< Two points…first, how does it throw our tax system “out of wack” to cut the taxes of the top 5% of Americans who currently pay more than 50% of the taxes…and who will CONTINUE to pay more than 50% of the taxes even after the cuts? If anything, in a fair society, that tax burden should be much more widely spread out.
>>> Because a flat rate is in fact regressive taxation.
Well, first of all, I didn’t propose a flat tax, but since you mentioned it, everyone paying…say…15% of their income would at least have the appearance of “fairness”…and “the rich” would still pay exponentially more.
>>> Because our budget needs to be balanced. Because those who make more also use more services (believe it or not, it extends into intangibles and risk protection.)
Really? What services do the rich get for their tax money that the people who pay little or no taxes don’t get?
>>> Because in a capitalist system where profit is inherent and assumed, profiting means overcharging someone but getting them to agree to pay it.
Wrong premise.
>>> So some of that goes to the government to run this nation, to help protect their assets, to help the nation be stable where their profit actually counts for something.
Again… What services do the rich get for their tax money that the people who pay little or no taxes don’t get?
< Second, the tax cuts weren’t reckless, they help stimulate the economy. That’s why, after looking at the evidence, McCain changed his position and decided to make them permanent. I know, you’d like to believe Obama’s socialist rhetoric, but let’s look at his actions instead…just a couple of weeks ago, Obama announced that he would NOT rescind the “Bush tax cuts” when the economy was weak. Now just a little logic and common sense here…why would Obama flip flop on his very loudly touted position unless he knew, and it was a fact, that the tax cuts HELP the economy and that rescinding them would HURT the economy?
>>> They were reckless. The government was balancing budgets again, the economy wavered because of 11 September, but would have been rightable in other ways... but conservatives looked at it as a golden opportunity, and they got what they wished for... but it screwed this country big time, creating yet more national debt on top of the war debt, increasing the bill just on interest alone.
Again, I’ve presented the positions of the two Presidential candidates and you’ve once again come back with “because I say so.” If the tax cuts screwed up the country then spare us the rhetoric and tell us HOW they screwed up the country and why Obama says he won’t remove then as long as the economy is weak?
>>> Republicans are fond of yelling 'tax cut' in every election. This is laughable... at one point are taxes low enough? Will you shift into advocating dividends in lieu of taxes? When the tax code was in balance and worked during a time of prosperity, what was needed as an economic stimulant was not less taxes, but target spending with a limited expenditure - unlike a tax cut which permanently impacts.
The Republicans advocate low taxes because they feel that the American people should be able to keep more of their money because that builds jobs, encourages investment and risktaking and stimulates the economy. The Democrats on the other hand want to oppressively tax the people in order to pay for their socialist, Big Brother government.
>>> Its sort of like those (yes, Democrats) who talk on jobs, forgetting that The Fed has a huge say in job creation, because a very low unemployment rate puts upward pressure on wages and thus creates a potential for inflation.
The Fed doesn’t create jobs, the private sector does. What the Fed can do is to create an oppressive environment where business has to increase their prices, downsize or relocate in order to maintain profits…all of which hurt “main street.”
>>> On the bail out... better to do this than to find there is no longer a world economy.
Shy of a nuclear winter, there will always be a world economy.
>>> I'd bet anything the deficit is more likely to improve under Obama. The right would never touch defence spending, but Obama just might.
Obama is a fool. His spending will increase the deficit and his weedwacker philosophy towards the military, like his foolish Democrat predecessors, only serves to weaken the country, hurt national security, and strengthen out enemies.
>>> I see the socialist word and the phrase 'income redistribution.' What was the tax cut?
Um…it was a tax cut?
>>> We pay taxes based on our ability to pay.
That’s strange…we don’t parcel out food, or gas or healthcare that way.
>>> There is a certain standard amount of expenditures for each of us to live at a basic level. If you factor that into the tax equation, the amount left after taxes is far lower for lower income folks... there is more expendible income at higher incomes, a better ability to pay, and justified for all the reasons I stated in above.
Justified in YOUR mind that someone who works for their money somehow deserves to have the government take it and give it to someone who doesn’t. It’s all good until the government comes knocking on your door.
Obviously you don't swallow the truth either. Interesting, you call a video showing McCain saying he's against government regulation, propaganda?! That's beyond belief! If you don't believe seeing McCain actually saying
>>> LOL! Naw, it won't be Hillary, it'll be racist nut-bags like the meth-heads in Denver, or the freaking KLAN (no kidding!), who showed up at the Ole Miss debate to pass out flyers for McCain and against....well....everyone, essentially. Or possibly the Black Helicopter wackos that Sarah Palin's friends with. Look for those sorts of folk to be the ones on the other end of the gun, if President Obama is assassinated, not Hillary.
