- Nov 19, 2009
- Reaction score
- Political Leaning
He was a brilliant man. The writings you brought up have nothing to do with the discussion.
No, you put an unrelated writing up to try to prove some kind of point. And frankly I would choose any of Paine's writings including those on religion over most of the idiotic social theory of today. It's really not that difficult.Sure they do. You said you'd choose Paine, not his writings. You wildly oversimplified and generalized his views, much like you did with those you said you wouldn't choose. You threw that loony "socialism" accusation around.
I guess you've never heard of Paine's "The Age of Reason." :lol:
The Age of Reason - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
wrong, the dems have to pander to their base by screaming for tax hikes on the one group that is overtaxedAgain, the ledger is not partisan. There are TWO sides to it. Income and expenditures. A true compromise is to deal with both sides 50/50.
The very fact that you and others on the far right will not even agree to 50/50 - right down the middle - half and half - is proof irrefutable just how extremists you all are.
Until that particular disease is cured, there is no hope and we are doomed to repeat the failures of the 1850's with different issues at the center of the failure.
So we enact the spending cuts with the tax increase. In the same bill.
(And the government has also refused to let tax cuts expire, as we've seen recently).
"Fair share" is a subjective term. The tax burden is very low right now. And I don't speak for the democrats, only myself. And you don't know what I want to do.
I still say that a good attorney should beat politicians over the head(figuritively of course) with Section 1 of Amendment 14. That being the equal protections provision of the due process clause. Taxing people because they make more than the average, that would be unequal application.wrong, the dems have to pander to their base by screaming for tax hikes on the one group that is overtaxed
cutting spending is not something that requires tax hikes.
that's an interesting argument. sadly judges are often a form of politician that gains power from playing one group of taxpayers against othersI still say that a good attorney should beat politicians over the head(figuritively of course) with Section 1 of Amendment 14. That being the equal protections provision of the due process clause. Taxing people because they make more than the average, that would be unequal application.
Even if you disagree with the idea of the tax, you have to admit, that with public support behind them, caving on this, seems very foolish to me.
There was a guy who kind of disagrees with you, he was Thomas Paine, his writings in large part helped the founders to create our constitution. In his writings society and government are mutually exclusive, so much so that this argument is false. If you don't like that people are free to attain wealth and prosperity and truly believe that society somehow had a hand in business you are free to think that, however it is a fallacious premise. If I had to choose between the genius of the founding fathers and Mr. Paine or an idiot like Elizabeth Warren and whoever happened to craft that theory she plaigarized I will choose the people who founded this country and not some whiny socialists. Thanks.
Why yes you have. Something along the lines of "I don't care if people become wealthy" all the while excusing a government hand shoved deeper into their pockets.
Let's see, they still have the most evolved ideas of what freedom is and it's origins. Then we have people that think they are so evolved that they are the ones qualified to make an individual's choices because regardless of the fact that your average politician is an idiot they somehow know better what is good for us than ourselves.yes thats a great idea, lets just restrict our selves to the interpretations (of the right) of what the founding fathers and Tomas Paine would do, even though they died 200 or so years ago, and we have a 110percent different world and country with problems they could not have imagined.
again, the dems prove that by holding spending cuts hostage to their pandering to class warfare, they see government spending is something that benefits them and they want concessions to give this up
Your argument is based upon fantasy. Your question was answered. That you have to manufacture a specific reality in order to dismiss the answer is, again, indicative of a discomfort with reality and a fascination with a conjured existence -- at least in order to support your irrational argument.Read again. Considering there is no spending reduction and none of the money would be allocated to deficit reduction(meanin real spending cuts) nor would it be used to pay on the principle of the actual debt, rather it would be applied to more reasoning for continued spending. [...]
considering their massive gains in income over the last 30 years, they are UNDERTAXED.
The question was never answered, considering it was so easy to counter. Also it's been discussed that the "answers" don't work because the root problem will still exist, that is spending. So instead of party lining why don't you actually listen and learn something.Your argument is based upon fantasy. Your question was answered. That you have to manufacture a specific reality in order to dismiss the answer is, again, indicative of a discomfort with reality and a fascination with a conjured existence -- at least in order to support your irrational argument.
Cherry pick much? First off none of these sources is sufficient, and for any one of them I can find 10 counters.
Desperation is a stinky cologne.
So how would a 3 percent surtax on millionaires (excluding those that are successful small business's) hurt the economy? That is the big part of this right? Cross that with the fact that a payroll tax cut extension would allow Americans to keep a lot more of their money, and they are more likely to spend on goods and services, which would help boost our economy. Paying for the payroll tax cut extension by cutting other areas of spending, WILL actually hurt the economy. The only source for that revenue to pay for it, without doing damage to the economy is from the people that won't change their spending habits, if they are suddenly without whatever 3 percent of a million is...30,000.
oohhhh look at this, apparently 1.9 percent IS TO MUCH AS WELL.....
So Reid came back with a new pay-for plan that incorporated what was supposed to be a slightly more digestible form of the millionaire surtax: a 1.9 percent rate.
Harry Reid's millionaire surtax appears dead for now - Thursday, Dec. 15, 2011 | 6:06 p.m. - Las Vegas Sun