Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2011 13:15:25 GMT -8
the fact of the matter is without the wars, the recession and the tax cuts, THERE WOULD BE NO DEFICIT. You cannot dispute that fact. I could provide literally dozens of citations, but it will do me no good. Republicans do not want to balance the budget, they want people that they think are freeloaders to become economically self sufficient, even if it kills them. If they had wanted to balance the budget, they would not have done what they did when Bush was in office. Republicans have an agenda and it is not the deficit. All very well put. I've said pretty much the same thing to my lifelong Republican father-in-law several times but his argument keeps coming back to the welfare system. He's not a rich man but he's never collected welfare and it just infuriates him that anybody is allowed to. Of course, he refuses to acknowledge that there are many in society with disabilities that prevent them from successfully fending for themselves. He also fails to acknowledge that people have to live somehow and if society doesn't provide for them via welfare, they're either going to commit crimes to survive or be out of the street. Either way, they're still going to cost society through costs to the criminal justice system or the mental health system. Oh and to think that philanthropic organizations can care for all of them is the height of naivete if not the height of stupidity.
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on May 21, 2011 18:06:07 GMT -8
Why are really rich people moving out of New York and California? It is happening and Florida and Texas are destinations. Why is that? You failed to read all that I said about taxes on corporations. Were you one of those like those Hollywood types who said they would move to Canada if Bush was elected and then did not follow through? We could make the tax code a lot simpler and fairer by getting rid of most all deductions and going to a flat rate or maybe three simple tiers at the most. The established corporate tax rates have little to do with the effective amount they pay. You are oversimplifying a complex process, a process corporations use to astonishing success, with a discussion about the arbitrary figure of 35%. Corporations are not overtaxed. I understand better than you, my friend. They seem to like it here just fine. I would ask you to think about why they do not follow up on all this angst about taxation, by moving out, but never mind. I could explain what I mean about the rich paying too little and the absurdity of "trickle down", but you would not listen to me, anyway. You refuse to acknowledge that the groups you support are already at an overwhelming advantage. I cannot debate with a wall. I cannot debate with a wall. So my stubborn friend, I'll let a rich guy tell you what I think: ". . .But I think that people at the high end - people like myself - should be paying a lot more in taxes. We have it better than we've ever had it." Warren Buffet--rich guy Read more: www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/w/warren_buffett.html#ixzz1N0pBU1XA"The rich are always going to say that, you know, just give us more money and we'll go out and spend more and then it will all trickle down to the rest of you. But that has not worked the last 10 years, and I hope the American public is catching on." Warren Buffet--Rich guy Read more: www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/w/warren_buffett_2.html#ixzz1N0pWt0m1From: www.brainyquote.com/All this, of course, will not change your mind. But, the fact of the matter is without the wars, the recession and the tax cuts, THERE WOULD BE NO DEFICIT. You cannot dispute that fact. I could provide literally dozens of citations, but it will do me no good. Republicans do not want to balance the budget, they want people that they think are freeloaders to become economically self sufficient, even if it kills them. If they had wanted to balance the budget, they would not have done what they did when Bush was in office. Republicans have an agenda and it is not the deficit. I get the part about the wall, but on repeatedly going into this subject and even agreeing in part to what you say, you still do not understand the picture. I think there is a wall in this exchange, but it is not who I see shaving ever morning. If Warren Buffett really thinks that way he should stop paying his army of tax lawyers to arrange his affairs so he pays a lessor rate than his housekeeper. He could also just write a check to the treasury. Don't tell me about the complexities when I told you that all that could be eliminated just with a simple tax code. You can not possibly be that naive or hard headed or you would see just how wrong you are.
|
|
|
Post by inevitec on May 22, 2011 6:04:36 GMT -8
The established corporate tax rates have little to do with the effective amount they pay. You are oversimplifying a complex process, a process corporations use to astonishing success, with a discussion about the arbitrary figure of 35%. Corporations are not overtaxed. I understand better than you, my friend. They seem to like it here just fine. I would ask you to think about why they do not follow up on all this angst about taxation, by moving out, but never mind. I could explain what I mean about the rich paying too little and the absurdity of "trickle down", but you would not listen to me, anyway. You refuse to acknowledge that the groups you support are already at an overwhelming advantage. I cannot debate with a wall. I cannot debate with a wall. So my stubborn friend, I'll let a rich guy tell you what I think: ". . .But I think that people at the high end - people like myself - should be paying a lot more in taxes. We have it better than we've ever had it." Warren Buffet--rich guy Read more: www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/w/warren_buffett.html#ixzz1N0pBU1XA"The rich are always going to say that, you know, just give us more money and we'll go out and spend more and then it will all trickle down to the rest of you. But that has not worked the last 10 years, and I hope the American public is catching on." Warren Buffet--Rich guy Read more: www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/w/warren_buffett_2.html#ixzz1N0pWt0m1From: www.brainyquote.com/All this, of course, will not change your mind. But, the fact of the matter is without the wars, the recession and the tax cuts, THERE WOULD BE NO DEFICIT. You cannot dispute that fact. I could provide literally dozens of citations, but it will do me no good. Republicans do not want to balance the budget, they want people that they think are freeloaders to become economically self sufficient, even if it kills them. If they had wanted to balance the budget, they would not have done what they did when Bush was in office. Republicans have an agenda and it is not the deficit. I get the part about the wall, but on repeatedly going into this subject and even agreeing in part to what you say, you still do not understand the picture. I think there is a wall in this exchange, but it is not who I see shaving ever morning. If Warren Buffett really thinks that way he should stop paying his army of tax lawyers to arrange his affairs so he pays a lessor rate than his housekeeper. He could also just write a check to the treasury. Don't tell me about the complexities when I told you that all that could be eliminated just with a simple tax code. You can not possibly be that naive or hard headed or you would see just how wrong you are. Win, I am glad you liked my wall metaphor. I work hard to write florid prose. ;D I agree that the code is too complicated. But, Republicans are not looking for just simplicity, my friend. They are looking to eviscerate the amount of money coming into the government. They are looking to deprive the government of necessary funds to do things which must be done in order to reduce the tax burden of people who do not need that help. And I really do understand tax law and I understand its complexity.
