Major typo on my part. $3-4 Trillion!

I would suggest the talking is from the supporters of a flat or fair tax who are never able to provide details on request, bit only offer unrealistic economic assumptions.

I don't buy that argument at all. Men wouldn't know they have erectile dysfunction? People wouldn't know they have arthritis or asthma?

Here's how that "problem" fixes itself -- healthcare reform that pays for primary care so people will be able to get annual exams at a minimum. Let doctors diagnose, not Joe Schmoe sitting on his couch deciding he must have restless leg syndrome.

Replace a portion of drug advertising with PSAs that encourage people to see their doctor. You missed the point of the linked story. That company didn't invent or create that drug. They hadn't even been manufacturing it. It was being done "on the side" by compounding pharmacies for $10 a pop. Then the government came in (with the support of March of Dimes, ftr) and assigned a drug company to start manufacturing that drug, prohibited the compounding pharmacies from doing it anymore, and the drug company, who had nothing whatsoever to do with developing that drug, jacked up the price to $1,500 a shot. How is that "free market"? How is that in any way, shape or form "fair"? Especially to the American taxpayer who's going to have to start picking up the $30 million dollar tab for this??

More later, but gotta run now. Hasta!

I honestly didn't even read the story. I was responding to your comment: "Let's start by doing away with granting exclusive patents for drugs"

The whole point of patents is that they are exclusive for a limited amount of time.

Are drugs expensive? Yes. Do drug companies gouge consumers? Yes. I'm not sure how to fix that. Stifling innovation isn't the best way. (Not that there's a tremendous amount f innovation going on in the drug industry today.)

Cool, and please tell us, exactly how much of that money has been let? 100%? 75%? 50%?

Great, dispute the assumptions. I mean since "every thing you have seen" and a number of major economies have failed at this attempt. Can you ID those countries and exactly how they failed compared to the proposals you have read?

Compare and contrast your observations. Thanks.

rut row..... Obama plan looks like it has not worked...

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Silver soared to an all-time high on Thursday and gold rose to another record, as a falling dollar and signs that the Federal Reserve would maintain a loose monetary policy boosted precious metals' appeal as a hedge against inflation and economic uncertainty.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Silver...&asset=&ccode=

And I can't agree with you. Using your site, and clicking the tab for where the highest stimulus spending occurred, we find this:

Looks like an incredible amount of educational and infrastructure grants to me, not so much "pet projects". And over 280,000 jobs created. I'm none too happy with the number of WS guys in the Obama cabinet, but it wasn't Obama who gave out bonuses, it was the bailed out businesses. And Obama's response was to rescind them. I'd like a cite for this, please. Suffice it to say, I don't agree with this contention, either. I don't like everything I see with this Administration, but I don't find them untrustworthy, and I see enormous improvement over the Bush years.

But yet you did not site or copy and paste the millions of dollars where no jobs were created. Why?

Really? BS, they got them and Obama hired them.

Really? An exponential increase in the deficit since 2009 and a downgrade in our credit rating? Really? What happens to us when the world drops the dollar and the source of the world's reserve currency?

There are no industrialized countries with a flat tax, after several EU countries gave it a look, because they found that converting from a progressive tax system to a flat tax redistributes wealth in favor of the top taxpayers and harms the middle class, not only because it is more regressive, but also because it also eliminates deductions that benefit the middle class (mortgage interest, health care costs, pension contributions, etc) and because the reliance on models of economic growth at levels that were unrealistic.

If you feel so strongly about the advantages of a flat tax, you should be able to post one that has been proposed that is not regressive, will not cost the middle class more than they are currently paying in taxes, and does not rely on phantom economic growth projections.

Its a bit disingenuous to say a flat tax is fairer and will better address the debt without demonstrating how that would happen.

Who gives a shit? How many shovel ready jobs were created at that time and how many exist today? Any clue? When the Stimulus money runs out who pays for it? Any clue? The states? The taxpayers are just suppose to pick up the slack? Are people not already being laid off as the Stimulus dollars fade away? Get a grip.

bull shit. that is not what you said....

Cite.

Cite.

If you want to defend a flat or fair tax, do it with a real example with real numbers and not some undefined economic theory like it will "trickle down" and create more jobs than ever.

