- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 134,496
- Reaction score
- 14,621
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
You do realize credit was tighter than the skin on a drum when Obama took office, I've told you this before, did you forget? Put that one on you desktop so you don't forget next time.
Nice diatribe Boo but I’m a little confused. First you say “It's BS, too silly for any thinking person to accept.” Then you say “Few things are either all one way or another”. Is this the way you look at things?
I don’t agree with your opinion that his ‘lynch pin revolves around individuality and lack of using government to solve problems.’ I read it as the lack of individuality is his assertion. Obviously no one can individually provide national defense hence the ‘common purpose’ phrase. You again assert the same position in your post.
His examples are limited in this as his daily talking points are typically 1-2 minutes long which don’t allow for lengthy explanations.
You stated “Government...asked them to sacrifice. Now, this has nothing to do with individuality.” Was the sacrifice they asked NOT individual as well as collectively?
More than two-thirds of voters say the United States is declining, and a clear majority think the next generation will be worse off than this one, according to the results of a new poll commissioned by The Hill. (» Poll: 69% of Voters Say America Is in Decline - Big Government) This poll supports the ‘America in decline’ that you look for. But of course these are just American opinions and not CONCRETE proof, as if some such HARD evidence exists for a subjective concept.
It is not that I miss his point or am too tunnel minded to understand the underlying theme for I have witnessed this first hand for many years.
Without a full explination, they are largely worthless.
The sacrifice was collective, for the collective good. It wasn't the individual on his or her own deciding to do something. They were called upon by government, to collectively act.
BTW, public opinion can be wrong. Such opinions tell us next to nothing factually. Putting too mcuh stock in such things can be misleading, just as what we THINK we witness. You hold a world view that such is true. O'Reilly tells you it is true. So, instead of questioning it, you accept it. This is not unusual, but it is lazy. And it doesn't change a thing I argued.
Per the WH website “To ensure that the American Jobs Act is fully paid for, the President will call on the Joint Committee to come up with additional deficit reduction necessary to pay for the Act and still meet its deficit target.” So, no the Joint Committee has NOT FOUND A WAY TO PAY FOR IT YET! Jobs created by moving money around are not sustainable but merely kicking the can.
The bill as it went to the Senate floor was paid for by a millionaires' surtax
Your graph compares the ‘riches 400 people’ out of 315million against the middle class. Do you think this is represents a legitimate comparison? Wouldn’t comparing an extreme element to a median element usually reveal some great disparity? Essentially the comparison groups are extreme compared to each other.
My claim was that the super wealthy pay a lesser percentage of their total income than do the middle class. That is what my documentation backs up.
Your graph to support the ‘trickle down’ argument is the ‘increase in national debt’. I miss the correlation.
I see you did. The website I linked explains it in more detail.
Did you miss my original post about the ‘apples/oranges’ comparison of wage income vs. capital gains? I guess not. What you miss is that the inheritance and capital gains taxes are ‘double taxes’. One cannot have income from capital gains until he first has income to invest and thus profit to incur capital gains taxes. This initial income is taxed at the income rate. The same is true on inheritance. I know you read the Politifact article which revealed this principal.
I don't buy it, and neither does the majority of the country. How is income from capital gains not income? How is income from inheritance not income?
How is income from capital gains not income? How is income from inheritance not income?
In a 'larger' context I agree but I believe these daily talking points are meant to initiate individual thought. True some will take them as gospel just as there will be those who take the statements of the several you listed previously as ‘fact’ and by comparison equally worthless.
Yes, there was collective sacrafice but at the same time individual as well. No two people sacrificed equally…as an old friend stated recently 'Few things are either all one way or another'.
As I stated ‘But of course these are just American opinions and not CONCRETE proof, as if some such HARD evidence exists for a subjective concept.’ So I guess you are agreeing???
I doubt that (to stimulate thought), as they show so little thought. As for anything I've said, I'm here to asked, to expound upon, to even provide support should such be needed.
Technically no, Socialism by nature is an economic and political philosophy that promotes social equality and collective decision-making. My statement about ‘No two people sacrificed equally’ does not support the ‘social equality’ philosophy typical of socialism.Then there is no collective anything. That's what you're left with if we accept what you just said. Socialism after all has individuals doing things on their own, so it too is individialistic. Right?
The point it is it was called on by the government, and shared among the populace. It was not an individalist effort.
It's not all that subjective. Anything that has no objective evidence is almost as worthless as O'Reilly's talking points. We can measure people holding jobs, seeking to prosper, putting forth effort. You don't do this by asking for a public opinion, but examining what people are doing is some scientific manner. As I stated, a majority can be dead wrong.