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on May 22, 2011 6:51:55 GMT -8
I get the part about the wall, but on repeatedly going into this subject and even agreeing in part to what you say, you still do not understand the picture. I think there is a wall in this exchange, but it is not who I see shaving ever morning. If Warren Buffett really thinks that way he should stop paying his army of tax lawyers to arrange his affairs so he pays a lessor rate than his housekeeper. He could also just write a check to the treasury. Don't tell me about the complexities when I told you that all that could be eliminated just with a simple tax code. You can not possibly be that naive or hard headed or you would see just how wrong you are. Win, I am glad you liked my wall metaphor. I work hard to write florid prose. ;D I agree that the code is too complicated. But, Republicans are not looking for just simplicity, my friend. They are looking to eviscerate the amount of money coming into the government. They are looking to deprive the government of necessary funds to do things which must be done in order to reduce the tax burden of people who do not need that help. And I really do understand tax law and I understand its complexity. I disagree with your basic premise. I would argue that Republicans are more than willing to be taxed at a rate that will fully support a reasonably sized government that performs mostly the legitimate functions of that government. They do not support huge bureaucracies that add no value to our country. Two examples would be the Dept of Energy and the Dept of Education. There may be some value in some of the functions that those two Depts perform, but they could be shifted to more responsible and appropriate offices.
|
|
|
Post by inevitec on May 22, 2011 7:44:25 GMT -8
Win, I am glad you liked my wall metaphor. I work hard to write florid prose. ;D I agree that the code is too complicated. But, Republicans are not looking for just simplicity, my friend. They are looking to eviscerate the amount of money coming into the government. They are looking to deprive the government of necessary funds to do things which must be done in order to reduce the tax burden of people who do not need that help. And I really do understand tax law and I understand its complexity. I disagree with your basic premise. I would argue that Republicans are more than willing to be taxed at a rate that will fully support a reasonably sized government that performs mostly the legitimate functions of that government. They do not support huge bureaucracies that add no value to our country. Two examples would be the Dept of Energy and the Dept of Education. There may be some value in some of the functions that those two Depts perform, but they could be shifted to more responsible and appropriate offices. Win, first of all I must separate you from the people I am aiming my distrust toward. When Newt Gingrich agrees with me (Right wing GOP social engineering) then you know Republicans are not looking for a reasonably sized government. They are looking to eviscerate it. I give you Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor, Grover Norquist, et al. ( I do not include the Bachmanns, the Palins and the Limbaughs, because they are playing a game for their own aggrandizement and make little objective sense to anyone but their crazies.). The Republican agenda is to make it easy for the already powerful to gain total control. Since government's role is to empower all citizens, a vibrant government is inimical to their goals.
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on May 22, 2011 8:28:03 GMT -8
I disagree with your basic premise. I would argue that Republicans are more than willing to be taxed at a rate that will fully support a reasonably sized government that performs mostly the legitimate functions of that government. They do not support huge bureaucracies that add no value to our country. Two examples would be the Dept of Energy and the Dept of Education. There may be some value in some of the functions that those two Depts perform, but they could be shifted to more responsible and appropriate offices. Win, first of all I must separate you from the people I am aiming my distrust toward. When Newt Gingrich agrees with me (Right wing GOP social engineering) then you know Republicans are not looking for a reasonably sized government. They are looking to eviscerate it. I give you Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor, Grover Norquist, et al. ( I do not include the Bachmanns, the Palins and the Limbaughs, because they are playing a game for their own aggrandizement and make little objective sense to anyone but their crazies.). The Republican agenda is to make it easy for the already powerful to gain total control. Since government's role is to empower all citizens, a vibrant government is inimical to their goals. I have to laugh when I step back and look at this kind of argument. If and when you think that people like Cantor, Ryan, and such are any more off the chart to the right than Reid, Pelosi and their merry band of lefties, you are indeed delusional. Those folks seem to have such a low view of their constituents that they feel compelled to rob the productive members of society to support their voters. I would be interested to hear if a "vibrant government" would be how you describe a government that performs the legitimate functions laid out in the Constitution without frills or waste. I consider myself a Conservative rather than a Republican. It some times is uncomfortable to defend Republicans when they are nearly as screwball as Democrats. It is sort of like sticking up for and comparing a Bernie Madolf to Osama. Both are horrible, but in very different ways.
|
|