But that burden has fallen much more, as a percentage of income, for the wealthy. Partly this reflects big cuts in top income tax rates, but, beyond that, there has been a major shift of taxation away from wealth and toward work: tax rates on corporate profits, capital gains and dividends have all fallen, while the payroll tax — the main tax paid by most workers — has gone up.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/23/op...R_AP_LO_MST_FB

Hmm. . . . 21% versus 480%. Actually, Paul, it does sound like class warfare!! By the upper class against the lower classes.

Hmm. . . . 21% versus 480%. Actually, Paul, it does sound like class warfare!! By the upper class against the lower classes. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

+1

Hmm. . . . 21% versus 480%. Actually, Paul, it does sound like class warfare!! By the upper class against the lower classes. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Seeing numbers like that truly saps my motivation to succeed.

This has to be one of the dumbest things Bill O'Reilly has said- Bill O'Reilly said if Obama taxes him 50% he doesn't think he(O'Reilly) will have a job:. Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

That's the only reasonable argument I've heard for raising taxes.

This has to be one of the dumbest things Bill O'Reilly has said- Bill O'Reilly said if Obama taxes him 50% he doesn't think he(O'Reilly) will have a job: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fqbnaKABAE
Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Of all the mis quotes and misrepresentations you have made this has to be the topper.

That is NOT what he said. I am beginning to believe there is a serious lack of comprehension skills on your part. You can't be this stupid as to think that is what he said.

That's the only reasonable argument I've heard for raising taxes. Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

Instead of a Buffet Tax, i think we need an O'Reilly Tax.

Instead of a Buffet Tax, i think we need an O'Reilly Tax. Originally Posted by Doove

Maybe you should listen to the point he is trying to make instead of just blathering. He has plenty of money. He could quit tommorrow and go fishing without any impact on his happiness.

His point is that his continueing to work employs a lot of people that use that income to provide for their families. If you remove his incentive to continue working by taxing so much that it is not worth his effort he will stop. If that happens the government gets less revenue, the employees that work for him are unemployed and he is fine.

How does that help anyone. A good example is all of the boat builders that went broke after a luxury tax was passed on people that bought expensive boats. The result of the tax was that people quit buying luxury yachts in the US. Boat builders went broke and their emplyees lost their jobs. Did the government actually gain revenue? No

don't know if Iwould agree sure Saddam was a peice of shit- but I think more Iraqis would be alive today- at least he had the control under the control- the current regime may still need the U.S for protection- Saddam surely had no connections with Al-Queada or OBL- Saddam was a moderate muslim- very moderate- he believed in education of women he wasn't the radical type like OBL- but he still was piece of shit- I still think Ira would have been better stabilized if he were in power- the only ones who truly lived in fear were the Kurds- the shiites were the majority in that country but had really no power. Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Is sadam a piece of shit or not? Gasing your own people? WTF.