Community votes are collected from you and other visitors to Ask500People. Independent votes are collected from visitors to hundreds of other websites around the world.
Sign Up or Login
Sorry, this data is only available to users with an account.
The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."
forever rationalizing evil and stupidity. she has often called abortion clinic bombers freedom fighters. in speech after speech, for years. but they're terrorists, just like her.
widely available on youtube, just like her witch doctor video... sorry but we have a world to save here, and thoughts of that vile girl are not productive.
I think it's more like the use of fear by any person or group in order to intimidate any other person, group or organization into doing anything the first person/group does not want to do by free will.
the use of bombs and explosives falls under this category only if it has the intent of scaring the target population or organization into doing anything they would not normally do.
We don't like to call our national armies terrorists, but in some cases that can be true. The use and spread of fear has been known to be used as a military tactic.
You betchum Lone Ranger that I don't now or have I ever been anywhere near the $200k bracket. My wife and my needs are not that great so we do just fine on what I draw from retirement and 401K investments made. I have to pay quarterly tax payments and, though I hate taxes, hold no particular animosity in this regard.
The question should be, why make such tax refunds?
That's just it - it's not tax "refunds." What he's doing is "rolling back" the additional "tax breaks" that Bush handed to the wealthy believing those "tax breaks" would "trickle down" in the form of jobs and things to help the middle class. But it hasn't. It was used to expand businesses overseas and increase the personal accounts of the top 1% of this country.
By putting an end to those additional "tax breaks" GIVEN to the top 1% and giving additional tax breaks to the MIDDLE class, what will happen is the government's income will INCREASE (to help with budget deficits), AND we will see an increase in spending by the MIDDLE class - more money will spill into local economies.
It's a win-win for us, Mike. I don't understand, for the life of me, why anyone EXCEPT the top 1% of this country would think it's a bad idea. (lol)
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
Because, dear Lady, it is that top percentage that does all the building of businesses, hire the employees (yes, I know small businesses account for much of this, but they got their money from the top 1%). Why must you dems consistently try to soak the rich, who pay the largest part of the tax bill in any cases.
Are you just jealous that YOU are NOT part of that 1%?
[-1 points]3 years ago by MikeHendReplyEdited 3 years ago by MikeHend
lol - not jealous. I wouldn't WANT the daily responsibility of handling that kind of money. I like being a little freer than that.
Small business account for virtually ALL our employment. The top 1% are the people who own manufacturing plants overseas and employ people at pennies a day. Banks, as a rule, are usually not in the top 1% either, although their executives are. They collect OUR paychecks and hold our 401ks, Certificates of Deposit, etc., then loan OUR money to small businesses and collect a healthy percentage, giving us a tiny portion in exchange.
Incidentally, have a friend who worked as a VP in charge of lending for a local bank. I asked her once (because I didn't really understand) how banks could become 'rich.' I've never forgotten how she (tossing back tequila) tossed the figures at me. If someone invests $5k in a Certificate of Deposit at their bank - the bank guarantees them 5% annual interest rate (at the time). The bank could then roll that money over so many times in that 5 year span that they would turn it into $1M. Now, I'm not greedy - I'm really not. But if a bank could turn that $5k into $1M - why the hell aren't the little people getting a bigger chunk? (lol)
Only small businesses that turn a NET profit of $250k will see an increase. Having been in small business most all of my life - that's actually damn hard to do. (lol) That's after you pay yourself, your employees, your rent, etc., etc. The vast majority of businesses never come close to turning that kind of profit. If they do - they invest it back into the company, or hand it out as bonuses to the employees. They get to write it off, make the employees happy, and decrease their taxes all at the same time. It's a great thing to be self employed in America.
As for me caring what banks make on my money - hey, they've watched it, they've made it available to me when I needed it, so they deserve a cut and to make some good money. I'd never deny anybody profit - that's the name of the game. I give them $5k, they hold it for 5 years and make a cool MILLION on it, more power to them! But wouldn't it be nice if they gave me back $10k rather than $6381.42? I mean - they made $998,618.42 on my money, then gave me back my money and cut me in for $1381.42 of the $998,618.42 profit. I don't even want half. I don't even want 1/4. I don't even want 10%. I'll settle for 2% of the profit turned on MY CAPITAL.
This is what I mean about capitalism. It's a GREAT thing. But WE are not living the capitalistic lifestyle. The richest 1% are, and they somehow convinced us that cutting YOU in for .01% of their return on YOUR money is fair. How did we all fall for that?? (lol)
[2 points]3 years ago by sillynillyReplyEdited 3 years ago by sillynilly
"The FBI defines terrorism as:
The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."
Yup.
Sarah Palin says no!
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 3 years ago by deleted user Replyforever rationalizing evil and stupidity. she has often called abortion clinic bombers freedom fighters. in speech after speech, for years. but they're terrorists, just like her.
This comment was deleted.
[-2 points] 3 years ago by deleted user Replywidely available on youtube, just like her witch doctor video... sorry but we have a world to save here, and thoughts of that vile girl are not productive.
lib
Last night on the NBC News with Brian Williams
This comment was deleted.
[-2 points] 3 years ago by deleted user Replylib
This comment was deleted.
[3 points] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplyProbably. Learned it the same place she learned the responsibilities of the VP, no doubt.
