9 Out Of 10 Americans Are Completely Wrong About This Mind-Blowing Fact

[Truth Detector]

FACT: the ability for the federal government to collect income taxes from the citizens was included in the constitution with the 16th Amendment.

FACT; it was a pointless post that has nothing to do with anything being debated; but thank you Captain obvious.

FACT: The sentence "Income tax has been progressive since ITS inception" refers to the income tax and cannot refer to the country, unless you don't understand correct English composition.

FACT: another pointless post that has nothing to do with anything being debated; but thank you Captain obvious.

FACT: your chart started at 1912 and the progressive tax was first implemented in 1862. You failed miserably again. Not to mention post pointless drivel that has nothing to do with the thread topic or anything anyone debated.

FACT: We have a spending problem AND a revenue problem and most of America understands that we need to address both problems concurrently.

WRONG: we have a SPENDING problem. Revenues have always gone up; but spending has always exceeded revenue by an average of 25%.

FACT: This thread is about income disparity. Discussing income tax rates in conjunction with that topic is perfectly legitimate.

WRONG; discussing the progressive tax code in a vacuum of what is being debated and a topic about income equality is that of a dimwit who is clueless what point he is attempting to make and a partisan leftist dullard who whines and rants like an effeminate child.

FACT: I agree wholeheartedly that our tax code is far to complex and has far too many loopholes carved out for special interests but that does not change the FACT that, by increasing the marginal tax rate for the upper bracket, we could generate greater income for the government, which helps to solve one of the two concurrent problems, and a raise of three percentage points of the historically low top rate would NOT stifle entrepreneurial investment in the economy by those folks in that top rate... AND it would help to less the income disparity that the OP referred to.

WRONG: increasing the marginal tax rates to 100% will not solve the spending problem our politicians have and there is nothing historically to support such a dimwitted claim from the dullard class of posters on DPP.

You see dimwit; one could tax all the rich at 100% and still not have enough revenue to pay the current deficit spending we have seen from this inept dimwit of a President you support and voted for twice.

Secondly; only a painfully stupid dimwit thinks that the tax code can deal with income disparity. But again, you really are THAT incredibly stupid.

The rich are extremely mobile; any attempts to steal their wealth have always resulted in LESS revenue, not MORE revenue. But alas, you are a dimwit who infests a pretend world that doesn’t exist except in your tiny myopic little leftist infested brain.

FACT: you were wrong. I showed you where you were wrong. You couldn't understand basic English and made a fucking fool of yourself, and don't have the grace or the maturity to admit your error.

No, I was NOT wrong; and I illustrated how easily one can interpret your inept posts that suffer grammatical inaccuracies and coherent thought; and STILL you were wrong in thinking that progressive taxes have been around only since 1912 or that Marginal Tax rates have anything to do with effective or actual tax rates.

But that is because you are a painfully uniformed dimwit; the kind that would vote for an economic idiot like Obama.
Yes, you really are a fucking fool and really are THAT stupid.

FACT: that makes you a petulant little moron.

Wrong again; what you have done is to remove all doubt what an incredibly repugnant dimwit you really are.

But alas, how could you possibly comprehend this when you are such a dimwit; yes, you really are THAT stupid.

Now run along, your dog needs your leg to hump on you repugnant asshat; its about all you are good for.

 

[maineman]

Courts cannot throw out legislation you dimwit; brain dead sheeple like you empower it by electing dimwitted Democrats who think the Constitution is nothing more than a roll of toilet paper.

Yes, because you really are THAT stupid.

If, as has been suggested, progressive taxation enacted at the passage of the 16th is, in fact, unconstitutional based upon the 14th, the courts most certainly could have ruled thusly on any occasion over the past century. The fact that they HAVEN'T done so sort of disproves the idiotic suggestion, don't you think?

Also... it's interesting to note that, in post #281, you repeatedly seem to mistake opinion for fact. You must have been high during your ESL classes, I would imagine.

