What a...

[Proximity 10+ year member]

You still have yet to "have time" to add up all my sources, but you've had time to add up all your increased revenue from the higher tax rates you want, make your nice little charts, spend another day arguing YOUR opinion, etc. Kind of ironic and hypocritical, huh?

I had excel sheets made up that did that for me a long time ago. It took me 10 minutes to do that stuff.

I already explained how your view on a flat tax is wrong, its funny you have chosen to completely ignore that point. So let me spell it out for you again. The rich have more money, therefore spend more money. With a flat sales tax, the people who spend the most, pay the most taxes. So you can claim it will make the middle class "disappear", but you offer zero corroborating evidence to suggest how or why.

To retain the same amount of revenue, then a huge sales tax is going to have to be created. It WILL shift more burden onto the poor and middle classes (or else why would you, or any conservative, be in favor of it?), it WILL reduce their spending ability and it WILL harm the economy.

You think because "millionaires" have more money than non-millionaires, they should automatically pay more taxes (higher rate, they already pay a higher dollar amount even with the reduced tax rate percentages). How is this not socialism? It is socialism, no matter how much you want to deny it.

It is socialism. When have I ever denied it's socialism? Now you're just making bullshit up (again). How many times have I said socialism can be good...lol. Socialism created the middle class, I'm in favor of it. Not pure socialism, of course, because greed can be good and that is why capitalism is important as a base. But socialism is still necessary to protect the non-rich from it's the cruelty of pure, winner-take-all capitalism.

Selfishness veiled by the lie of wanting to be 'fair'.

Funny, that's exactly how I characterize your opinion. Either way though, your constant ad hominem attacks do nothing to prove me wrong.

Yet you expect more from them, simply because they are "millionaires". Again, complete selfishness on your part.

I expect more from them because taking proportionally more from the top 2% will benefit the other 98% of people. It is better for the economy. It is for the greater good. Instead of just attacking me personally, try proving that wrong. I've given you many opportunities to attack my positions factually, but you simply attack me and call me a hypocrite or jealous. Call me that all you want, it doesn't prove me wrong. The fact is money being spent by the poor or middle class is better than sitting in millionaires savings accounts or being spent on yachts or Lamborghinis.

That would make a lot more sense, if the rich aren't already paying taxes. They are. And while their percentage above $250 is lower than it use to be, they still pay more in pure dollars than do the poor.

Okay, no wonder you took my quote out of context. You have no idea what I'm talking about. We have pretty big deficits and a pretty big debt right now, correct? To change these things, to reduce the debt and deficit, something has to give. We need budget changes, either spending cuts, increasing taxes or a combination of both. These things will affect people. Republicans want to change things that affect the middle class and poor the most and for the worse, while not affecting the rich at all. Republicans want only spending cuts (or raising taxes on the poor..."broadening the tax base") and won't accept a single penny of raising taxes on the rich. Democrats realize the need to cut some spending, but they want to place most of the burden on the people who have benefited most from the huge debt and deficits.

help offset their over-spending.

You claim it is over spending only because we're spending more than we take in. So, being that we're only spending more than we take in because we're voluntarily taking in less, wouldn't taking in more end the over-spending problem?

Again, it comes down to this question: If one month you're making $1,500 and spending $1,400 and the next month you're making $1,300 and spending $1,450, do you have an income problem or an expenditure problem?

In the end, its the same shell game, albeit from opposing sides.

Yeah, except one side wants to shell a huge amount of people whose only shelter is a wooden shack in the desert, and the other side wants to shell a small amount of people who live in bomb shelters 60 feet below ground.

lol... Whether you now want to sidestep it or not, you claimed you "never" said it, I proved you did. Your ego just wont allow you to admit it, it only will allow you to dodge/duck/dip/dive/dodge, even though it makes you look worse than simply admitting you were wrong. Why am I not surprised.

You said I thought we SHOULD go back to 90% taxes on anyone who makes more than a middle class salary. So that's what, $100,000 a year? So according to you, I said we should have a 90% on income over $100,000 a year? That is a straight lie.

What I said is it would be fair to tax income over $1,000,000 dollars at a 90% rate. When there are almost 70 families who (barely) survive on that much money, it's fair. However, that really is extreme and even I'm not that crazy.

 

[Proximity 10+ year member]

Yet you refuse to learn about how money is created and how it really works.

