What a...

[thevic24 5,000+ posts]

I'm not arguing that that it's not a part of our debt/deficit/budget. I'm arguing that it's not a significant part of our debt/deficit/budget. Audioholic thinks removing waste should be our #1 priority before eliminating the massive tax cuts the rich have had over the past 30 years which is the largest driver of our enormous debt. I think, while waste is definitely a problem that should be addressed, it is not our biggest problem.
Right now, our biggest problem is the economy and people unemployed. To solve that we need jobs programs like Obama is trying to get passed right now. After that, we need to worry about our huge deficits. To do that, we need to stop giving the richest people in our country (the top 1.5%) a free ride in solving our debt problem. Republicans want to put the burden of ALL the debt, ALL the 14 trillion dollars that we've given the rich over the past 30 years (to zero benefit to our economy, unlike what was promised) on the people who can afford it the least, the middle class and the poor. I, like the Democrats and the majority of the country, want to make the rich pay their fair share once again.

Tell me, what is so bad about what I just said? What is so wrong?

And the education thing is mostly pointed at audioholic, whose argument basically amounts to "you're in college, that means you're wrong".

Fair enough.

Though, $30 billion (from the above quoted list of proven wasteful spending) is still a rather large chunk of change.(And more can be found)

In any case, increasing the tax rate on the top 1.5% will still not even make up the above $30 billion.

So what would be a good % for the top 1.5?

50%, 75%......Even for the uber rich, paying 50 cents or even 75 cents for every dollar they make dose not sound to good.

These top 1.5% ers could just do like some of the big corporations do now and just move out of the country with their $$$$.

While they would no longer be making $$$, we(the country ) would no longer have them either.

How about a flat, across the board income and sales tax? Say 35% income and....12% sales tax(just throwing out numbers...) for everyone?

I fully understand "fair share" but what is a fair share? For me, fair would be even Steven across the board.

And one other thing, you seem to be putting the blame for everything on the Repubes.......

Iam neither a repube or democrap but they both have their fair share of BS. They both have some good ideas as well once you cut through all of that BS.

There is no way to pin more blame on one side or the other, to do so is just being straight blind to what is happening in the real world.

3 years ago, I was making somewhere in the 50 grand a year. I still work for the same company now, have been promoted nicely and make a nice lower 100k (the last 2 years). My tax bracket went up some...why? Because I decided to try and better my self and my family?

Obviously Iam not rich by any means but I do have a comfortable life style, pay all of my bills(on time-lol) and have some nice things but this is just how I see this tax issue from my eyes and with what I have.

Things do need to change. Getting ready to sell my house in Fl.....had to pay taxes out the ass to buy it and now will have to do the same to sell it....

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

And holic, I'll give you proof that waste isn't a significant portion of our budget when you prove to me that there isn't a giant invisible flying spaghetti monster in the sky.
Apart from that, if you want to have a real debate about ideology, tell me where I'm wrong:

Ah yes, the old hold your answers ransom until I get even more specific with my answers game. Not surprising. I guess this is the part where I use your own tactics and say you are 'afraid' to address my point. Ive listed many many govt spending wastes, specifically, with links to verify the information. You have provided... nothing but your opinion. As Ive said before, Im not playing your games, and this discussion isn't controlled by you. Man up and address all those spensing wastes, and admit they add up to A LOT more than a "few billion", or realize you are too petty and scared to admit you are wrong.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

I can't prove a negative, nor do I have to. I can't prove something isn't there.

Nice try. You claim govt spending waste only adds up to a "few billion". That's not a negative, that's your opinion, and it flies in the face of facts that I and others have posted here. So you can keep claiming you have no burden to prove your opinion, but myself and others see right through your BS.

To use your (stupid) spaghetti monster analogy, proof of the spaghetti monster has been shown here, in the form of lists, links, and facts. You have been presented with pics of your fabled spaghetti monster, and your response is "it still doesnt exist, and I dont have to prove it because you cant prove something doesnt exist". It must feel good to think you are making arguments you never have to prove.

 

[audiolife 5,000+ posts]

Simple fact that "30 billion is chump change" is laughable....that is almost enough in "chump change" to save the leftist utopia of California which is headed right down the magical path liberal policies create....no jobs and a high cost of living...