That is all I am asking.

You say it would be better. Show me the money.

And all I am asking is that you defend your assertions. I will wait. Go!

Mercenary....you do that all the time.

You make a claim, wont defend it with facts or a real example and say prove me wrong.

Nope. You claim it would fairer and better. Provide an example that works.

No, you defend it. You are the one who made the claim. All I did was state what I thought would work. You stated that in your massive, but obviously weak experience, I mean since you really have no political connections, that, "In fact in the few highly industrialized countries where they were attempted, they failed miserably in meeting revenue projections.", and.... wait for it..... "I havent seen any flat or "fair" tax proposal where the numbers work or that is not highly regressive.".... so step up to the plate and back your assertions up with citations and facts. Thanks. I will wait for you.

You really are a trip! Always putting the burden on others who challenge your claims.

The only area of agreement between us is that a flat tax is simpler than the current system. Not better, not fairer, but only less complex.

I cant prove that it wont work. I can only say that I have not seen a proposal that would work and would not be regressive and cost middle class taxpayers more as well as eliminate current tax incentives that benefit middle class taxpayers - home ownership, retirement savings. etc.

If you know of one that works and doesnt have the downsides that I noted, we can discuss it.

Ok, got it. You can't dispute my statements. You have no citations. You can't prove it won't work. All I did was ask you to back up your statements. You can't discuss it because you still have not backed up your previous statements.

Good night.... loser.

Its been fun and more laughs. :)

I'll wait til the next time you say a flat tax would be better and ask you to demonstrate with a real example of how that would be the case.

I wont expect an answer, but will assume you will turn it back on me and demand that I prove it wont work.

Nice trick!

SO you can't prove your statements. Ok. I get it. Carry on.... You made the assertions. I quoted them. You can't back them up. Well done. Excuse me while I take something for the Cellar's Reflux.... :vomit: careful it is really HCL acid.

Still waiting..... :vomit:

When they (Mercenary) default to their defensive "I dont have to prove I am right or provide a cite, you have to prove I am wrong" mode, ignoring is ultimately where it ends. :D

I got it. You still can't back up your statements. Please cite.

What countries? Where? When? What failure?


Thanks.

Who is they? The Illuminati? The Republickins? The Zombies? The Boggie Men under your bed? I knowwwww! Fox News!!!!!

...

Does it take into account the elimination of the current loop holes?

Interesting report about the transparent Obama Administration....

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/...entry_id=87978

But yet I did. (Hint: there's a scroll bar on the code box. Try using it next time before making unfounded accusations.) Yes, really. Although "rescinded" was the wrong word to use. I should have said "restricted".

"President Barack Obama will announce today that he’s imposing a cap of $500,000 on the compensation of top executives at companies that receive significant federal assistance in the future, responding to a public outcry over Wall Street excess.

Any additional compensation will be in restricted stock that won’t vest until taxpayers have been paid back. . ."

Why do you refuse to acknowledge that this investment in our economy was critical to avoid a complete collapse into a full on Depression?

Were you this angry when Ronald Reagan bailed out the failed Savings and Loans in the '80s that ultimately cost the taxpayers over $124 BILLION that was never repaid by the banks (or weren't you alive to remember that bloody fiasco?) I see that as you find yourself losing ground in a debate, you resort to anger and personal attacks. Trust me, you'll never get anywhere with me with that tack. I find it comical that you are so demanding for cites, when you ignore requests for you to provide cites for your own claims. Let me remind you: Yet, still no cite. Why is that? You fail to understand how debate works. You make a claim, it is incumbent upon you to back it up. Your debate partner is not responsible for refuting your claims.

But I'll tell you what; I'll humor you just this once on behalf of friend Fair&Balanced.

IMF and Romania tackle flat tax failure

"Yet more evidence that flat taxes do not deliver. The government of Romania, which adopted the idea of flat taxes in 2005, has called in the International Monetary Fund to provide a €20 billion rescue package to stem a massive deficit in its public finances. The government is now in discussion with IMF officials and others to consider radical tax reform. Amongst the measures under discussion is abandoning flat tax and restoring progressive taxes on personal income and corporate profits."

