Founding Fathers Original Tax Plan

[Cancel7]

But the point is that the rich have MORE disposable income than the middle class. You're inverted paradigm is laughable.

Really? Get the hell outta here! Are you telling me that millionaires and billonaires actually have more disposable income than a typical middle class family making 70k a year?

Where did you get your math? I'm gonna have to see some sort of a graph, or a chart, or something before I believe that!

My God, if this turns out to be correct, then you really are a genius!

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Really? Get the hell outta here! Are you telling me that millionaires and billonaires actually have more disposable income than a typical middle class family making 70k a year?

Where did you get your math? I'm gonna have to see some sort of a graph, or a chart, or something before I believe that!

My God, if this turns out to be correct, then you really are a genius!

Sarcasm is a low form of wit, stupid whore.

 

[Timshel]

It does work. We became a rich and powerful nation BEFORE we began outsourcing every possible function.

We became rich and powerful through free trade. Protectionist policies were a major factor in our most severe economic decline.

Explain how tariffs wouldn't stimulate the domestic economy and create jobs.

Explain how it won't, fucker.

It's not a settled issue, that just your brainwashed idiocy peeking through.

try slapping yourself.

Been over it many times with you. I won't bother wasting my time anymore. Go to a library and randomly pick up a book on economics and trade and you will likely find the answers.

It is a settled issue. No serious economist supports your protectionist nonsense. But they are all just a bunch of evil Naugahydes, right?

 

[Sammy Jankis]

We became rich and powerful through free trade. Protectionist policies were a major factor in our most severe economic decline.

But it was free trade not including totalitarian countries like china and the ussr, and not including a lot other despotic countries that are included now. This is a meaninful difference. Our decline is happening now, due to globalization.

Been over it many times with you. I won't bother wasting my time anymore. Go to a library and randomly pick up a book on economics and trade and you will likely find the answers.

It is a settled issue. No serious economist supports your protectionist nonsense. But they are all just a bunch of evil Naugahydes, right?

It's not a settled issue, i just destroyed you above, but you still think you're right even though you're wrong.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Since Asshate is back at work saying nasty things to Darla, I just want to point out that if she were a whore, she's be an awesome one.

But such is not the case...

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Since Asshate is back at work saying nasty things to Darla, I just want to point out that if she were a whore, she's be an awesome one.

But such is not the case...

I actually respond with impactful and genius level retorts, mixed in with nastiness for the flavorin'.

 

[DamnYankee]

Since Asshate is back at work saying nasty things to Darla, I just want to point out that if she were a whore, she's be an awesome one.

But such is not the case...

If she were an awesome whore she'd at least be attractive. But such is not the case...

 

[Timshel]

But it was free trade not including totalitarian countries like china and the ussr, and not including a lot other despotic countries that are included now. This is a meaninful difference. Our decline is happening now, due to globalization.

We have been benefiting from trade with China since 1784.

It's not a settled issue, i just destroyed you above, but you still think you're right even though you're wrong.

No... you didn't. You just made up some inaccurate bullshit about how things have changed. They have not. Free trade remains beneficial to all.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

We have been benefiting from trade with China since 1784.

But we have not had near the levels of massively unbalanced trade we've had recently. This kind of unbalanced trade is a one way suck of wealth and competencies that is only destructive.

No... you didn't. You just made up some inaccurate bullshit about how things have changed. They have not. Free trade remains beneficial to all.

No it doesn't. It's not beneficial to all. It's beneficial to multinationals only.

the new slave laborers are basically like prisoners, and the first world citizens are seeing all their jobs vanish.

you live a reality based on internationalist fascist propaganda, not actualities.

 

[klaatu]

Klaatu, don't take this the wrong way, I dont mean to sound nasty, but, you whine a lot about what other people say and anytime someone posts something you claim they are derailing your thread, but you never actually dispute anything they post.