Ultimately, the talking points by Bill O’ and the comments made by others you mentioned (Beck, O'Reilly, Maddow or Oberman) are for ‘selling soap’, nothing more. As far as you expounding and providing support as to their POV, why? As you stated “If' you're listening to any of them, taking any of them seriously, you are the problem.”
Technically no, Socialism by nature is an economic and political philosophy that promotes social equality and collective decision-making. My statement about ‘No two people sacrificed equally’ does not support the ‘social equality’ philosophy typical of socialism.
Yes, it was shared among the populace but not EQUALLY shared either voluntarily or mandated.
This is ambiguous. Opinions by their very nature are subjective as they are not facts BUT can be based on facts. By your above statements they are ‘worthless’ thus why should anyone care what yours is? Yes, the public/majority opinion can be wrong. Further this particular portion of discussion was initiated by the request for ‘evidence of America in decline’. A graph was furnished by pb that indicated such.
The one term liberal president Carter created the Iranian crisis.
The one term Marxist president Obama hates to let a good crisis go to waste.
Don't be so obtuse, they are both income. Capital gain is income from the investment of personal wealth. This personal wealth when earned was taxed at the income rate rate determined by the progressive tax tables.
Inheritance is wealth transfered to a designated party. Again when this wealth was earned initially it was taxed at the income tax rate determined by the progressive tax table.
Neither of these incomes come from labor wages.
Further, it is the investments (that generate capital gains) that Washington espouces will turn the economy around.
Sorry Charlie, the majority of the country no longer buys the trickle down theory. See the couple dozen polls this year that show the great majority favor eliminating the tax breaks for the rich.
Do you have any understanding of what happens when the US president (Carter, in this case) withdraw's support from an ally? We get an Iranian hostage crisis and Islamofascism. Who was the president?Are you serious? Do you have any understanding of the history of Iran pre-Shah and during the Shah period?
Well those polls are REAL compelling...lets see the...'rich' is defined loosely as 1%. How hard is it to think that one would not be able to get a comfortable majority in a poll of the other 99%? Especially when you ask 'tax them' or 'tax you'? This has got to be the shallowest argument in this whole issue, not directed at you but ALL those who use it.
Yeah, why shouldn't the 99% continue to subsidize the 1% and be happy about it, just as they have done for the last 30 years? Shocking, just shocking I tell you!
Show us some statistics that back this bull**** up. 99% subsidizing the 1%.... Havn't we covered this **** already, like months ago? the 1% paid 37% of the taxes, that means that they basically subsidized the 99%.
Your post lacks logic. The 99%, or at least some of the 99%, have to pay taxes so the rich can get tax breaks.
Your post lacks logic. The 99%, or at least some of the 99%, have to pay taxes so the rich can get tax breaks.
Maybe you don't understand what a tax break is, but it is not the same thing as them receiving tax money. My post does not lack logic, it is 100% fact. This has been presented with sources several times over this very 100+ page thread. What you liberals need to start doing is learning and accepting the facts, your feelings don't matter. 47% of Americans accounted for -3% of federal income tax. This has also been posted several times, with sources, in this thread.
Show us some statistics that back this bull**** up. 99% subsidizing the 1%.... Havn't we covered this **** already, like months ago? the 1% paid 37% of the taxes, that means that they basically subsidized the 99%.
Your tax figures do not reflect FICA taxes paid by wage earners, or gas taxes. The top 1% owns 42.7% of the wealth, and pays considerably less than that percentage of the taxes.
[url]http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html [/URL]
What liberals also seem to have a problem understanding is that a tax break means people keeping more of the money that they have earned. Seems you may be on to something in stating that liberals don't seem to understand tax breaks. They call tax cuts an expense, some seem to believe it is a check sent back to the people from some other taxpayer, others believe that the govt. needs the money more than the taxpayer so you are seeing what is so frustrating here.
Maybe you don't understand what a tax break is, but it is not the same thing as them receiving tax money. My post does not lack logic, it is 100% fact. This has been presented with sources several times over this very 100+ page thread. What you liberals need to start doing is learning and accepting the facts, your feelings don't matter. 47% of Americans accounted for -3% of federal income tax. This has also been posted several times, with sources, in this thread.
When in the history has any country ever gotten out of a time of crisis we are in right now with jobs and a deficit by cutting taxes? Name one time in history, in country in the world...
*(no one has ever answered this question)*
Your tax figures do not reflect FICA taxes paid by wage earners, or gas taxes. The top 1% owns 42.7% of the wealth, and pays considerably less than that percentage of the taxes.
[url]http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html [/URL]
For most of your post, you should check out my cig... For the other part, read part 2:
Do you not know how to follow logic? If taxes are lower on the rich, someone else much pick up the slack, aka the middle class...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?