The Flat Tax Is Flat-Lining

"Posted Tuesday, March 31, 2009 - 4:09pm

Over the last decade, Eastern European countries became darlings of the far right by instituting free-market economic policies designed to break convincingly from their Communist past. The so-called Baltic Tigers—Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia—garnered worldwide plaudits for a number of free-market reforms, led by the imposition of a flat-rate income tax, especially from the American right. "The flat tax is making a comeback," trumpeted the conservative National Review. The three nations are "leading a global tax reform revolution," said the right-leaning Heritage Foundation.

The idea behind a flat tax is deliciously simple: Charge one uniform rate of income tax for all payers, regardless of their relative wealth. That, say its advocates, will end tax cheating and bring in higher revenues than the usual graduated tax system used in the United States and most other countries. Before the Eastern European "revolution," the loudest proponent of the flat tax was Steve Forbes, a former Republican presidential candidate and the editor-in-chief of Forbes. Of course, thus far American policymakers have not shown much more appetite for the flat tax than American voters did for Steve Forbes' candidacy, which is why the right was so excited that the idea took hold abroad.

Too bad for them that it hasn't worked out. Latvia, which has a flat tax of 25 percent, and Lithuania and Estonia, which have 21 percent tax rates, are all in deep economic trouble. . ."

So, there are your cites. I trust this meets satisfactorily with your demands.

I think I'm in love. :lol:

Understandable.

This is what did it for me:
mercy, please understand I don't intend this to be a criticism of you personally. I think this is important enough to be enshrined in a (to-be-created,-but-probably-won't-and-even-if-it-does-it-will-be-ignored-and-mocked-shut-up-never-mind-the-contradiction) Cellar Rules of Debate thread.

it's similar to the spirit of the questions I've been asking you directly like what source do you consider most reliable, etc. If we don't have the same, or roughly the same frames of reference (hahahah that started out as reverence) for the terms of our discussion, we'll continue to simply, and uselessly talk past each other. No understanding will happen. And I don't wish to waste my time in that fashion.

I *like* you. You're clearly smart and articulate. I don't agree with all your politics, but that's fine, that's a good thing. I don't want to restrict my world to a circle of people with whom I already agree, about whom I already know most everything. You and your different viewpoints help me learn and grow. I encourage that.

But I won't bother just namecalling back and forth. Help me learn. I may be persuaded, you might be persuaded, but if we keep trying to inform each other and if we each keep an open mind, we'll definitely learn from each other.

Yours,

Classicman's charts above demonstrate one of the problems so that even the most blindly ideological should be able to see.

A common demoninator of every flat or fair tax proposal is that they lowers the tax obligations of the top taxpayers at the expense of the middle class.

On the other side of the equation, such taxes never generate the level of revenue projected because they are based on ideological assumptions of economic growth (voodoo economics) at unrealistic levels with no basis in fact.

The current fair tax proposal that is floating around calls for a 23% VAT (sales tax). Independent analyses of the proposal suggest that it would take a VAT tax of at least 34% to be revenue neutral.

:thumb:

I was aware of the former eastern bloc countries but was too lazy to look last night, knowing The Mercenary would just ignore it any way (much as he ignored the fact that the fact that the Unearned Income Medicare Contributions Tax was not on all tax payers...claiming the text of the law I cited was biased :eek:)

Germany and France also considered a flat tax but rejected it because they couldnt justify the potential loss of tax revenue.

I second this as well, although it shouldnt be necessary.

Reasonable discussion and debate have certain standards of supporting one's position rather than demanding the other side to prove a negative.

Yet, it is quite obvious that the public got ripped off. Considering the amount of money spent and the number of jobs produced. Or the Millions spent on single projects and no jobs were produced. Maybe you believe this to be a good use of taxpayer dollars. I do not.

Again the government has no business imposing caps on any private business, that smacks of a socialist view of government control. I can't support that. This has become ripe within this Demoncratically controlled government.

Quote:

Any additional compensation will be in restricted stock that won’t vest until taxpayers have been paid back. . ."

It was dire, but to use the boogeyman of a "Depression" was not a completely agreed notion.