 

[monty1]

FACT; it was a pointless post that has nothing to do with anything being debated; but thank you Captain obvious.



FACT: another pointless post that has nothing to do with anything being debated; but thank you Captain obvious.

FACT: your chart started at 1912 and the progressive tax was first implemented in 1862. You failed miserably again. Not to mention post pointless drivel that has nothing to do with the thread topic or anything anyone debated.



WRONG: we have a SPENDING problem. Revenues have always gone up; but spending has always exceeded revenue by an average of 25%.



WRONG; discussing the progressive tax code in a vacuum of what is being debated and a topic about income equality is that of a dimwit who is clueless what point he is attempting to make and a partisan leftist dullard who whines and rants like an effeminate child.



WRONG: increasing the marginal tax rates to 100% will not solve the spending problem our politicians have and there is nothing historically to support such a dimwitted claim from the dullard class of posters on DPP.

You see dimwit; one could tax all the rich at 100% and still not have enough revenue to pay the current deficit spending we have seen from this inept dimwit of a President you support and voted for twice.

Secondly; only a painfully stupid dimwit thinks that the tax code can deal with income disparity. But again, you really are THAT incredibly stupid.

The rich are extremely mobile; any attempts to steal their wealth have always resulted in LESS revenue, not MORE revenue. But alas, you are a dimwit who infests a pretend world that doesn’t exist except in your tiny myopic little leftist infested brain.



No, I was NOT wrong; and I illustrated how easily one can interpret your inept posts that suffer grammatical inaccuracies and coherent thought; and STILL you were wrong in thinking that progressive taxes have been around only since 1912 or that Marginal Tax rates have anything to do with effective or actual tax rates.

But that is because you are a painfully uniformed dimwit; the kind that would vote for an economic idiot like Obama.
Yes, you really are a fucking fool and really are THAT stupid.



Wrong again; what you have done is to remove all doubt what an incredibly repugnant dimwit you really are.

But alas, how could you possibly comprehend this when you are such a dimwit; yes, you really are THAT stupid.

Now run along, your dog needs your leg to hump on you repugnant asshat; its about all you are good for.

Run away little mutt and scream your racist hate at somebody else now. You've been caught sniffing around in garbage cans again.

 

[Truth Detector]

If, as has been suggested, progressive taxation enacted at the passage of the 16th is, in fact, unconstitutional based upon the 14th, the courts most certainly could have ruled thusly on any occasion over the past century.

Why don’t you start a special thread debating the merits of the 16th and 14th amendment then instead of bombarding this thread with your off topic canards?

The fact that they HAVEN'T done so sort of disproves the idiotic suggestion, don't you think?

No; it merely proves that regardless of what is posted, you’re going to desperately avoid the topic and coherent debate and run off on some off topic buffoonery that removes all doubt you are a partisan dimwit.

Also... it's interesting to note that, in post #281, you repeatedly seem to mistake opinion for fact. You must have been high during your ESL classes, I would imagine.

If I posted an OPINION, it was BASED on FACT. But of course, you are welcome to start another thread and we can have a debate about my OPINIONS if you would like.
Dimwit.

 

[maineman]

1. why don't you lose the superiority complex and quit thinking you get to tell anybody what they can say in this or any other fucking thread.

2. the 14th/16th issue was brought up by your butt buddy Daft2016. Why don't you pull your dick out of his ass and castigate him for starting the conversation.

3. Opinions are opinions, and facts are facts. You post the former.

::yawn::

 

[Airstrip One]

If the Constitution says something - that is fact. No one can change that fact or deny reality. As a society, we can play make-believe like we always do, because we deplore liberty and regret our founding ideals.

 

[Taft2016]

accept shit. times change people change courts change. Plenty of courts have had a chance to toss out progressive taxation and none of them has done so.

I accept YOUR submission to reality.

