Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="audioholic" data-source="post: 7930002" data-attributes="member: 549629">And this is why I rarely respond to your posts, you seem to think you are smart enough to talk your way out of any mistake you make. You post that chart all the time, and use it as your proof that &#039;history proves otherwise&#039; any time someone suggests that lower taxes would help stimulate economic growth by giving more money to business owners.And its comments like that you think Republicans want govt to play no role in the economy that makes me call you an extremist. Id agree with you if you were to say republicans&#039; argument tends to be muddled in vagueness (they want &#039;less govt&#039; or &#039;smaller govt&#039; involvement), but your extreme view only sees them as wanting govt to play no role what so ever. You claiming democrats are centered has no facts to back it up, merely your biased opinion, because you know there is no specific way to define what is a true central position to take. Ive told you before that I think you are a fairly smart guy, and I still do. Its just too bad you get so caught up in the liberal propaganda.As for fairness, how is it fair to say nobody needs that much money? You dont say how much money you think is too much. Nor do you even factor in that, generally speaking, the higher wage earners tend to have worked harder (either by taking bigger financial risks, or advancing their education to a higher degree) to get that larger paycheck. Again, their are two sides to this debate, your side (that people buying multiple ferrari&#039;s should instead pay out that money to people struggling to buy their first home), and the other side (people who work harder or take bigger risks are entitled to the compensation that earns them). You are an extremist because you completely ignore the other side&#039;s argument, we&#039;ve discussed this many times and your rebuttle always simply reverts back to your view, that rich people should support poor people more because they can afford to.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="audioholic, post: 7930002, member: 549629"] And this is why I rarely respond to your posts, you seem to think you are smart enough to talk your way out of any mistake you make. You post that chart all the time, and use it as your proof that 'history proves otherwise' any time someone suggests that lower taxes would help stimulate economic growth by giving more money to business owners. And its comments like that you think Republicans want govt to play no role in the economy that makes me call you an extremist. Id agree with you if you were to say republicans' argument tends to be muddled in vagueness (they want 'less govt' or 'smaller govt' involvement), but your extreme view only sees them as wanting govt to play no role what so ever. You claiming democrats are centered has no facts to back it up, merely your biased opinion, because you know there is no specific way to define what is a true central position to take. Ive told you before that I think you are a fairly smart guy, and I still do. Its just too bad you get so caught up in the liberal propaganda. As for fairness, how is it fair to say nobody needs that much money? You dont say how much money you think is too much. Nor do you even factor in that, generally speaking, the higher wage earners tend to have worked harder (either by taking bigger financial risks, or advancing their education to a higher degree) to get that larger paycheck. Again, their are two sides to this debate, your side (that people buying multiple ferrari's should instead pay out that money to people struggling to buy their first home), and the other side (people who work harder or take bigger risks are entitled to the compensation that earns them). You are an extremist because you completely ignore the other side's argument, we've discussed this many times and your rebuttle always simply reverts back to your view, that rich people should support poor people more because they can afford to. [/QUOTE]

Verification