No, I didn't give a shit back then. Different time of my life. I was in the middle of an active duty career in the military and after we finally got ride of the crap of a President Carter, Reagan was a breath of fresh air.

Were you insulted by something I said to you?

Oh contare, if someone disagrees with something I stated and make counter claims against it, I am perfectly within my right to ask them to prove me wrong. Who made you some overlord of how one may debate? UT? Did he give you some special disposition? I am not impressed.

There is part of your problem.

Now let me get this straight. Romania's flat tax system required bailout but our progressive system did not? Ours doesn't work either. How is this an argument against a flat tax when maybe all that needs to happen is that it needs to be administered differently? Our current system is certainly a failure or we would not be discussing it.

Well no, not really. I asked someone else to do it, apparently he could not.

http://www.fairtax.org/site/News2?pa...rticle&id=9321

This is a common attempt by progressives to cite classwarfare and demonize a radical change where everyone pays some Federal Income tax. As long as 47% of the citizens do not pay tax the system will fail. Further spending must be cut. You can't run up the credit cards and then cry off because you don't have the money to pay for your boondoggle expenses.

I have not read that. Maybe you could point to one of your opinion pieces that makes this claim. And then I could point to an opinion piece that disagrees with it. And round and round we could go.

This is contrary to the things I have read. In fact the only people who I have heard propose a flat tax are the Demoncrats.

http://www.atr.org/userfiles/041310p...20Timeline.pdf

And this was not as a replacement to our current tax system, but as an additional tax. Of course that went over like a lead ballon so the only thing they have left in their little magic bag of tricks is more smoke and mirrors in an effort to raise taxes on the middle class and upper incomes while preserving votes in their Zero Liability Voter class who pay no Federal Income Tax.

The top taxpayers are currently paying the lowest rate they have in more than 30 years. Restoring the rate to the pre-2001 rate is more equitable to me than taxing folks living at the poverty level.

The fair tax proposal floating around today is similar to a proposal from 5-6 years ago.

Relying on data from Bush's Advisory Panel on Tax Reform, here is what FactCheck.org found:
As to:
The current fair tax proposal in the House has 60 co-sponsors, all Republican.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-25

I will restate what I said one more time.

The fair or flat tax proposals I have seen have several things in common:
1) they lower the tax obligation of the top bracket at the expense of the middle class
2) they take away incentives to middle class taxpayers, re: home ownership, retirement planning, etc.
3) revenue projections rely on unsubstantiated ideological (overly optimistic) economic assumptions that they cant support.

added:
As an aside, I think it is unfortunate that you are apparently unwilling to take to heart the comments of Jill, BigV and others (not just me) in recent posts on your "debating" style.

IMO, discussions here would be much more informative if you were to do so but I guess we will play the cards we're dealt and do the best we can to have honest discussions despite the obstacles of having requirements demanded of others that you refuse to accept for yourself.

Well that explains why 47% of the nations earners paid NO taxes. Not. This is just about class warfare right? That dude over there makes more than me so he should pay my way?

1)No, this is more progressive speak to generate class warfare for between those who pay the majority of all the Federal Income Tax and those who pay nothing. It is called a Fair Tax because it spreads the pain evenly.
2)We need to remove all of those deductions for everyone while we reform the tax system.
3)Seems like quite sound economic assumptions to me!


I don't give a shit what you think about me or my "debating style". :D

I love you back. :D You flatterer, you. :blush: It isn't obvious to me that the public got ripped off. I do not think this is always a good use of taxpayer dollars. I think this was a bitter pill to swallow, yet a necessary use of taxpayer dollars as a result of the clearly failed policies of 6 years of Republican rule that caused the economic crash.

You're forgetting that the first round of bailouts started with President Bush and T.A.R.P. I find it disingenuous in the extreme to lambaste Democrats for continuing the recovery methods started by the Republicans. The fact that we ended up needing more than what Bush allowed for is not a reflection of Barack Obama or Democratic policies. It reflects economic necessity. I understand why you would disagree with that policy. I, on the other hand, would not want to see that as a policy under any and all circumstances, but I don't find it so egregious to impose certain constraints on businesses we've lent money to, that are to remain in force only until that money is repaid. I think if we give taxpayer money to 'Company A' to use to cover failed assets, we have a right to say, ". . . and you must use them on failed assets only, and not to give yourselves outrageous personal bonuses. In order to ensure the lenders (IOW, the taxpayers) that you are being fiscally responsible with their money, for the time that you are using their money to "right your ship", compensation to senior executives will be capped at X."

