[Jill]

Originally Posted by infinite monkey

I think I'm in love.

I love you back.

Originally Posted by BigV

Understandable.

This is what did it for me:

You flatterer, you.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

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.

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.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

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.

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.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

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

"Not a completely agreed [upon] notion" /= "wouldn't or couldn't have happened."

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

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.

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.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Were you insulted by something I said to you?

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?

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

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.

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

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

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.

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.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

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?

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.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

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.

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. . .