Were they saying things like...
I'm curious: What color/religion are you? Is there any chance you could be an anti-Muslim Hindu who's been brainwashed to believe Obama is a Muslim? If so, please ship your prejudices back home--we don't need them in the United States of America.
Boy, that's pretty racist.
< I won't have as many lib arguments to destroy.
>>> Um...*cough*...we're still waiting for you TO destroy one. Everyone's pulling for you, truly. You've been trying for ages, and we all know you really, REALLY WANT to destroy one. Someday, perhaps you will. Maybe. Possibly.
Look around, you can see the scores of smoldering ruins of your weenie arguments and the arguments of so many of your ilk. You can tell how dead they are because their owners just left them in sad piles of rubble and just walked away...unable to defend them any more. LOL!
>>> Oh, and? Bookmark. (man, my list of b****-slap links for November 5 is getting LONG! ;o)
It's nice to see you've found enough value in my posts to save them. Personally, I haven't found anything you've said, under any of your many, many names, that has been worth noting let alone preserving. But if I ever do, all I have to do is sift through the smoldering ruins and try to reconstruct the drivel from the shards and scraps that are left. LOL!
>>> So I guess I understand now - and I'm paraphrasing - its the old "we're right and you're wrong" song and dance, kind of thought that anyway.
I guess it's not surprising that someone who prefers predigested slogans and talking points to facts, could take a rather lengthy exchange and boil it down to something as inane as "we're right and you're wrong." Thanks for chiming in.
>>> That's cool, just so we know what kind of kookies to swallow with our kool-aid.
I thought all you kids chowed down on Mrs. Left-Fields?
Pages
Hey, thought I recognized you! Welcome back!
And what was with runr goddess's single post in reply to me?
wtf?
Hi Djie!! Good to see you again too!
"I'm still here...... trying to understand the US political debate-culture..."
Now, that's a never ending battle... if you ever understand it, please explain it to me!
just one more thing...
you just proved the point i made in my single post to you - you assume way too much.
< Two points…first, how does it throw our tax system “out of wack” to cut the taxes of the top 5% of Americans who currently pay more than 50% of the taxes…and who will CONTINUE to pay more than 50% of the taxes even after the cuts? If anything, in a fair society, that tax burden should be much more widely spread out.
>>> Because a flat rate is in fact regressive taxation.
Well, first of all, I didn’t propose a flat tax, but since you mentioned it, everyone paying…say…15% of their income would at least have the appearance of “fairness”…and “the rich” would still pay exponentially more.
>>> Because our budget needs to be balanced. Because those who make more also use more services (believe it or not, it extends into intangibles and risk protection.)
Really? What services do the rich get for their tax money that the people who pay little or no taxes don’t get?
>>> Because in a capitalist system where profit is inherent and assumed, profiting means overcharging someone but getting them to agree to pay it.
Wrong premise.
>>> So some of that goes to the government to run this nation, to help protect their assets, to help the nation be stable where their profit actually counts for something.
Again… What services do the rich get for their tax money that the people who pay little or no taxes don’t get?
< Second, the tax cuts weren’t reckless, they help stimulate the economy. That’s why, after looking at the evidence, McCain changed his position and decided to make them permanent. I know, you’d like to believe Obama’s socialist rhetoric, but let’s look at his actions instead…just a couple of weeks ago, Obama announced that he would NOT rescind the “Bush tax cuts” when the economy was weak. Now just a little logic and common sense here…why would Obama flip flop on his very loudly touted position unless he knew, and it was a fact, that the tax cuts HELP the economy and that rescinding them would HURT the economy?
>>> They were reckless. The government was balancing budgets again, the economy wavered because of 11 September, but would have been rightable in other ways... but conservatives looked at it as a golden opportunity, and they got what they wished for... but it screwed this country big time, creating yet more national debt on top of the war debt, increasing the bill just on interest alone.
Again, I’ve presented the positions of the two Presidential candidates and you’ve once again come back with “because I say so.” If the tax cuts screwed up the country then spare us the rhetoric and tell us HOW they screwed up the country and why Obama says he won’t remove then as long as the economy is weak?
>>> Republicans are fond of yelling 'tax cut' in every election. This is laughable... at one point are taxes low enough? Will you shift into advocating dividends in lieu of taxes? When the tax code was in balance and worked during a time of prosperity, what was needed as an economic stimulant was not less taxes, but target spending with a limited expenditure - unlike a tax cut which permanently impacts.