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that your spelling of 'Democratically' as 'Demoncratically' was a typo. "Not a completely agreed [upon] notion" /= "wouldn't or couldn't have happened." Ah, I see. So when I Republican president does it, you "don't give a shit," but when a Democratic president does it, you care mightily. I'm afraid that given the economic disasters that occurred under Reagan's tenure, not to mention Iran/Contra and CIA drug smuggling operations, we're going to have to agree to disagree on him being a "breath of fresh air." I found him to be a "breath of foul stench." YMOV. Yes, actually. You responded to a post of mine by telling me you didn't "give a shit," alleged I was clueless by asking multiple times if I had "any clue," and closed with the snotty remark, "get a grip."

You don't find that insulting? Stop with the hyperbole. It's really annoying.

There actually are "rules of debate" that exist in formal debate procedures. Now, I understand this is an informal debate, as there are no "teams" or judges. However, the basics should be held to or no light can be shed and no genuine discourse can evolve. Here's what the rules say of providing proof:

"Proof

A great deal has been written and said about the burden of proof, and certain misconceptions have arisen about the duty of the affirmative. The rule is simple:

Rule 5a. He who asserts must prove.

This principle applies equally to the two teams. Of course, the affirmative must show that its plan is desirable, which means that it must show that some benefits will result; otherwise it has failed to give reason for adopting the plan, and has lost the debate. The commonly heard statement that "the affirmative has the burden of proof" means that and nothing more.

On the other hand, if the negative wants the judge and audience to accept the idea that there are certain defects which outweigh the plan's good points, then it must assume the burden of proving that such disadvantages actually will result.

If the negative introduces a counterplan, it has the burden of showing how it is better than the affirmative's proposal; the affirmative then has the duty of establishing any alleged objections to the counterplan. In every instance, he who asserts must prove.

Rule 5b. In order to establish an assertion, the team must support it with enough evidence and logic to convince an intelligent but previously uninformed person that it is more reasonable to believe the assertion than to disbelieve it."

http://www.triviumpursuit.com/speech..._is_debate.htm

Romania's (and Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia's) flat tax system didn't work because a single tax rate spread amongst all individuals was insufficient to support the countries' needs.

The U.S. tax system worked perfectly well at the rates that existed throughout the 1990s. Where we got in trouble was when Republicans regained control, and both lowered tax rates for only the wealthiest Americans and spent billions of dollars outside the budget, abandoning PAYGO rules. This lie has been disproven. 47% of Americans didn't pay and FEDERAL INCOME tax last year, but they did pay taxes. They pay sales tax, social security tax, gas tax and state taxes, just like everyone else. And the percentage of Americans who don't pay Federal Income tax changes as people rise out of poverty and into the middle class. Unfortunately, Republican policies have widened the income disparity in this country exponentially. The poor are poorer than they've been in half a century and the wealthy are wealthier than they've ever been in our nation's entire history. Please explain how it is equally "painful" for the person making $1,000,000 per year to pay, say, $230,000 in taxes, leaving them with $770,000 in disposable income, as it is for the person making $10,000 to pay $2,300 in taxes, leaving them with only $7,700 in disposable income?

How much "pain" does the millionaire feel when he has more than three quarters of a million dollars a year to do with as he pleases?

How much pain does the man trying to live on $7,700 a year feel, when he has to stand in line at food kitchens, collect food stamps, shop for clothes in thrift shops and try to find section 8 housing in order to merely survive?

Have you ever taken the time to read Theodore Roosevelt's 1910 speech, The New Nationalism? I will post a portion of it in the next post, so as not to exceed the character limit per post. . .