Laws passed by legislatures are free to change. That's always been the case.

Other than the amendment process, the United States Constitution is supposed to remain constant.

Can you tell me which courts have upheld the progressive income tax vis-a-vis the equal protection clause?

 

[Taft2016]

This is retarded. Crony capitalism is the most basic human impulse in the world -- you give your money to people you know or like. If you have the option of paying a friend or a stranger to do a job for you, wouldn't you rather give your money to your friend? If you have the option of buying your vegetables from your neighbor or a faceless corporation, all other things being equal, wouldn't you rather give the money to someone who you might need to turn to for help later on?

Believe me, there's a lot of fucked up shit going on that it totally worth throwing around blame for -- but when you try to blame a fundamental facet of human nature on one group or another, all you're doing is showing your bias and failing to contribute anything valuable to the discussion.


It's one thing to put either side on the spot for what they've actually done -- I'm all for that. But crap like this is just crap.

Aside from your absolutely infantile misunderstanding of crony capitalism (fascism), why wasn't this understanding and rational liberal nature displayed during your wild imaginings of Cheney and Halliburton?

 

[Taft2016]

If, as has been suggested, progressive taxation enacted at the passage of the 16th is, in fact, unconstitutional based upon the 14th, the courts most certainly could have ruled thusly on any occasion over the past century.

And they had longer to declare abortion a Constitutional right, but voila... there it is in an emanation of a penumbra.

Our day shall come as well.

In 1920 the United States was cogent and mature enough to realize the 14th Amendment didn't give women the right to vote, and that the Constitution needed to be amended to achieve suffrage.

Less than 100 years later we're supposed to accept that it meant in 1866 that gays could marry.

Libs are entertaining if not terribly bright.

 

[Essence]

dimwit dimwits childlike naiveté'.

Derp.

Let's try this again; our founders rightly believed that Governments were to be LIMITED and DISTRUSTED. Therefore they created a system that divided government to make it difficult for them to usurp the sheeples liberties. Democrats have been on a half century political goal to strip those separations of power and State and turn the citizens of this nation into willing wards of the State.

Am not arguing and have never argued with any of this. That makes it...oh, look, more derp!

Corporations are not the problem. They only seek to maximize their profits, and yes, they will seek to influence legislation. Corrupt politicians who get elected by brain dead gullible sheeple, like you, are more than happy to ingratiate themselves for campaign funds and influence in order to retain their political power.

Bribery is a transaction. A free market transaction, by definition, actually. The thing that all of you free-market booyahs are supposed to understand inherently is the nature of transactions. A transaction has to have two willing participants to occur. In this case, it's a politician and a corporation exchanging money for favors.

Here's the thing -- both participants are voluntary. Both feel they benefit from the transaction, and in fact both do. But that means that both are equally 'guilty' for the transaction. The difference between you and I is that you seem to feel like the solution is a magical search for a nonexistent "politician who won't take bribes". I feel like the solution is a law that punish bribe-givers and bribe-takers both if they get caught making the relevant transaction.

Because that's how you deal with free markets that are fucking up your society: you take away their freedom to fuck shit up. Just like you do with individual criminals.

rail all you want at those greedy Capitalists all you like

I'd love to see you find a quote of me railing against greedy Capitalists. You can't, of course, because I don't, but that won't stop you from herping flerps of derp all over the forums because you can't even be bothered to keep track of who you're actually talking about.

You don't comprehend the first thing about a free market; you're too dimwitted based on what I have read from you.
What is it about free markets you think you comprehend? Please educate me right now.

Ah, see, this is fun. I didn't say anything about free markets, and then you told me that I was wrong about them. When I challenged you to tell me what I was wrong about, you give back this excessively generic and meaningless response and try to put the ball back in my court. But that's not how this game works. If you want to school me about free markets, put in the effort. Find something I said about free markets, and tell me why I was wrong. Then we can have a real discussion rather than this ongoing drivel where you don't actually have the first clue about what's going on and are just spouting the most effort-free, all-purpose, right-wing-in-a-can derp that your brain can manage.

