Obama Announces Re-election Bid

[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. . .

[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....