The New Nationalism
Theodore Roosevelt, 1910

"We come here to-day to commemorate one of the epoch-making events of the long struggle for the rights of man-the long struggle for the uplift of humanity. Our country-this great Republic-means nothing unless it means the triumph of a real democracy, the triumph of popular government, and, in the long run, of an economic system under which each man shall be guaranteed the opportunity to show the best that there is in him. That is why the history of America is now the central feature of the history of the world; for the world has set its face hopefully toward our democracy; and, O my fellow citizens, each one of you carries on your shoulders not only the burden of doing well for the sake of your country, but the burden of doing well and of seeing that this nation does well for the sake of mankind.

. . .

"Of that generation of men to whom we owe so much, the man to whom we owe most is, of course, Lincoln. Part of our debt to him is because he forecast our present struggle and saw the way out. He said:

"I hold that while man exists it is his duty to improve not only his own condition, but to assist in ameliorating mankind."

"And again:

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."

"If that remark was original with me, I should be even more strongly denounced as a Communist agitator than I shall be anyhow. It is Lincoln’s. I am only quoting it; and that is one side; that is the side the capitalist should hear.

. . .

"It seems to me that, in these words, Lincoln took substantially the attitude that we ought to take; he showed the proper sense of proportion in his relative estimates of capital and labor, of human rights and property rights. Above all, in this speech, as in many others, he taught a lesson in wise kindliness and charity; an indispensable lesson to us of today. But this wise kindliness and charity never weakened his arm or numbed his heart. We cannot afford weakly to blind ourselves to the actual conflict which faces us today. The issue is joined, and we must fight or fail.

"In every wise struggle for human betterment one of the main objects, and often the only object, has been to achieve in large measure equality of opportunity. In the struggle for this great end, nations rise from barbarism to civilization, and through it people press forward from one stage of enlightenment to the next. One of the chief factors in progress is the destruction of special privilege. The essence of any struggle for healthy liberty has always been, and must always be, to take from some one man or class of men the right to enjoy power, or wealth, or position, or immunity, which has not been earned by service to his or their fellows. That is what you fought for in the Civil War, and that is what we strive for now.

. . .

"Now, this means that our government, National and State, must be freed from the sinister influence or control of special interests. Exactly as the special interests of cotton and slavery threatened our political integrity before the Civil War, so now the great special business interests too often control and corrupt the men and methods of government for their own profit. We must drive the special interests out of politics. That is one of our tasks to-day. . . The Constitution guarantees protection to property, and we must make that promise good. But it does not give the right of suffrage to any corporation.

"The true friend of property, the true conservative, is he who insists that property shall be the servant and not the master of the commonwealth; who insists that the creature of man’s making shall be the servant and not the master of the man who made it. The citizens of the United States must effectively control the mighty commercial forces which they have called into being.

"There can be no effective control of corporations while their political activity remains. To put an end to it will be neither a short nor an easy task, but it can be done.

"We must have complete and effective publicity of corporate affairs, so that the people may know beyond peradventure whether the corporations obey the law and whether their management entitles them to the confidence of the public. It is necessary that laws should be passed to prohibit the use of corporate funds directly or indirectly for political purposes; it is still more necessary that such laws should be thoroughly enforced. Corporate expenditures for political purposes, and especially such expenditures by public-service corporations, have supplied one of the principal sources of corruption in our political affairs.

"At many stages in the advance of humanity, this conflict between the men who possess more than they have earned and the men who have earned more than they possess is the central condition of progress. In our day it appears as the struggle of freemen to gain and hold the right of self-government as against the special interests, who twist the methods of free government into machinery for defeating the popular will. At every stage, and under all circumstances, the essence of the struggle is to equalize opportunity, destroy privilege, and give to the life and citizenship of every individual the highest possible value both to himself and to the commonwealth.

. . .

"The absence of effective State, and, especially, national, restraint upon unfair money-getting has tended to create a small class of enormously wealthy and economically powerful men, whose chief object is to hold and increase their power. The prime need to is to change the conditions which enable these men to accumulate power which it is not for the general welfare that they should hold or exercise. We grudge no man a fortune which represents his own power and sagacity, when exercised with entire regard to the welfare of his fellows. Again, comrades over there, take the lesson from your own experience. Not only did you not grudge, but you gloried in the promotion of the great generals who gained their promotion by leading their army to victory. So it is with us. We grudge no man a fortune in civil life if it is honorably obtained and well used. It is not even enough that it should have been gained without doing damage to the community. We should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community. This, I know, implies a policy of a far more active governmental interference with social and economic conditions in this country than we have yet had, but I think we have got to face the fact that such an increase in governmental control is now necessary.

