Obama Announces Re-election Bid

[BigV]

Understandable.

This is what did it for me:

Originally Posted by Jill

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.

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,

[Fair&Balanced]

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.

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by Jill

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 Although "rescinded" was the wrong word to use.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 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 )

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

Originally Posted by BigV

... 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....

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.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Jill

But yet I did. (Hint: there's a scroll bar on the code box. Try using it next time before making unfounded accusations.)

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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?)

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.

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.

Were you insulted by something I said to you?

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.

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.

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

There is part of your problem.

[indent]IMF and Romania tackle flat tax failure

[i]"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."

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.

I trust this meets satisfactorily with your demands.

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

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

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.

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.

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.

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:

We wrote that the bipartisan Advisory Panel on Tax Reform had “calculated that a sales tax would have to be set at 34 percent of retail sales prices to bring in the same revenue as the taxes it would replace, meaning that an automobile with a retail price of $10,000 would cost $13,400 including the new sales tax.” A number of readers pointed out that H.R. 25, the specific bill mentioned by Gov. Huckabee, calls for a 23 percent retail sales tax and not the 34 percent used by the Advisory Panel on Tax Reform. That 23 percent number, however, is misleading and based on some extremely optimistic assumptions. We found that while there are several good economic arguments for the FairTax, unless you earn more than $200,000 per year, fairness is not one of them...

...With the prebate program in effect, those earning less than $15,000 per year would see their share of the federal tax burden drop from -0.7 percent to -6.3 percent. Of course, if the poorest Americans are paying less under the FairTax plan, then someone else pays more. As it turns out, according to the Treasury Department, “someone else” is everybody earning between $15,000 and $200,000 per year. The chart below compares the share of the federal tax burden for different income groups under the current system and under the FairTax. Those in the highest and the lowest brackets will see their share decrease, while everyone else will see their share of taxes increase.

(see the charts from Classicman's post that come right out of Bush's Treasury Dept.)...

...it is revenue-neutral only through an accounting trick. It will collect more money from those earning between $15,000 and $200,000 per year and less from those earning more than $200,000 per year. It is possible that the FairTax would make most people better off, but much of that gain would be a direct result of making the tax code less fair.

http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/unspi...e_fairtax.html

As to:

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.

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:

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.

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.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

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.

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?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

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.

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!

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.

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

[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. . .

[Jill]

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.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Jill

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.

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.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that your spelling of 'Democratically' as 'Demoncratically' was a typo.

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

"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.

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?

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."

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

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.

No, get over yourself.

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.

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

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.

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....

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.

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

They pay sales tax, social security tax, gas tax and state taxes, just like everyone else.

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

And the percentage of Americans who don't pay Federal Income tax changes as people rise out of poverty and into the middle class.

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

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?

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!

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?

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.

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?

Been there done it....

[Fair&Balanced]

Mercenary man, I think I get it now.

|
v



|
v



|
v

Thats the American way!

[TheMercenary]

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

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

[TheMercenary]

.

[Jill]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

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....

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.