 

[Truth Detector]

1. why don't you lose the superiority complex and quit thinking you get to tell anybody what they can say in this or any other fucking thread.

Why don't you get a brain? Your whiney effeminate drivel has been noted.

2. the 14th/16th issue was brought up by your butt buddy Daft2016. Why don't you pull your dick out of his ass and castigate him for starting the conversation.

It was brought up after your mornic off topic rant about Taxes. Yes, your first post #170 is what Taft responded to dimwit:

QUOTE=maineman
progressive taxation is not marxist and has been a part of the US income tax formula since its inception.

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...-This-Mind-Blowing-Fact&p=1354623#post1354623

Yes, you are THAT stupid. You can't even remember where you started from, much less where you are a trying to go.

3. Opinions are opinions, and facts are facts. You post the former.

::yawn::

You wouldn't know a fact if it walked up and slapped you on that thick empty leftist head of yours.

Yes, you really are THAT stupid.

 

[Truth Detector]

Derp.

Am not arguing and have never argued with any of this. That makes it...oh, look, more derp!

Bribery is a transaction. A free market transaction, by definition, actually. The thing that all of you free-market booyahs are supposed to understand inherently is the nature of transactions. A transaction has to have two willing participants to occur. In this case, it's a politician and a corporation exchanging money for favors.

Here's the thing -- both participants are voluntary. Both feel they benefit from the transaction, and in fact both do. But that means that both are equally 'guilty' for the transaction. The difference between you and I is that you seem to feel like the solution is a magical search for a nonexistent "politician who won't take bribes". I feel like the solution is a law that punish bribe-givers and bribe-takers both if they get caught making the relevant transaction.

Because that's how you deal with free markets that are fucking up your society: you take away their freedom to fuck shit up. Just like you do with individual criminals.

I'd love to see you find a quote of me railing against greedy Capitalists. You can't, of course, because I don't, but that won't stop you from herping flerps of derp all over the forums because you can't even be bothered to keep track of who you're actually talking about.

Ah, see, this is fun. I didn't say anything about free markets, and then you told me that I was wrong about them. When I challenged you to tell me what I was wrong about, you give back this excessively generic and meaningless response and try to put the ball back in my court. But that's not how this game works. If you want to school me about free markets, put in the effort. Find something I said about free markets, and tell me why I was wrong. Then we can have a real discussion rather than this ongoing drivel where you don't actually have the first clue about what's going on and are just spouting the most effort-free, all-purpose, right-wing-in-a-can derp that your brain can manage.

I see so when you rant ignorant about crony Capitalism; it has nothing to do with the free markets.

You really are THAT stupid.

Carry on dimwit; I am uninterested in engaging a buffoon in a never ending circle of stupidity when the buffoon doesn't even have a coherent point to make.

How do I know you're a repugnant dimwit wallowing in a circle of stupidity? This: Because that's how you deal with free markets that are fucking up your society: you take away their freedom to fuck shit up. Just like you do with individual criminals.

 

[Essence]

No valid points to make (and still completely unable to rise to any challenges put in front of him,) Truth Detector resorts to "screw you, I'm going home".

Debate level: zero. Failure level: Truth Detector.



(ProTip: Highlighting a point someone made and saying "I know your wrong because you said this" doesn't actually do anything to prove the quote you made wrong.)

 

[Truth Detector]

No valid points to make (and still completely unable to rise to any challenges put in front of him,) Truth Detector resorts to "screw you, I'm going home".

Debate level: zero. Failure level: Truth Detector.



(ProTip: Highlighting a point someone made and saying "I know your wrong because you said this" doesn't actually do anything to prove the quote you made wrong.)

You think you made valid points with that incredibly dumb make believe claim above? How is that fantasy valid? Because you said so? REALLY?