Actually I've tried in the past to find good resources about the creation of money, but it's hard to find. If you have any suggestions, I'd love to listen. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

Notice, however, that you don't say why I'm wrong regarding the application of what you know so much more about than me, you just say I'm wrong. What makes me wrong? How does the creation of money make me wrong that economic strength is built from the bottom up? How does it make me wrong that socialism created the middle class? How does it make me wrong that the economy will be stronger if the middle class and poor own a larger share of wealth? How does it make me wrong that the creation of jobs must be driven by getting customers to spend more, rather than just the conservative solution of giving rich people as much money as possible?

Do you really think we have less government now than we did 20 years ago? What ******* planet are you from?

Government is doing less for the average person than it did before Reagan, and our economy is suffering because of it.

 

[hispls 5,000+ posts]

Actually I've tried in the past to find good resources about the creation of money, but it's hard to find. If you have any suggestions, I'd love to listen. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif
Notice, however, that you don't say why I'm wrong regarding the application of what you know so much more about than me, you just say I'm wrong. What makes me wrong? How does the creation of money make me wrong that economic strength is built from the bottom up? How does it make me wrong that socialism created the middle class? How does it make me wrong that the economy will be stronger if the middle class and poor own a larger share of wealth? How does it make me wrong that the creation of jobs must be driven by getting customers to spend more, rather than just the conservative solution of giving rich people as much money as possible?

Government is doing less for the average person than it did before Reagan, and our economy is suffering because of it.

I already told you. The book "secrets of the federal reserve" is very comprehensive and well doccumented. For the cliff-note version of most of that info, search youtube for "the money masters".

Economic boom and bust cycles are almost a pure function of money supply. A graduated income tax is the flip side of that which helps to hide the inflationary nature of fiat currency and also is used as a method of social control and engineering. That is why the central bank and graduated income tax are two of the planks of communism.

The main problem with communism in practice is it sets up an all powerful state which becomes more corrupt and bloated than the evil burgoise that it is instituted to "protect" the prolotariet against.

Beyond that, if you just gathered up all the money and property in existance and handed it out evenly to everyone, if still allow the same banking cartel the power to create money and control credit, things would quickly wind up the same way they are now.

Same scenario with an honest money system and it it would probably just take longer, but to a greater or lesser extent successful people would be successful, and people who **** away their money on crack, booze, ******, and scratch tickets will quickly be broke.

 

[audiolife 5,000+ posts]

Prox who has had more revenue coming in between Clinton and Bush?

 

[Proximity 10+ year member]

A graduated income tax is the flip side of that which helps to hide the inflationary nature of fiat currency and also is used as a method of social control and engineering. That is why the central bank and graduated income tax are two of the planks of communism.

I think a central bank and graduated income tax structure are two "planks" of communism because it falls under the philosophy of government involvement, not necessarily social control and engineering. That's just me playing devils advocate though, we're not talking about communism or pure socialism.

Same scenario with an honest money system and it it would probably just take longer, but to a greater or lesser extent successful people would be successful, and people who **** away their money on crack, booze, ******, and scratch tickets will quickly be broke.

Right. It's the people in the middle I'm worried about.

I've watched a few videos on youtube (and a little bit of the Zeitgeist series) but they usually only talk about one side of the coin, and that is the faults of the central banking system. They never go into why it was created and the problems it solved. It's incredibly one sided.

My concern isn't (only) about the faults of fiat currency but the faults of money backed by gold or silver. Surely neither system is perfect, but we've graduated off of it for a reason I expect. For example, it's my understanding that some inflation is good for the economy, and zero inflation is just as undesirable as too high inflation. Am I right or am I wrong that an expanding money supply is necessary, and a gold/silver stand would stifle the expansion of money, would it not?

 

[audiolife 5,000+ posts]

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

I had excel sheets made up that did that for me a long time ago. It took me 10 minutes to do that stuff.


To retain the same amount of revenue, then a huge sales tax is going to have to be created. It WILL shift more burden onto the poor and middle classes (or else why would you, or any conservative, be in favor of it?), it WILL reduce their spending ability and it WILL harm the economy.

It is socialism. When have I ever denied it's socialism? Now you're just making bullshit up (again). How many times have I said socialism can be good...lol. Socialism created the middle class, I'm in favor of it. Not pure socialism, of course, because greed can be good and that is why capitalism is important as a base. But socialism is still necessary to protect the non-rich from it's the cruelty of pure, winner-take-all capitalism.

Funny, that's exactly how I characterize your opinion. Either way though, your constant ad hominem attacks do nothing to prove me wrong.