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

I'm not arguing that that it's not a part of our debt/deficit/budget. I'm arguing that it's not a significant part of our debt/deficit/budget. Audioholic thinks removing waste should be our #1 priority before eliminating the massive tax cuts the rich have had over the past 30 years which is the largest driver of our enormous debt. I think, while waste is definitely a problem that should be addressed, it is not our biggest problem.
Right now, our biggest problem is the economy and people unemployed. To solve that we need jobs programs like Obama is trying to get passed right now. After that, we need to worry about our huge deficits. To do that, we need to stop giving the richest people in our country (the top 1.5%) a free ride in solving our debt problem. Republicans want to put the burden of ALL the debt, ALL the 14 trillion dollars that we've given the rich over the past 30 years (to zero benefit to our economy, unlike what was promised) on the people who can afford it the least, the middle class and the poor. I, like the Democrats and the majority of the country, want to make the rich pay their fair share once again.

Tell me, what is so bad about what I just said? What is so wrong?

And the education thing is mostly pointed at audioholic, whose argument basically amounts to "you're in college, that means you're wrong".

Let me point out the extremism in your opinions...

"need to stop giving the richest people in our country (the top 1.5%) a free ride"

"Republicans want to put the burden of ALL the debt, ALL the 14 trillion dollars that we've given the rich over the past 30 years (to zero benefit to our economy, unlike what was promised) on the people who can afford it the least, the middle class and the poor."

The rich dont have a "free ride", they pay taxes too. You just feel they dont pay enough taxes. But you argue as if they pay NO taxes (FREE ride).

And the even more obvious one, that Republicans want to put "ALL" the burden on the middle class and poor. Again, the rich pay taxes, just not the rate at which you think is fair.

This is the type of attitude and responses from you that make you an "extremist". Its this dishonesty in your replies that makes you impossible to have a reasonable discussion with. Clearly you know the rich pay taxes, but you portray it as if they do not, and portray the situation as if the Republicans alone have caused, and perpetuate, the problems we now face. This is exactly why I say you are duped by your party's propaganda. I fail to understand why you cannot see this most obvious bias that you continually display.

As for the final line of your reply, again you misinterpret my words to portray them as extreme (dishonesty on your part). No, my argument doesnt "basically amount to" you are in college so you know nothing, my argument amounts to when you portray my personal experience with over spending as insignificant because of the dollar value, its only fair for me to say that my one (low dollar) example is still one more personal experience than you yourself have. Also worth noting (again), my one personal example is only one of many many examples I have offered, facts, that you are too scared to address, which is why you play your game of holding your response to it hostage until I jump through yet another of your never-ending intellectual hoops. Im not saying you are a chickenshit, Im just saying its "not a stretch" to say you are a chickenshit who only wants to play this debate-game when the game follows your rules alone.

 

[Proximity 10+ year member]

Ah yes, the old hold your answers ransom until I get even more specific with my answers game. Not surprising. I guess this is the part where I use your own tactics and say you are 'afraid' to address my point. Ive listed many many govt spending wastes, specifically, with links to verify the information. You have provided... nothing but your opinion. As Ive said before, Im not playing your games, and this discussion isn't controlled by you. Man up and address all those spensing wastes, and admit they add up to A LOT more than a "few billion", or realize you are too petty and scared to admit you are wrong.

No, it's not that game at all. I'm making a point. Are you that stupid that you can't see that? It's not like I'm actually waiting for you to prove there isn't a IFSM. I've made my argument, but it's falling on deaf ears. You want me to prove waste isn't there, and that's impossible, unless you want me to go over every dollar spent my the federal government. You've shown me spaghetti, not an invisible flying spaghetti monster. I'm simply acknowledging that we aren't getting anywhere, and never will, because you keep on insisting that I prove a negative, and I can't do that.

 

[Proximity 10+ year member]

"need to stop giving the richest people in our country (the top 1.5%) a free ride"

More radical idiocy from you. Nice job taking that quote of of context. I didn't say a free ride in general you fucking. jackass. I said IN SOLVING OUR DEBT CRISIS. Republicans won't raise taxes on the rich a SINGLE fucking penny to solve it. They want only to raise taxes on the poor (the 50% of people who don't pay a net income tax that right loves to harp about) and cut spending that benefits EVERYONE but the rich. They want to place ALL of the burden on the middle class and poor. This is a fact you can't argue against. It's what they fucking want, dude. You just don't want to admit it because you KNOW it makes the Republicans look like shit and the Democrats look good. But you can't accept that because it doesn't fit into your "dur both sides are bad it's just a magical partisan theater" narrative.