"No man should receive a dollar unless that dollar has been fairly earned. Every dollar received should represent a dollar’s worth of service rendered-not gambling in stocks, but service rendered. The really big fortune, the swollen fortune, by the mere fact of its size, acquires qualities which differentiate it in kind as well as in degree from what is possessed by men of relatively small means. Therefore, I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes, and in another tax which is far more easily collected and far more effective-a graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes, properly safeguarded against evasion, and increasing rapidly in amount with the size of the estate. . . "

Please take the time to read the entire speech.

I implore you to rethink your position on taxation and "fairness".

We must not put money ahead of humankind. We must work together as a nation to help lift one another up, and establish laws and regulations that afford every man the opportunity to succeed in life. Taxing the wealthy at higher rates does not have the same effect on the individual as taxing the poor at the same rates as the wealthy.

100 years later, sadly, we have not heeded the extraordinarily wise words of Teddy Roosevelt. Were he alive today, he'd weep in agony at what this nation has become. Not only can corporations donate directly to politicians, but they are now considered people themselves. Men with inherited wealth are now controlling politicians to the point of controlling policy-making.

100 years later, we are stripping workers of their rights and pensions, while lowering the tax liabilities of their corporate employers, further increasing the disparity in wealth between those who labor and those who do not. There is only one result that can come of continuing along this same path -- a Third World Nation economy.

While Republican policies "look good on paper," they have a proven track record of not working. They didn't work in the '80s (your love for Ronald Reagan notwithstanding), and they didn't work in the 2000s. In fact, they failed miserably, causing great harm to this nation, its economy and its people.

No, that is your OPINION. I don't give a shit. Bush did what he thought was right at the time IN COMPLETE coordination with Obama and the on coming team. The whole thing was planned in consultation with the obvious winner of the election. This was not some BUSH plan... that is BS. It was completely coordinated out of deference to the new President.

Fuck that, it is totally and completely on purpose...


No, as I said, back then I did not give a shit as I was on AD? Did you miss that part or you purposefully ignoring it?

Yea, and ole Carter was crap as a president, wishy washy and responsible for the failed Iran Hostage Rescue.


No, get over yourself.

Fuck that. You don't get to define them.

Again, that does not mean that they effectively put the into a working process. Ever been to Eastern Bloc countries? I have. They are RIPE with corruption. Don't try to hold up some POS newly birthed Democracy as some form or example of what works or does not work. It is a inherently corrupt system....

Bull shit. They did not pay FEDERAL INCOME TAX, and I have not varried from that assertion.

As do most illegal aliens, but that does not make them legal. It has nothing to do with what I was saying....

I don't care. When nearly 50% of the population are Zero Liability Voters we have a problem.

which is why every one should pay the same percent of their income in FEDERAL TAXES and eliminate the loop holes and Deductions for everyone!

Completely shows your bias and that this is nothing more than class warfare because you don't think someone should make more money than you, and if they do, they should give some to you to make your life better. What a load of crap.

Been there done it....

Mercenary man, I think I get it now.

http://www.billionairesforwealthcare...09/Sort_Of.png

|
v

http://www.billionairesforwealthcare...illionaire.png

|
v

http://www.billionairesforwealthcare...Principals.png

|
v

http://www.billionairesforwealthcare...100Tyranny.png

Thats the American way!

Define Billionaires. Like Obama is trying to define them???? everyone who makes more than 250K???? :lol2:

Class warfare will backfire on you Demoncratic suck ups...

.

Okay, done with you now. You clearly have no interest in a reasonable discussion of the issues, you just want to resort to ad hominem attacks, name-calling and cussing. Rather uncouth, I must say. Too bad for you.

Ok, good bye. I don't care if you don't like my style. Get off the porch now.

You mean if I have no clear interest in agreeing with your false notions. You are right about that. Discussion is not agreement with your failed premises. It is not an ad hominem attack, it is disagreement. Don't try to twist it to make yourself feel better about bailing...