I expect more from them because taking proportionally more from the top 2% will benefit the other 98% of people. It is better for the economy. It is for the greater good. Instead of just attacking me personally, try proving that wrong. I've given you many opportunities to attack my positions factually, but you simply attack me and call me a hypocrite or jealous. Call me that all you want, it doesn't prove me wrong. The fact is money being spent by the poor or middle class is better than sitting in millionaires savings accounts or being spent on yachts or Lamborghinis.

Okay, no wonder you took my quote out of context. You have no idea what I'm talking about. We have pretty big deficits and a pretty big debt right now, correct? To change these things, to reduce the debt and deficit, something has to give. We need budget changes, either spending cuts, increasing taxes or a combination of both. These things will affect people. Republicans want to change things that affect the middle class and poor the most and for the worse, while not affecting the rich at all. Republicans want only spending cuts (or raising taxes on the poor..."broadening the tax base") and won't accept a single penny of raising taxes on the rich. Democrats realize the need to cut some spending, but they want to place most of the burden on the people who have benefited most from the huge debt and deficits.

You claim it is over spending only because we're spending more than we take in. So, being that we're only spending more than we take in because we're voluntarily taking in less, wouldn't taking in more end the over-spending problem?

Again, it comes down to this question: If one month you're making $1,500 and spending $1,400 and the next month you're making $1,300 and spending $1,450, do you have an income problem or an expenditure problem?

Yeah, except one side wants to shell a huge amount of people whose only shelter is a wooden shack in the desert, and the other side wants to shell a small amount of people who live in bomb shelters 60 feet below ground.

You said I thought we SHOULD go back to 90% taxes on anyone who makes more than a middle class salary. So that's what, $100,000 a year? So according to you, I said we should have a 90% on income over $100,000 a year? That is a straight lie.

What I said is it would be fair to tax income over $1,000,000 dollars at a 90% rate. When there are almost 70 families who (barely) survive on that much money, it's fair. However, that really is extreme and even I'm not that crazy.

Only took you ten minutes huh? And how long did this reply take? And the other replies today? And all the ones yesterday? You claimed you were going to "add up" my figures yesterday. lol If you had the confidence your addition would prove your point (a "few billion" as you said), you would have done it by now. Instead you make a smart *** comment that you'll do it, dont do it, and a day and several replies later you apparently still dont have the time. It doesn't take a genius to see why you are stalling.

To retain the same amount of revenue, then a huge sales tax is going to have to be created. It WILL shift more burden onto the poor and middle classes (or else why would you, or any conservative, be in favor of it?), it WILL reduce their spending ability and it WILL harm the economy.

Oh, it "WILL" do any of those things? Says who, besides you and your super-human common sense? Not one link, not one fact, not even one explanation of why you THINK it will. Its replies like this that make me chuckle when you suggest my lists, links, and one personal example aren't specific enough for you.

My "ad hominem attack" was to call you selfish, after explaining why your attitude here displays personal selfishness. I find it ironic you characterize this remark as argumentative, when you spent yesterday calling me schoolyard names. lol

It is for the greater good.

You clearly base your entire perspective off of this notion, for the greater good. Taxing the top 49% of Americans, and distributing that to the bottom 51%, is for the greater good, so why not apply your logic fully? But you'll say you aren't asking to tax the top 49%, only the top 2%. 2% is a vast minority, so its easy to vote in favor of the majority here. Majority vote is always the morally right choice, right? Well the majority vote in this thread is that its not a stretch to say you are an idiot, I guess the majority is morally right? Just because the majority here votes you to be an idiot does not make it morally correct.

But more seriously, your logic of for the greater good, is the exact logic used for pure socialism. You cannot apply it simply where the majority benefits, or we would be pure socialism. If you cannot not apply it simply where the majority benefits, you have to chose where is fair to apply what measures should be made to benefit the majority. That is what we are discussing here, what is and is not fair to apply to 'benefit the majority'. So just saying your opinion is fair because its "for the greater good" is nothing more than your hollow feeling of being the morally right side of the argument. The rights of individuals must be considered here. Even if I believed you that you would agree to having half your 10 million dollars taxed away from you, that does not make it morally fair to apply your opinion to everyone who has a million dollars or more. Again your ego tricks you into believing your individual opinion of where we draw the line at fair is the moral center.

I knew exactly what you were talking about. But again, what you were talking about would only be relevant if the rich weren't already paying taxes, but they are. And they already more money towards the deficit than do the middle class and poor. But you want to ignore all existing taxes, and suggest if the rich dont pay more than they are now, they are contributing nothing towards the govt's deficit between spending and revenue. The "free ride".