 

"Republicans want to put the burden of ALL the debt, ALL the 14 trillion dollars that we've given the rich over the past 30 years (to zero benefit to our economy, unlike what was promised) on the people who can afford it the least, the middle class and the poor." 

The rich dont have a "free ride", they pay taxes too. You just feel they dont pay enough taxes. But you argue as if they pay NO taxes (FREE ride).

 

And the even more obvious one, that Republicans want to put "ALL" the burden on the middle class and poor. Again, the rich pay taxes, just not the rate at which you think is fair.

 

Again, you're a fucking jackass, this is not what I'm saying AT ALL. I'm talking about SOLVING THE DEBT CRISIS. I am so sick of your god damn bullshit. Maybe you really are just too stupid to understand the things I say.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

Fair enough.
Though, $30 billion (from the above quoted list of proven wasteful spending) is still a rather large chunk of change.(And more can be found)

In any case, increasing the tax rate on the top 1.5% will still not even make up the above $30 billion.

So what would be a good % for the top 1.5?

50%, 75%......Even for the uber rich, paying 50 cents or even 75 cents for every dollar they make dose not sound to good.

These top 1.5% ers could just do like some of the big corporations do now and just move out of the country with their $$$$.

While they would no longer be making $$$, we(the country ) would no longer have them either.

How about a flat, across the board income and sales tax? Say 35% income and....12% sales tax(just throwing out numbers...) for everyone?

I fully understand "fair share" but what is a fair share? For me, fair would be even Steven across the board.

And one other thing, you seem to be putting the blame for everything on the Repubes.......

Iam neither a repube or democrap but they both have their fair share of BS. They both have some good ideas as well once you cut through all of that BS.

There is no way to pin more blame on one side or the other, to do so is just being straight blind to what is happening in the real world.

3 years ago, I was making somewhere in the 50 grand a year. I still work for the same company now, have been promoted nicely and make a nice lower 100k (the last 2 years). My tax bracket went up some...why? Because I decided to try and better my self and my family?

Obviously Iam not rich by any means but I do have a comfortable life style, pay all of my bills(on time-lol) and have some nice things but this is just how I see this tax issue from my eyes and with what I have.

Things do need to change. Getting ready to sell my house in Fl.....had to pay taxes out the ass to buy it and now will have to do the same to sell it....

I can answer that for you. In a previous discussion with him, he suggested we go back to the 90% tax rate we once had, on that elite rich. Think about that for a while, soak it up... 90%. Sure, with the scaling tax rates, that 90% is only once their income reaches levels that surpass the 'middle class', but this only goes to show that Prox wants a socialist economy where the system works to keep people all at the same (or very close) level in terms of personal wealth. He is a socialist in a capitalist's clothing.

I have agreed with him in the past (which he obviously forgets) that I feel the tax rate should be modified, but that a 90% tax rate is unfair by any stretch of the imagination. What IS a fair rate? I dont know, that's a vast topic. But as Ive said many times in the past, getting away from an income tax based systm, and moving to a flat sales tax based system, makes a lot more sense. But our politicians dont want a flat sales tax, because the system we have now is so complex that it is much easier to manipulate it, on the fly, to keep the govt's revenue where they want it, and using class warfare as a fuel source to power that propaganda machine.

 

[cyn 10+ year member]

I am no longer participating in this thread, dumbassness FTW to much uneducated and lack of true real world knowledge makes this thread an EPIC fail of arguing.

/thread

PS>.. Proximity I am referring to you on all the points listed above... Thank You for showing that if you dumb down people enough they will believe anything the government or powers at be say.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

No, it's not that game at all. I'm making a point. Are you that stupid that you can't see that? It's not like I'm actually waiting for you to prove there isn't a IFSM. I've made my argument, but it's falling on deaf ears. You want me to prove waste isn't there, and that's impossible, unless you want me to go over every dollar spent my the federal government. You've shown me spaghetti, not an invisible flying spaghetti monster. I'm simply acknowledging that we aren't getting anywhere, and never will, because you keep on insisting that I prove a negative, and I can't do that.