Well, it must not be then. I'm sure as long as they are following their religious beliefs, it wouldn't be classified as terrorism.
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
You lying ass.
hm that seems to define bush's activities in Iraq and Afghanistan... go figure.
As my mother used to say, "do as I say, not as I do."
They were all terrorists over there anyway. They should thank us for liberating them. Preferably by giving us cheap Oil and Heroin.
This comment was deleted.
[0 points] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplyI think it's more like the use of fear by any person or group in order to intimidate any other person, group or organization into doing anything the first person/group does not want to do by free will.
the use of bombs and explosives falls under this category only if it has the intent of scaring the target population or organization into doing anything they would not normally do.
We don't like to call our national armies terrorists, but in some cases that can be true. The use and spread of fear has been known to be used as a military tactic.
They are domestic terrorists and deserve the same treatment as any other terrorist.
Gads Mike - I'll lower your debt to $2.25 for that remark. Almost sounded like a centrist there for a second.
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
Don't get carried away. You would probably tax me on the 25 cent refund.
You're retired. You talk big - but I suspect you don't make $200k +. So, your taxes are going down under Obama and remaining the same under McCain.
Are you going to refuse the tax refund? Out of protest? Or are you going to grumble and take it?
You betchum Lone Ranger that I don't now or have I ever been anywhere near the $200k bracket. My wife and my needs are not that great so we do just fine on what I draw from retirement and 401K investments made. I have to pay quarterly tax payments and, though I hate taxes, hold no particular animosity in this regard.
The question should be, why make such tax refunds?
That's just it - it's not tax "refunds." What he's doing is "rolling back" the additional "tax breaks" that Bush handed to the wealthy believing those "tax breaks" would "trickle down" in the form of jobs and things to help the middle class. But it hasn't. It was used to expand businesses overseas and increase the personal accounts of the top 1% of this country.
By putting an end to those additional "tax breaks" GIVEN to the top 1% and giving additional tax breaks to the MIDDLE class, what will happen is the government's income will INCREASE (to help with budget deficits), AND we will see an increase in spending by the MIDDLE class - more money will spill into local economies.
It's a win-win for us, Mike. I don't understand, for the life of me, why anyone EXCEPT the top 1% of this country would think it's a bad idea. (lol)
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
Because, dear Lady, it is that top percentage that does all the building of businesses, hire the employees (yes, I know small businesses account for much of this, but they got their money from the top 1%). Why must you dems consistently try to soak the rich, who pay the largest part of the tax bill in any cases.
Are you just jealous that YOU are NOT part of that 1%?
lol - not jealous. I wouldn't WANT the daily responsibility of handling that kind of money. I like being a little freer than that.
Small business account for virtually ALL our employment. The top 1% are the people who own manufacturing plants overseas and employ people at pennies a day. Banks, as a rule, are usually not in the top 1% either, although their executives are. They collect OUR paychecks and hold our 401ks, Certificates of Deposit, etc., then loan OUR money to small businesses and collect a healthy percentage, giving us a tiny portion in exchange.
Incidentally, have a friend who worked as a VP in charge of lending for a local bank. I asked her once (because I didn't really understand) how banks could become 'rich.' I've never forgotten how she (tossing back tequila) tossed the figures at me. If someone invests $5k in a Certificate of Deposit at their bank - the bank guarantees them 5% annual interest rate (at the time). The bank could then roll that money over so many times in that 5 year span that they would turn it into $1M. Now, I'm not greedy - I'm really not. But if a bank could turn that $5k into $1M - why the hell aren't the little people getting a bigger chunk? (lol)
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
They also own the plants and businesses stateside.
And why should I care whether a banker takes my money and makes a bunch of money out of it? I agreed to the interest rate, it wasn't forced on me.
Your buddy Osama will tax those small businesses out of existence.
Only small businesses that turn a NET profit of $250k will see an increase. Having been in small business most all of my life - that's actually damn hard to do. (lol) That's after you pay yourself, your employees, your rent, etc., etc. The vast majority of businesses never come close to turning that kind of profit. If they do - they invest it back into the company, or hand it out as bonuses to the employees. They get to write it off, make the employees happy, and decrease their taxes all at the same time. It's a great thing to be self employed in America.
As for me caring what banks make on my money - hey, they've watched it, they've made it available to me when I needed it, so they deserve a cut and to make some good money. I'd never deny anybody profit - that's the name of the game. I give them $5k, they hold it for 5 years and make a cool MILLION on it, more power to them! But wouldn't it be nice if they gave me back $10k rather than $6381.42? I mean - they made $998,618.42 on my money, then gave me back my money and cut me in for $1381.42 of the $998,618.42 profit. I don't even want half. I don't even want 1/4. I don't even want 10%. I'll settle for 2% of the profit turned on MY CAPITAL.
This is what I mean about capitalism. It's a GREAT thing. But WE are not living the capitalistic lifestyle. The richest 1% are, and they somehow convinced us that cutting YOU in for .01% of their return on YOUR money is fair. How did we all fall for that?? (lol)
Ask him to play poker. By the same logic he used on bank interest rates, he won't mind you using a marked deck. lol!
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
Please, go back to your cave. Silly and I were having a civil discourse.