You claim it is over spending only because we're spending more than we take in. So, being that we're only spending more than we take in because we're voluntarily taking in less, wouldn't taking in more end the over-spending problem?

Of course it would end it. But so would cutting spending. The reason its an over-spending problem is because they passed legislation to cut their revenue (the tax cuts) but did not pass legislation to cut their spending correspondingly. If you took a demotion at work with a pay cut, would you not reduce your spending to a level that accounted for your decreased income? If you didn't, you would have an over-spending problem. Especially since, as mine and others' lists, links and facts show, the govt has a real problem with spending money responsibly. And the list/links Im referring to are the ones from yesterday you conveniently 'still havent had time' to look over.

You said I thought we SHOULD go back to 90% taxes on anyone who makes more than a middle class salary. So that's what, $100,000 a year? So according to you, I said we should have a 90% on income over $100,000 a year? That is a straight lie.

I dont even have to counter you on this point, your own words will contradict you for me...

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.

But even I think 90% tax rates is crazy. But nowhere did I suggest we go back to it, like you said I did. Unfortunately, I'm sure this is too subtle a point for you to comprehend.

You "never" said it. Even you think 90% is "crazy". Nowhere did you suggest going back to it, like I said you did.

Oh wait...

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)

"Hell yes" is exactly what you said. You said it, Im quoting it directly here, with a link to go back and read it for yourself. But now you say it would be "crazy", "even you" wouldn't agree to that, and you "never" said it. Intellectual dishonesty is the nicest way to put what you are attempting to do here.

Yeah, except one side wants to shell a huge amount of people whose only shelter is a wooden shack in the desert, and the other side wants to shell a small amount of people who live in bomb shelters 60 feet below ground.

Shelling people in a bomb shelter? Not that kind of "shell". Wacky side note guys, Prox doesn't even seem to know what a "shell game" is.

 

[audiolife 5,000+ posts]

Tax rate is not revenue but a tax rate will effect revenue and usually in a negative way because it effects what people will do with their money. Bush lowered taxes and gained revenue, as it helped increase economic activity. You can claim it ****** but it more than likely would have ****** worse with a higher tax rate.

 

[05fronty 5,000+ posts]

libs can suck my sweaty sack!

 

[ColterDC 10+ year member]

And I thought the real political debates between the actual canidates were dumb and boring //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/rolleyes.gif.c1fef805e9d1464d377451cd5bc18bfb.gif

 

[hispls 5,000+ posts]

I think a central bank and graduated income tax structure are two "planks" of communism because it falls under the philosophy of government involvement, not necessarily social control and engineering. That's just me playing devils advocate though, we're not talking about communism or pure socialism.

Again, it serves to somewhat hide the inflationary nature of fiat currency and is a useful tool for social engineering. A communist state is totalitarian by nature and needs a lot of control mechanisms to enforce the status quo.

Right. It's the people in the middle I'm worried about.

The middle class is the most dangerous group to the establishment since they generally have enough education and leisure time to think about how bad they're being screwed.... Don't expect any establishment insider to go too far up to bat for them apart from the usual empty promises and rhetoric "if it wasn't for the democrats/rebublicans(chose your favorite) blocking our great plans I would have really squared things away for you"

I've watched a few videos on youtube (and a little bit of the Zeitgeist series) but they usually only talk about one side of the coin, and that is the faults of the central banking system. They never go into why it was created and the problems it solved. It's incredibly one sided.

My concern isn't (only) about the faults of fiat currency but the faults of money backed by gold or silver. Surely neither system is perfect, but we've graduated off of it for a reason I expect. For example, it's my understanding that some inflation is good for the economy, and zero inflation is just as undesirable as too high inflation. Am I right or am I wrong that an expanding money supply is necessary, and a gold/silver stand would stifle the expansion of money, would it not?

Zeitgeist only breifly touches the subject and it is rather over-simplified. Indeed there is an inherent problem with gold backed currency which is largely what allowed the banking cartels to create the great depression and offer their central bank as a solution. The problem being is that very few people control the lion's share of the gold in existance and can easily manipulate its value....which really ammounts to the same problem with fiat currency issued by private cartels.

Really a fiat currency needs to be backed by nothing whatsoever, but the key to having it actually benefit the people is that it should be regulated (money supply increased at a reasonable rate to allow sustainable growth... tracking GDP for example) by people who are accountable to the people. The US constitution gave CONGRESS the power to issue and regulate currency for that purpose. Their accounting could be audited and they could be voted out and replaced if things were mis-managed. Also to benefit the people it should not bear interest. That is the absolute key point. If our government can sell a 10,000$ bond to the "federal" reserve for 10,000$ that we the people need to pay back 11,000$ for later, why can't we just print 10,000$ in bills?