Compassionate conservatism?

On a more serious note, I think it was Warren Buffet, in explaining why the US system of progressive taxation is best for the country, who said (paraphrasing) that the wealthy like himself who benefited from the system that provides for the common good have a moral obligation to sustain it and support it so others have the opportunity to do the same (not to get even richer at the expense of the worker poor and middle class)

Or maybe it was Jimmy Buffet or Warren G Harding.

But in any case, I hope you stick around!

Is this where you cry or call me a racist?

You don't know jack shit about me or where I started, which was at the bottom. So stop playing your class warfare card.

I don't owe you or anyone else anything. And you are not entitled to a damm thing, other than your ability to "Pursue happiness", but it is not a Right.

Or, as I quoted quite extensively above (and which our friend TheMercenary conveniently ignored), Theodore Roosevelt (Republican).

Of course I'll stick around. Thanks! :)

HAAAAAA! Oh yea, Republickins during the time of TR were just like they are today!

What a tool. :lol:

Pssst: use the ignore list. You'll enjoy the Cellar more.:blush:

Every president and Congress since TR, both R and D, have supported progressive taxation; the only difference being the rates.

Ford introduced the Earned Income Tax Credit and that conservative icon Reagan expanded it, recognizing that squeezing more money out of those at or near the poverty level is bad public policy except in the minds of the most extremists elements on the right.

He'll have to get a LOT worse for me to hide all of his posts from view. I like knowing what arguments are being put forward by those on the other side of the political spectrum me. What I don't like is being cussed at and called names. For that reason, I won't engage him in debate because I know he's incapable of being reasonable. I might occasionally see fit to post a reply in order to debunk some crap he's posted, but beyond that, he won't get my ongoing attention, as I now know what it will devolve into.

At what point do extremists know more than the rest of us?

Jill - he will reply only when he has insults. Apparently he has a problem with "Truths that are self-evident" when truths contradict a political agenda.

There are only moderates and extremists. Latter driven by a political agenda. So he would rewrite a fundamental American document to promote what?

How dare we seek Happiness. We must be liberals.

It's quite stunning how many of these extremists know so little of our nation's laws and so little about our nation's history, yet bloviate as if not only are they (and only they) right, but that we must be stupid and unpatriotic.

Did you catch Michele Bachman's latest, wherein she attributed to Abraham Lincoln, a (paraphrased) quote actually made by John F. Kennedy?

Michele Bachman: "Will this latest generation, as Abraham Lincoln so famously said, will this latest generation hand that torch of liberty to the next generation?"

John F. Kennedy (in his 1961 Inaugural Address): "Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans."

Abraham Lincoln: ". . ." Nothing remotely like that.

And the nutjobs eat this shit up! I mean, c'mon! It's not as if Kennedy's Inauguration speech isn't, you know, famous, or anything. "And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country." How do you get that speech mixed up with Abraham Lincoln?

By not bothering to bone up on facts, that's how. And a large portion of our population will hear her speak that quote and will forever more believe that those were the words of Abraham Lincoln, just because Michele -- "[New Hampshire] is where the shot was heard around the world at Lexington and Concord" -- Bachmann said that they were. It's stupidity run amok.

This administration has constantly found ways to simultaneously show up their critiques from both the extreme left & right. They have left one side in tentative support and the other flat-footed without a reasonable response.
It continues to remind the country that ''Hey, we're the adults in the room'' in the midst of the silliness of political rhetoric.

That's the thing. You don't have to read merc to know what foolishness he's posted. It's all the same anti-everything, name-calling, irrationational drivel.

Just when you thought it was safe...more drivel arrives on the scene.

How far down do you have to bury drivel to keep it from coming back up?

Bury it? No, you have to rocket it to the sun, thats your best chance.

Very simply put, and cutting through all the verbiage and felgercarb:

Do not increase taxation. Instead reduce the spending, including and in especial the entitlement programs. Without entitlements, we'd retire the entire national debt in five to ten years. Not too different from what we did after World War Two in retiring the war debt.

What is "irrationational?" The portmanteau does not seem quite to close. "Chauvinism" is already a word.