Obama on Redistribution of Wealth

[AdamT]

Do you ever feel the slightest twinge of shame when you post this kind of slobbering hackery?

What's funny is that you use Kennedy as your example of Democrats "understanding" this, while Republicans "ALWAYS" want lower taxes, but the Kennedy tax cut was OPPOSED by Republicans. :lamo

Your reading comprehension has not improved. What I said is that Republicans -- as in present-day Republicans -- ALWAYS seem to feel that taxes should be lower. That is not the same thing as saying that "Republicans have ALWAYS felt that taxes should be lower." See the difference?

As you note, Republicans were, once upon a time, fiscally responsbile. They used to understand that there are two sides to a ledger.

 

[AdamT]

What you want to ignore are the effective tax rates as not many loopholes were closed nor was their a 3.8 trillion dollar Federal Govt. as SS and Medicare weren't put on budget then. Notice that you ignored the quotes and the affect of lower tax rates on govt. revenue and private sector prosperity.

No, I didn't ignore any of those things. In fact I specifically stated that JFK also reduced loopholes.

 

[Harshaw]

Your reading comprehension has not improved. What I said is that Republicans -- as in present-day Republicans -- ALWAYS seem to feel that taxes should be lower. That is not the same thing as saying that "Republicans have ALWAYS felt that taxes should be lower." See the difference?

I see your spin, but in your zeal to spin it, you make it worse for yourself.

What you're doing, then, is dishonestly comparing historical Democrats to present-day Republicans.

I mean, I could have LOTS of fun running down historical Democrats and what they did (how 'bout that KKK? Zany!) and compare it to present-day Republicans, and it would NOT be pretty for Democrats. Is that the game you want to play? I doubt it's what you had in mind when you grasped for this straw.

As you note, Republicans were, once upon a time, fiscally responsbile. They used to understand that there are two sides to a ledger.

:roll: As Democrats once understood that you only have so much money, and if you can't get more, you don't spend it, rather than spending it anyway and crying because you don't have more.

 

[Harshaw]

In fact I specifically stated that JFK also reduced loopholes.

Which is part and parcel of the much-maligned Ryan plan.

 

[AdamT]

I see your spin, but in your zeal to spin it, you make it worse for yourself.

What you're doing, then, is dishonestly comparing historical Democrats to present-day Republicans.

I mean, I could have LOTS of fun running down historical Democrats and what they did (how 'bout that KKK? Zany!) and compare it to present-day Republicans, and it would NOT be pretty for Democrats. Is that the game you want to play? I doubt it's what you had in mind when you grasped for this straw.



:roll: As Democrats once understood that you only have so much money, and if you can't get more, you don't spend it, rather than spending it anyway and crying because you don't have more.

What I was doing was responding to Conservative's comment about JFK. :roll:

 

[Harshaw]

What I was doing was responding to Conservative's comment about JFK. :roll:

Yes, and you made a hack-job of it. :lamo

 

[Conservative]

Looks like the Wealth Redistribution message from Obama isn't really motivating the American electorate

UnSkewed Polls -- erasing the bias to show an accurate picture of politics

 

[AdamT]

Yes, and you made a hack-job of it. :lamo

You haven't even offered a critique of what I wrote concerning JFK, which is understandable, given that it was 100% factual. You are, as always, pounding the strawman.

 

[Conservative]

No, I didn't ignore any of those things. In fact I specifically stated that JFK also reduced loopholes.

What you continue to always do is divert from the message and totally ignored the quotes made by JFK regarding taxes. That is what you always do, divert and distort. Why is that? What is it about the Obama record that you support? Do you have any problem of the forced redistribution of your wealth by the govt?

 

[AdamT]

What you continue to always do is divert from the message and totally ignored the quotes made by JFK regarding taxes. That is what you always do, divert and distort. Why is that? What is it about the Obama record that you support? Do you have any problem of the forced redistribution of your wealth by the govt?

It is not a diversion to point out what JFK actually DID -- as opposed to what he SAID. Actions are always more instructive than words.

 

[Harshaw]

You haven't even offered a critique of what I wrote concerning JFK, which is understandable, given that it was 100% factual. You are, as always, pounding the strawman.

What "strawman"? I responded to exactly what you said. I don't dispute the numbers on the JFK tax cut, and I don't have to in order to respond to your hackneyed (and dishonest) swipe at Republicans and beatification of Democrats, which YOU didn't need to add to your post, but did anyway.

:lamo Bet you wish you hadn't done that, now.

 

[Conservative]

It is not a diversion to point out what JFK actually DID -- as opposed to what he SAID. Actions are always more instructive than words.

What JFK did was something you don't understand, he promoted the private sector growth and understood the private sector economy. Read all his quotes and then respond. Nothing Obama has done or proposed is going to put 23 million unemployed/under employed/discouraged workers back to work full time and JFK knew that raising taxes would never create full employment either.

 

[AdamT]

What "strawman"? I responded to exactly what you said. I don't dispute the numbers on the JFK tax cut, and I don't have to in order to respond to your hackneyed (and dishonest) swipe at Republicans and beatification of Democrats, which YOU didn't need to add to your post, but did anyway.

:lamo Bet you wish you hadn't done that, now.