The only "problems" the central bank was instituted to address were caused by the global banking cartels that orchestrated the problems to begin with.

The whole thing is fraud on its face. If I have 100$ I can only loan you 100$, but if I'm a bank I can loan out 1000$. The game is the banks create money out of thin air and loan it out at interest which needs to be borrowed into existance in the future. Total financial slavery. This was discovered hundreds of years ago. Lend out gobs of inflated money against real assets, constrict the money supply, then gobble up all the real assets when there isn't enough currency circulating to pay back the debts and their interest. (a handful of families in the USA had their money out of the stock market and invested in gold IN EUROPE just before the stock market crash and gold confiscation). People with a serious inside track profit tremendously by even small plays.

In very simple terms, if I'm the only one who is allowed to own chickens and I loan you 3 eggs but you need to pay me back 4, the ONLY way you can ever pay me back is by borrowing more from me. This is the essence of who runs the show, calls the shots, owns the politicians, and pretty much own everything else.

Go ahead and watch the "Money Masters", I think you'll like the solution he presents at the end. If you want more details and sources, check the Eustace Mullins book. If you can really figure out something benevolent a privately controlled monopoly on the issuance of credit has accomplished (apart from consolidating most of the world's real wealth in a very very few hands) I'd be fascinated to hear your theory on that.

 

[thevic24 5,000+ posts]

libs can suck my sweaty sack!

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/eyebrow.gif.fe2c18d8720fe8c7eaed347b21ea05a5.gif

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

In very simple terms, if I'm the only one who is allowed to own chickens and I loan you 3 eggs but you need to pay me back 4, the ONLY way you can ever pay me back is by borrowing more from me. This is the essence of who runs the show, calls the shots, owns the politicians, and pretty much own everything else.

You have been a very valuable asset to this discussion. Thank you.

 

[Proximity 10+ year member]

Informative post, hispls. Except for this:

Don't expect any establishment insider to go too far up to bat for them apart from the usual empty promises and rhetoric "if it wasn't for the democrats/rebublicans(chose your favorite) blocking our great plans I would have really squared things away for you"

I can't help but that that if you really think no one is going to bat for the middle class, then you simply don't pay attention to politics (not meant to be an insult). Obama and the Democrats are going to bat for them when they won't let Republicans attack social security and medicare (which, basically, is daily). They went to bat for them when Republicans would have rather let the bush tax cuts expire for everyone instead of the just the rich. (In that even though they knew the country couldn't afford it, they passed extensions for the top 1.5% so the other 98.5% of people wouldn't see their taxes rise). They also went to bat for them when Obama included the payroll tax cut in the bush tax cuts extension. They went to bat when they passed historic healthcare legislation that, while it may not reduce costs immediately, at least forces health insurance companies, who would rather make enormous amounts of money than actually help people, to actually provide healthcare. Democrats are going to bat now in fighting for a debt-reduction solution that doesn't place the entire burden of debt reduction on the middle class, like the Republicans would prefer. Obama and the Democrats are going to bat now in trying to pass this jobs bill that Republicans so vehemently oppose.

Also, with respect, you never answered any of this. Do you actually think any of these things is actually wrong?

Notice, however, that you don't say why I'm wrong regarding the application of what you know so much more about than me, you just say I'm wrong. What makes me wrong? How does the creation of money make me wrong that economic strength is built from the bottom up? How does it make me wrong that socialism created the middle class? How does it make me wrong that the economy will be stronger if the middle class and poor own a larger share of wealth? How does it make me wrong that the creation of jobs must be driven by getting customers to spend more, rather than just the conservative solution of giving rich people as much money as possible?

People here are so quick to call me an idiot when I say these things and assume that proves I'm wrong because of their ability to say it, but no one has yet given a logical argument as to me actually being wrong about any of these points (including what I just said about Democrats going to bat).

Audioholic tried to a couple years ago (maybe a little less, something like that), but failed, resorted to attacking me personally, and now, as you can see, is completely hostile to me and won't provide a single logical argument, even though I give him constant opportunity.

 

[Proximity 10+ year member]

Wacky side note guys, Prox doesn't even seem to know what a "shell game" is.

Which obviously proves me wrong about all my economic points and opinions, right?

Either way, you get my point, and now you're dodging it completely in efforts to make me look bad, hoping that it somehow harms my argument, which it doesn't.

PS: It's not a side not if it's your only note. At this point a side note from you would be an actual argument.