The Republicans advocate low taxes because they feel that the American people should be able to keep more of their money because that builds jobs, encourages investment and risktaking and stimulates the economy. The Democrats on the other hand want to oppressively tax the people in order to pay for their socialist, Big Brother government.
>>> Its sort of like those (yes, Democrats) who talk on jobs, forgetting that The Fed has a huge say in job creation, because a very low unemployment rate puts upward pressure on wages and thus creates a potential for inflation.
The Fed doesn’t create jobs, the private sector does. What the Fed can do is to create an oppressive environment where business has to increase their prices, downsize or relocate in order to maintain profits…all of which hurt “main street.”
>>> On the bail out... better to do this than to find there is no longer a world economy.
Shy of a nuclear winter, there will always be a world economy.
>>> I'd bet anything the deficit is more likely to improve under Obama. The right would never touch defence spending, but Obama just might.
Obama is a fool. His spending will increase the deficit and his weedwacker philosophy towards the military, like his foolish Democrat predecessors, only serves to weaken the country, hurt national security, and strengthen out enemies.
>>> I see the socialist word and the phrase 'income redistribution.' What was the tax cut?
Um…it was a tax cut?
>>> We pay taxes based on our ability to pay.
That’s strange…we don’t parcel out food, or gas or healthcare that way.
>>> There is a certain standard amount of expenditures for each of us to live at a basic level. If you factor that into the tax equation, the amount left after taxes is far lower for lower income folks... there is more expendible income at higher incomes, a better ability to pay, and justified for all the reasons I stated in above.
Justified in YOUR mind that someone who works for their money somehow deserves to have the government take it and give it to someone who doesn’t. It’s all good until the government comes knocking on your door.
>>> McCain was all for deregulation until 2005.
Sorry, I don't swallow propaganda.
Obviously you don't swallow the truth either. Interesting, you call a video showing McCain saying he's against government regulation, propaganda?! That's beyond belief! If you don't believe seeing McCain actually saying
Rose
>>> LOL! Naw, it won't be Hillary, it'll be racist nut-bags like the meth-heads in Denver, or the freaking KLAN (no kidding!), who showed up at the Ole Miss debate to pass out flyers for McCain and against....well....everyone, essentially. Or possibly the Black Helicopter wackos that Sarah Palin's friends with. Look for those sorts of folk to be the ones on the other end of the gun, if President Obama is assassinated, not Hillary.
Were they saying things like...
I'm curious: What color/religion are you? Is there any chance you could be an anti-Muslim Hindu who's been brainwashed to believe Obama is a Muslim? If so, please ship your prejudices back home--we don't need them in the United States of America.
Boy, that's pretty racist.
< I won't have as many lib arguments to destroy.
>>> Um...*cough*...we're still waiting for you TO destroy one. Everyone's pulling for you, truly. You've been trying for ages, and we all know you really, REALLY WANT to destroy one. Someday, perhaps you will. Maybe. Possibly.
Look around, you can see the scores of smoldering ruins of your weenie arguments and the arguments of so many of your ilk. You can tell how dead they are because their owners just left them in sad piles of rubble and just walked away...unable to defend them any more. LOL!
>>> Oh, and? Bookmark. (man, my list of b****-slap links for November 5 is getting LONG! ;o)
It's nice to see you've found enough value in my posts to save them. Personally, I haven't found anything you've said, under any of your many, many names, that has been worth noting let alone preserving. But if I ever do, all I have to do is sift through the smoldering ruins and try to reconstruct the drivel from the shards and scraps that are left. LOL!
>>> Are you STILL under the impression that I was ivebeenaroundtheblock, or iveseenitall, or those names?
LOL!... Larspalinincomparisonterrydactyltakeastandiveseenitallivbeenaroundthebloicuriousonecounselarwhatup2005pamelarsimpsonBullwinkletonameafewLOL!
>>> I will repeat, I have never posted here under more than one name at a time.
Oh...ok...I believe you. ; )
Larspalinincomparisonterrydactyltakeastandiveseenitallivbeenaroundthebloicuriousonecounselarwhatup2005pamelarsimpsonBullwinkletonameafewLOL!
I wish you could
>>> So I guess I understand now - and I'm paraphrasing - its the old "we're right and you're wrong" song and dance, kind of thought that anyway.
I guess it's not surprising that someone who prefers predigested slogans and talking points to facts, could take a rather lengthy exchange and boil it down to something as inane as "we're right and you're wrong." Thanks for chiming in.
>>> That's cool, just so we know what kind of kookies to swallow with our kool-aid.
I thought all you kids chowed down on Mrs. Left-Fields?
Pages