Its funny you call me stupid, and then fail to understand the point Im making. A "few billion" is not a negative, it is your opinion of what govt spending waste amounts to. So let me ask more bluntly, is a "few billion" a negative that is impossible to prove? Think real hard, and if you still dont know, go ask your economics professor in the morning.

You want me to prove waste isn't there, and that's impossible, unless you want me to go over every dollar spent my the federal government.

Oh, so you are unwilling to, or find it impossible to, go over "every dollar spent my the federal government" to prove waste is only a "few billion". I'll remember this reply the next time you demand I give you a figure that represents what I think federal spending waste amounts to. Mark my words on it. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

 

[Proximity 10+ year member]

I can answer that for you. In a previous discussion with him, he suggested we go back to the 90% tax rate we once had, on that elite rich. Think about that for a while, soak it up... 90%. Sure, with the scaling tax rates, that 90% is only once their income reaches levels that surpass the 'middle class', but this only goes to show that Prox wants a socialist economy where the system works to keep people all at the same (or very close) level in terms of personal wealth. He is a socialist in a capitalist's clothing.

This is just more complete, unequivocal bullshit and lies from you. Never once have I said were should go back to the 90% tax rates we once had, and certainly not on only what surpasses the a middle class income.

And, another shining example now, of arguing over what I have said.

 

[Proximity 10+ year member]

getting away from an income tax based systm, and moving to a flat sales tax based system, makes a lot more sense.

...if you only care about the rich.

 

---------- Post added at 12:14 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:14 AM ----------

 

I am no longer participating in this thread

Thank you.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

More radical idiocy from you. Nice job taking that quote of of context. I didn't say a free ride in general you fucking. jackass. I said IN SOLVING OUR DEBT CRISIS. Republicans won't raise taxes on the rich a SINGLE fucking penny to solve it. They want only to raise taxes on the poor (the 50% of people who don't pay a net income tax that right loves to harp about) and cut spending that benefits EVERYONE but the rich. They want to place ALL of the burden on the middle class and poor. This is a fact you can't argue against. It's what they fucking want, dude. You just don't want to admit it because you KNOW it makes the Republicans look like shit and the Democrats look good. But you can't accept that because it doesn't fit into your "dur both sides are bad it's just a magical partisan theater" narrative. 

 

 

Again, you're a fucking jackass, this is not what I'm saying AT ALL. I'm talking about SOLVING THE DEBT CRISIS. I am so sick of your god damn bullshit. Maybe you really are just too stupid to understand the things I say.

Again someone is getting a bit emotional here. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif I'll remember the name calling when you come back around to claiming Im the one who wont allow us to have an "adult" conversation. lol

As for I want the republicans to not look bad, its funny how in one sentence you claim Im afraid of making republicans look bad, and in another sentence you discuss how I feel both sides are part of the problem.

If anyone here doesnt want to admit something, its the guy who pulled the number "a few billion" out of his posterior region, claims he has no burden to prove it, and continues to ignore facts that have been presented (in the form of lists and links) that prove otherwise. *grin* You know Im not going to drop that point, so the longer you avoid it, the worse your argument is going to look. You fail to realize that if you would just man up and admit your super human common sense doesnt have all the answers, and that *gasp* you have said something erroneous, you might gain some small respect from people reading this. But yo0ur ego wont allow you to admit you are wrong, about anything. *still grinning*

 

[cyn 10+ year member]

NO MORE TAXES.... Lets remove taxes from everything and make the Government have Bake Sales to support itself... Brownies and Cookies for sale to other Countries and Governments...

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

This is just more complete, unequivocal bullshit and lies from you. Never once have I said were should go back to the 90% tax rates we once had, and certainly not on only what surpasses the a middle class income.
And, another shining example now, of arguing over what I have said.

Sure you haven't. This is why arguing against you becomes boring. You say things, and then later claim you didn't. I get bored trying to use the lousy search function here to find where you did say it. But that pathetic tactic didn't work this time Prox...

Then that is where we disagree.
(Although you're using an extreme example, obviously 99% percent of all wages wouldn't be "right", but 90% of all income over a million dollars? **** yes)

Want to lie to us some more? //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif