patrick.net

RayAmerica says

Sources say Isabel sold for something in the neighborhood of $7 million, meaning Kerry saved approximately $437,500 in sales tax and an annual excise tax of about $70,000.

Sen. John Kerry, who has repeatedly voted to raise taxes while in Congress, dodged a whopping six-figure state tax bill on his new multimillion-dollar yacht by mooring her in Newport, R.I.

I have correctly pointed out all along that the radical left is the epitome of hypocrisy.

elliemae says

RayAmerica says
And state Department of Revenue spokesguy Bob Bliss confirmed the senator “is under no obligation to pay the commonwealth sales tax.”

Nice example of how little ellie LIES. She's taken this completely out of context. Sen. Kerry has "no obligation" to pay taxes to Massachusettes BECAUSE he purposely avoided those taxes by mooring his yacht in Newport, R.I. instead. This is the same Senator that repeatedly has voted to RAISE YOUR TAXES because it's "fair." LOL !!!

but rayray, I was quoting you. exactly. without changing a thing. not one little bit. so, if I'm lying, it was a direct quote from you.

big deal, he bought a yacht in RI, is keeping it there and because of that won't pay more taxes. do you believe that he’s the only person in the US who takes advantage of loopholes? When you file your taxes, do you itemize or do you just pay the amount based on your salary – do you use loopholes?

http://www.missouriprovote.org/Docs/CTL%20Cashing%20In%20Report2.pdf
“Closing the Geoffrey Loophole would generate $15 million in revenue for the
state of Missouri.vi However, Republican leadership has claimed closing corporate tax
loopholes would harm the state’s business climate.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/06/nyregion/06loopholes.html
GOP Unites to Defend Tax Loopholes
“closing the tax loopholes would provide the city with $374 million in the next fiscal year, rising to $379 million a year thereafter — more than making up for the loss of $327.9 million in annual aid.”

http://www.nashvillescene.com/nashville/tennessee-real-estate-tycoons-enjoy-45-million-tax-loophole-while-state-revenues-crater/Content?oid=1199156
“Revenue Department surveys show 2,700 businesses are structured as "family owned non-corporate entities" to take advantage, escaping corporate taxes on roughly $5 billion in property and $500 million in profits.”

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/198998_boats10.html
“Some ultra-rich yacht buyers are expecting to deduct millions from their income tax next year by depreciating their pleasure craft under the provisions of the Bush administration's tax-relief program passed by Congress in 2003. About 500,000 boat owners nationwide can decrease their income-tax bill every year by declaring their vessels a second home. Some others collect healthy deductions from putting their boats into charter arrangements that may skirt the provisions of the tax code. And some corporations take deductions on yachts that seem to stretch the definition of a business resource.”

elliemae says

but rayray, I was quoting you. exactly. without changing a thing. not one little bit. so, if I’m lying, it was a direct quote from you.

Continues to practice Nazi propaganda tactics. At least she's consistent.

from the article:
"Reductio ad Hitlerum, also argumentum ad Hitlerum, (dog Latin for "reduction to Hitler" or "argument to Hitler," respectively) is an ad hominem or ad misericordiam argument, and is an informal fallacy. It is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context. This overlooks any difference to be found in the present situation, typically transferring the positive or negative esteem from the earlier context. Hence this fallacy fails to examine the claim on its merit."

the problem with this argument is that it uses complex words with too many syallables, and I'm not sure he has anyone around who can explain them to him... oooo, this is too much fun.

can you break it down into smaller words for the rayray?

Here it is October 3, 2010 and the Liberal Give Meter still stands at ZERO.

I think Congress should pass a mandatory voluntary law forcing Liberals to GIVE until it hurts. That seems to be the only way to get Liberals to support the socialism they love so much.
Congress needs to force them to give. LOL

RayAmerica says

Here it is October 3, 2010 and the Liberal Give Meter still stands at ZERO.

In his self-righteous indignation, rayray fails to realize that no one gives a crap about his "give meter."

I still can't figure out why it is that Liberals have to wait for Congress to increase their taxes. If they believe in BIG GOVERNMENT so much, why wait? Why not just use this convenient site
to send in their contribution, i.e. "personal tax?"

https://www.pay.gov/paygov/forms/formInstance.html?nc=1271991815942&agencyFormId=23779454&source=patrick.net

Poor Ray. You've been hoist by your own petard.

Ray--

Give it up. The more you post, the deeper the hole you've dug gets...

tatupu70 says

Ray–
Give it up. The more you post, the deeper the hole you’ve dug gets…

He doesn't have a problem collecting social security - but what about people who are deemed disabled and are collecting monies they never paid into the system?

Arguing with rayray is like dealing with a small child. They lack the ability to understand anything beyond the insulated world around them, and always expect to be the center of attention.

I don't think it is moral to force us to hand over earned wealth to the gov, just for them to hand to other individuals that meet some guideline made up by the gov. It is not right.

access to the public safety net by non-productive people is a large problem.

and you guys need to not gang up. play nice.

Bap33 says

and you guys need to not gang up. play nice.

So it's okay for rayray to play his snotty little games, attack just about everyone who disagrees with him and be just plain adversarial. But if we disagree with his bullshit, we're ganging up on him? He's driven away many a poster 'round here.

We are playing nice. He's most certainly not, and baits people so that he can act the victim.

Bap33 says

I don’t think it is moral to force us to hand over earned wealth to the gov, just for them to hand to other individuals that meet some guideline made up by the gov. It is not right.

There are lots of things the government does that I don't think are right. Invading Iraq. Taxing capital gains less than earned income. There are many others. What I do is find people who have similar views to mine and vote for them.

wait a sec ellie ..... does the ends justify the means? Be the example, not the reaction.

tat, that sounds about right. If we (US) were not the becon of freedom on Planet Earth, then we sure could stop being the global police. If we did not liberate France, Poland, and the Jews from death camps .. who was going to? Who was going to save Quait? We are kinda like The Super Friends ,,, we fight for truth, justice, and the American way (individual freedom and liberty and stuff). Truth and justice are not liked in all lands.

The whole concept of forced wealth transfer between individuals by order of the ruling poiticos, under threat of law, was greatly hated and feared by those that designed America. They knew it was a very bad idea to give that power to gov and they knew the cancer that welfare is ... and that power was not given to gov in our original design for now-obvious reasons.

Bap33 says

We are kinda like The Super Friends ,,, we fight for truth, justice, and the American way (individual freedom and liberty and stuff).

I dunno if we are discussing foreign intervention by fictitious U.S. "Super" League, we are on shaky ground. We are putting words/actions in their "mouths" as we please. I'd like to think Superman would have voted equally to intervene in Rwanda genocide, as in Kuwait. Our record as International Guardians of Freedom and Goodness seems to coincide more with our strategic interests. You could make a better case that it's just PR window dressing.

Vicente says

I’d like to think Superman would have voted equally to intervene in Rwanda genocide, as in Kuwait. Our record as International Guardians of Freedom and Goodness seems to coincide more with our strategic interests. You could make a better case that it’s just PR window dressing.

I agree. Our entire venture into the Middle East is for a variety of reasons, most of which have nothing to do with the PR baloney promulgated by the government. An excellent book on that very subject and one that I recommend to everyone that wants to know the truth of our intervention in Iraq & Afghanistan: "The Transparent Cabal" by Stephen J. Sniegoski. It also documents the plan & ultimate desire of the Neocons (they are still pulling strings) to expand the war into numerous other mid east nations such as Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and Egypt.
This book is a must read for anyone that wants to know the truth of what is behind our military expansion in the middle east.

I still think it is amazing that Liberals equate Social Security and Welfare type programs for able bodied people. There are literally generations of able bodied people that have collected welfare for doing nothing. Somehow, Liberals think this is being compassionate.

RayAmerica says

There are literally generations of able bodied people that have collected welfare for doing nothing. Somehow, Liberals think this is being compassionate.

I can't speak for liberals. But there will always be people who game the system or try to get something for nothing. Personally, I don't think you should kill worthwhile programs because there are some people who act unethically.

I still think it amazing that Ray, confuses Social Security with some sort of "investment" plan into which he has paid money and thus "deserves" money back out. It's not an investment, it's an insurance plan. And surely you have planned well enough that you don't need to fall back on insurance?

I fully expect the bootstrappy people, to not draw on this program. After all a good and farsighted right-thinker would NEVER get into the situation of having failed to save for a comfortable retirement. Only lame-brain Libruls and losers need safety nets.

tatupu70 says

But there will always be people who game the system or try to get something for nothing. Personally, I don’t think you should kill worthwhile programs because there are some people who act unethically.

Would you be in favor of a work fare type program in which able bodied recipients of welfare would be required to perform some type of civic duty in order to collect their entitlement?

Vicente says

I still think it amazing that Ray, confuses Social Security with some sort of “investment” plan into which he has paid money and thus “deserves” money back out. It’s not an investment, it’s an insurance plan. And surely you have planned well enough that you don’t need to fall back on insurance?

You are the one that is confused. I have paid both sides of SS for 30 years being that I have been self employed. Call it what you want, it is money that I earned and paid into the system. Having said that, I am very well situated and quite frankly, never believed it would be there for me when it was time to qualify for payments, so no, I don't need to "fall back" on it, but when the time comes, if MY money is there, I will collect it.

As far as deserving payment after having paid into it, I suggest you go down to the local coffee shop and inform the customers there that they don't "deserve" any money from SS when they reach the age to collect. Report back what their response was. LOL

RayAmerica says

tatupu70 says

But there will always be people who game the system or try to get something for nothing. Personally, I don’t think you should kill worthwhile programs because there are some people who act unethically.

Would you be in favor of a work fare type program in which able bodied recipients of welfare would be required to perform some type of civic duty in order to collect their entitlement?

Sure. I think we had this discussion earlier on a different thread. Who will supervise them? Who will organize and set up the work?

You realize that it will increase the cost of the programs, right?

Ray--

I don't think you are really this dense--you are just playing games. Regardless, the point is that everyone plays by the rules that are in place at the time.

I might think government should impose higher taxes on higher income individuals, but I'll pay what I'm required to pay and not more.

You might think government shouldn't be in the business of providing retirement income, but you'll collect it when you're retired.

Same difference. It's not really a difficult concept.

tatupu70 says

Who will supervise them? Who will organize and set up the work?
You realize that it will increase the cost of the programs, right?

It will DECREASE the cost of the programs because it will force people that want something for nothing OUT of the program! The "work" could be as simple as cleaning public parks, sweeping sidewalks, etc. which would require very little supervision.

RayAmerica says

It will DECREASE the cost of the programs because it will force people that want something for nothing OUT of the program! The “work” could be as simple as cleaning public parks, sweeping sidewalks, etc. which would require very little supervision.

I doubt it. So, if someone did a poor job sweeping, do you still pay them?

tatupu70 says

You might think government shouldn’t be in the business of providing retirement income, but you’ll collect it when you’re retired.

How in the world is it possible that you miss the fact that Social Security is not a FREE program provided by the government? WE pay into the system .... or are you denying that fact?

RayAmerica says

How in the world is it possible that you miss the fact that Social Security is not a FREE program provided by the government? WE pay into the system …. or are you denying that fact?

Of course it's not free. Nothing is free buddy. What's your point?

tatupu70 says

Of course it’s not free. Nothing is free buddy. What’s your point?

The point is productive people paying into SS and people that have NEVER worked that receive welfare entitlements are not situationally "equal."

RayAmerica says

The point is productive people paying into SS and people that have NEVER worked that receive welfare entitlements are not situationally “equal.”

First of all, I'm not sure where you think I said they are "equal". Second, how can you even begin to compare the two--they are completely different programs with entirely different objectives. It's like saying apples and oranges aren't "equal". Again--so what?

tatupu70 says

First of all, I’m not sure where you think I said they are “equal”. Second, how can you even begin to compare the two–they are completely different programs with entirely different objectives.

Obviously you haven't read the posts by your "fellow travelers.' They are the ones that have attempted to illustrate the false point that SS & welfare for nothing are one and the same.

tatupu70 says

I doubt it. So, if someone did a poor job sweeping, do you still pay them?

So you think the better solution is to pay people that are able to work to do nothing but sit around and get fat off free hand outs?

RayAmerica says

I have paid both sides of SS for 30 years being that I have been self employed. Call it what you want, it is money that I earned and paid into the system. Having said that, I am very well situated and quite frankly, never believed it would be there for me when it was time to qualify for payments, so no, I don’t need to “fall back” on it, but when the time comes, if MY money is there, I will collect it.

Do you call up your car insurance company RAGING that you need to "collect" on the money they owe you for paying into their fund every year? I think you don't understand how insurance works. There is no "savings". Money paid into it that year, is paid out that year. You have the idea you are owed something from an account, which just indicates your fundamental misunderstanding.

Vicente says

Do you call up your car insurance company RAGING that you need to “collect” on the money they owe you for paying into their fund every year?

Uh, what makes you get "car insurance" and Social Security confused as being the same? SS collects, by force, earned income that it applies to SS with the PROMISE to pay back to you in installments at the time of your retirement. Car insurance, the last I checked, is completely voluntary (you aren't forced to drive a car) and is not part of the government nor is it a supplemental retirement system. Before you post anything further, take a few deep breaths and count to ten. If you are still feeling silly enough to continue to post such dribble, go for it.

RayAmerica says

Vicente says

Do you call up your car insurance company RAGING that you need to “collect” on the money they owe you for paying into their fund every year?

Uh, what makes you get “car insurance” and Social Security confused as being the same?

Social Security is an INSURANCE program, yet you apparently refer to it as something you invested money in and thus deserve it all back out with interest. In point of fact, there is no investing going on. Are you incapable of comprehending this, or do you just refuse to acknowledge your error?

I have no need to accost the AARP at my coffee shop. If the USA went bankrupt tomorrow, they'd all be sputtering into their coffee, veins popping, and firing up their Medicare-funded scooters to ride on Washington. They'd be as wrong about it as you, as far as being something they are "owed" in my book.

If Mutual of Omaha went totally Tango Uniform, and failed to pay my claim tomorrow, what would be my recourse? Well I can chase after the underwriters and what remains of the company. "What's my 30 years of payments been for??!! This is an outrage!" I would thunder uselessly. Maybe I'd get a slice after lawyering, maybe not. The insurance game is tricky isn't it?

Vicente says

Social Security is an INSURANCE program, yet you keep mistakenly referring to it as something you invested money in and thus deserve it all back out with interest.

I never said I "invested money" in SS. I did say I was forced (in my case paying both sides) to contribute MY money into the system. I never said I deserved "it all back out with interest." I did say that it is not hypocritical at all to collect SS after I've paid into it with MY MONEY. Somehow you got all that confused with car insurance. Apparently you confused your little friend the Duckie Dude too. LOL !!

RayAmerica says

I did say that it is not hypocritical at all to collect SS after I’ve paid into it with MY MONEY.

If enough civic-minded people like you refuse their SS checks, then they'll be forced to either make the program optional or close it down entirely.

shrekgrinch says

Translation: Liberals support forcing other people to pay for accomplishing their socialist goals…especially if the other people have committed the twin crimes of a) being more rich and b) not supporting those goals in the first place. And Liberals consider themselves ‘ethical’ merely because by doing grand larceny via the powers of government let’s them spin it that way.

Excellent summation of the liberal mind set. I've been saying for years that liberals are the most generous people on planet earth with other people's money.

RayAmerica says

shrekgrinch says

Translation: Liberals support forcing other people to pay for accomplishing their socialist goals…especially if the other people have committed the twin crimes of a) being more rich and b) not supporting those goals in the first place. And Liberals consider themselves ‘ethical’ merely because by doing grand larceny via the powers of government let’s them spin it that way.

Excellent summation of the liberal mind set. I’ve been saying for years that liberals are the most generous people on planet earth with other people’s money.

Actually, it's really more an excellent example of a strawman argument. Bravo Shrek. Next you should try for an ad hominem argument. Ray will certainly cheer you on again...