Good lord, you can't help yourself can you. Here are my valid points....again:

I see so when you rant ignorant about crony Capitalism; it has nothing to do with the free markets.

How do I know you're a repugnant dimwit wallowing in a circle of stupidity? This: "Because that's how you deal with free markets that are fucking up your society: you take away their freedom to fuck shit up. Just like you do with individual criminals."

How does one debate stupid??

 

[Essence]

Neither of those things are "points". Not every statement you make is a "point". A point, in terms of a debate or discussion, has to have two elements: an argument (i.e. a statement you intend to make the audience understand and believe), and support (i.e. the facts you intend to lay out that lend credence to that argument.)

Your first statement is a fact: you DO see that when I rant about Crony Capitalism, it has nothing to do with free markets. That is a fact; you do in fact see that. (Your observation is wrong, naturally, but you do in fact have that observation in your mind. That's because you're too fucking lazy to actually find a single relevant statement I've made about the free market and argue against it. It's way easier to just gesticulate wildly at the entire conversation and gibber like a shit-flinging monkey. I've said it before and I'll say it as many times as you'd like: tell me, in specific, what I said about the free market that was wrong, and I'll explain to your monkey ass why you're wrong. But if you want to get schooled, you're going to have to put in some actual effort, and I'm starting to believe you're constitutionally incapable thereof.)

Your second statement is an opinion, but without support (in this case, "WHY is this argument actually indicative of repugnant dimwitticism?"), it's still not a "point". It's just argument floating in space, and without support, no one has any reason to pay any attention to it.


I can't believe I've come to a debate forum and I'm sitting here schooling someone labeled "Senior Member" on how to actually argue. I think someone was pranking with their definition of the word "Member" when they wrote that.

 

[Airstrip One]

How are crony capitalism and free markets unrelated?

 

[Essence]

Not the question. I never said they were unrelated. All I ask is that Truth Detector actually put in the work to make the points he keeps failing to make. He told me I was wrong in my commentary about free markets. I challenged him on that statement, and he's done exactly nothing to actually pursue it.

I'm looking for an actual discussion here -- a debate with someone who is willing to have a debate. But Truth Detector has proven time and time again that not only is he unwilling to have a debate, but he doesn't actually understand what a debate even is.

 

[maineman]

Why don't you get a brain? Your whiney effeminate drivel has been noted.




It was brought up after your mornic off topic rant about Taxes. Yes, your first post #170 is what Taft responded to dimwit:

QUOTE=maineman
progressive taxation is not marxist and has been a part of the US income tax formula since its inception.

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...-This-Mind-Blowing-Fact&p=1354623#post1354623

Yes, you are THAT stupid. You can't even remember where you started from, much less where you are a trying to go.



You wouldn't know a fact if it walked up and slapped you on that thick empty leftist head of yours.

Yes, you really are THAT stupid.

1. I am quite happy with my brain and where it has taken me in life. I went to a good school, had a great career... now I'm livin' large... how you doin'?

2. Check post #259. And I certainly stand by my assertion that progressive income taxes are not "Marxist".

3. I know facts and I know opinions... and all you got are the latter, and they're pretty fucked up ones at that.

 

[NOVA]

1. I am quite happy with my brain and where it has taken me in life. I went to a good school, had a great career... now I'm livin' large... how you doin'?

2. Check post #259. And I certainly stand by my assertion that progressive income taxes are not "Marxist".

3. I know facts and I know opinions... and all you got are the latter, and they're pretty fucked up ones at that.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need is a slogan popularized by Karl Marx in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha Program

If that slogan doesn't scream out progressive taxation, I don't know wtf does.......

 

[maineman]

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need is a slogan popularized by Karl Marx in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha Program


If that slogan doesn't scream out progressive taxation, I don't know wtf does.......

so I guess every president since 1913 has been a Marxist, according to you?