So you disagree that Republicans think that taxes should be lower? Is that what you're trying to say? Try using short declarative sentences so people will have a chance of figuring out what you're trying to get at.

 

[Conservative]

So you disagree that Republicans think that taxes should be lower? Is that what you're trying to say? Try using short declarative sentences so people will have a chance of figuring out what you're trying to get at.

Do you think it is the role of the Federal Govt. to redistribute wealth in an attempt to create equal outcome?

 

[Harshaw]

So you disagree that Republicans think that taxes should be lower? Is that what you're trying to say? Try using short declarative sentences so people will have a chance of figuring out what you're trying to get at.

I love how you can accuse me of a "strawman," and of poor "reading comprehension," and you then immediately pretend I was saying something which I clearly wasn't.

You know exactly what I was "getting at"; you know I'm right; and anyone who reads the exchange knows it, too. So this particularly dishonest swipe is like spraying kerosene all over the place when you've already crashed and burned.

If you don't want to get called on saying silly, hackish things, don't say silly, hackish things. Seems pretty simple to me.

 

[AdamT]

I love how you can accuse me of a "strawman," and of poor "reading comprehension," and you then immediately pretend I was saying something which I clearly wasn't.

You know exactly what I was "getting at"; you know I'm right; and anyone who reads the exchange knows it, too. So this particularly dishonest swipe is like spraying kerosene all over the place when you've already crashed and burned.

If you don't want to get called on saying silly, hackish things, don't say silly, hackish things. Seems pretty simple to me.

No, I really don't have a clue what you're trying to get at. That's why I asked you to try to clarify it. What I said was that JFK lowered the top marginal rate to 70% and eliminated loopholes. And I said that Republicans seem to think that taxes should be lower. So if you don't disagree with either point, what are you doing? You're not going to win any races by chasing your tail.

 

[Harshaw]

No, I really don't have a clue what you're trying to get at. That's why I asked you to try to clarify it. What I said was that JFK lowered the top marginal rate to 70% and eliminated loopholes. And I said that Republicans seem to think that taxes should be lower. So if you don't disagree with either point, what are you doing? You're not going to win any races by chasing your tail.

:roll:

Now you're lying about what YOU said:

When Kennedy was inaugurated the top marginal tax rate was 91%. He lowered it ... to 70% ... and also eliminated loopholes.

See, Democrats understand that taxes can be too high OR too low. Republicans, contrary to the most basic rules of economics, seem to feel that taxes should ALWAYS be lower.

As you appear to hope that this was enough pages back for no one to go back and look, here's the link to the post. Even though the link in the quote is enough to get you there, why not make it super-easy?

Anyone -- and I do mean anyone -- who cares to can follow the exchange and see exactly what I was getting at, and also your posts which indicate that YOU understood full well what I was getting at, too, and only NOW when you've been shellacked, you're pretending that you don't.

So this bull**** that you now DON'T know what I was getting at is particularly sad, Adam. Better that you just let it go and stop embarrassing yourself further. Cut your losses.

 

[AdamT]

:roll:

Now you're lying about what YOU said:



As you appear to hope that this was enough pages back for no one to go back and look, here's the link to the post. Even though the link in the quote is enough to get you there, why not make it super-easy?

Anyone -- and I do mean anyone -- who cares to can follow the exchange and see exactly what I was getting at, and also your posts which indicate that YOU understood full well what I was getting at, too, and only NOW when you've been shellacked, you're pretending that you don't.

So this bull**** that you now DON'T know what I was getting at is particularly sad, Adam. Better that you just let it go and stop embarrassing yourself further. Cut your losses.

So you don't actually have a point. That's what I thought.

 

[Harshaw]

So you don't actually have a point. That's what I thought.

:lamo

As you move further and further into self-parody, I'll just let you keep at it.

 

[AdamT]

:lamo

As you move further and further into self-parody, I'll just let you keep at it.

By all means come back if and/or when you ever have something to say.

 

[Taylor]

Smart ones are the dreaded "intellectual elite" who don't feed off FOX and Limbaugh and Hannity and O'REilly and all the other cheerleading liars for the rich. We know the republcians want to return to the Victorian Age of uber rich and uber poor....dying in the streets in their filth so the rich can get richer.

And yet, it's under Democrat presidents that income inequality has seen the greatest gain. Go figure.

 

[Taylor]

The fear of the rich taking it all is the best thing the left has now.

I wholeheartedly agree. Given the failure of so many of their programs to actually "help" those that vote for them, fear is about all they have left.

 

[Conservative]

And yet, it's under Democrat presidents that income inequality has seen the greatest gain. Go figure.

Here is a good video of a 2008 Obama voter talking to themself in 2012

Obama Supporter Interviews Herself - YouTube

 

[Misterveritis]

Government healthcare tends to be underfunded. Privatising means taking profit out of an already insufficient budget before the service is provided.

That is just silly. I think you fail to understand the profit motive.

 

[Misterveritis]

So you disagree that Republicans think that taxes should be lower? Is that what you're trying to say? Try using short declarative sentences so people will have a chance of figuring out what you're trying to get at.

For those of us why pay federal income taxes they should be lower. Lots lower. For those who do not pay the taxes they should be higher. Lots higher. They should have to pay so much their nipples hurt from being squeezed.