Now, let's take this paragraph you just wrote to me: "I was talking about wealthy people who own businesses that employ a lot of people. Despite what you may think..not all of these people are in Bill Gates class. You see.. people who make 250,000.00 and above are not the same as people who are worth 40 billion dollars. "

It's interesting that you would talk down to me and pretend that I don't know there's a difference between someone who makes 250k and a billionaire. But the people you originally referenced as creating jobs and threatening to leave the country, were, according to you, billionaires. Here, let me refresh your memory:

"The Job Creators will pack up and move to a State that is Business friendly..ie Tenn, Tex and Florida. We live in a global economy and Billionaires are no longer tied to American soil. "

So maybe it's you who are confused about the differences between a billionaire and someone who makes 250k? I don't know for certain, but I do know it's not me who is confused.

Here is another interesting paragraph wherein you appear to be creating strawmen:

"Just a note though.. if Bush's Tax policy was criminal and only for the rich upper 2%... how is it that Obama and the Democrats now acknowledge we need to maintain the tax cuts for the middle and lower tax brackets ... that was included in that same tax cut plan. Does this mean that you and your Democrats have been lying to the American Public for nearly 10 years by repeating the the mantra over and over again that the Bush Tax Cuts was only for the Rich?"

No one that I know of ever said that the Bush Tax Cuts were ONLY for the rich. What many economists, liberal pundits, and just plain ole liberal voters, have said is that the Bush tax cuts MAINLY benefitted the rich, which is of course, a statisical fact.

And of course, the reason why pretty much all Democrats, and SOME liberals want to keep the tax cuts for the middle class, is because the middle class spend disposable income, having a stimulative effect throughout the wider economy, whereas, the very rich save or invest that extra money.

Klaatu, don't take this the wrong way, I dont mean to sound nasty, but, you whine a lot about what other people say and anytime someone posts something you claim they are derailing your thread, but you never actually dispute anything they post.

Really? Didnt know that I do that? Can you provide an example of that from another thread... seriously maybe its a character flaw I need to fix.


Now, let's take this paragraph you just wrote to me: "I was talking about wealthy people who own businesses that employ a lot of people. Despite what you may think..not all of these people are in Bill Gates class. You see.. people who make 250,000.00 and above are not the same as people who are worth 40 billion dollars. "
It's interesting that you would talk down to me and pretend that I don't know there's a difference between someone who makes 250k and a billionaire. But the people you originally referenced as creating jobs and threatening to leave the country, were, according to you, billionaires. Here, let me refresh your memory:

"The Job Creators will pack up and move to a State that is Business friendly..ie Tenn, Tex and Florida. We live in a global economy and Billionaires are no longer tied to American soil. "

So maybe it's you who are confused about the differences between a billionaire and someone who makes 250k? I don't know for certain, but I do know it's not me who is confused.

Whats interesting is how we are switching back and forth from Tax Cuts for the rich to Tax Cuts that benefit the rich to billionaires.. Are we arguing just for the sake of arguing? You made a statement about Bush Tax Cuts being criminal and were for the rich and that I cited billionaires that would leave the country. I made a statement that Job creators have other options and a general statement that Billionaires are no longer tied to American soil.

I answered your statement about the Tax cuts for the rich by pointing out that Job Creators and the Tax Cuts apply to those making over 250,000.00 a year.

The original intent of the thread was to point out an alternative Tax plan. Not this crap about whether or not I said billionaires or people who are making over 250,000.00 a year.

No Darla..Im not confused....sorry to burst your bubble.

Here is another interesting paragraph wherein you appear to be creating strawmen:

"Just a note though.. if Bush's Tax policy was criminal and only for the rich upper 2%... how is it that Obama and the Democrats now acknowledge we need to maintain the tax cuts for the middle and lower tax brackets ... that was included in that same tax cut plan. Does this mean that you and your Democrats have been lying to the American Public for nearly 10 years by repeating the the mantra over and over again that the Bush Tax Cuts was only for the Rich?"

No one that I know of ever said that the Bush Tax Cuts were ONLY for the rich. What many economists, liberal pundits, and just plain ole liberal voters, have said is that the Bush tax cuts MAINLY benefitted the rich, which is of course, a statisical fact.

And of course, the reason why pretty much all Democrats, and SOME liberals want to keep the tax cuts for the middle class, is because the middle class spend disposable income, having a stimulative effect throughout the wider economy, whereas, the very rich save or invest that extra money.

You are kidding me correct? This mantra goes back to the Gore/Bush election when Bush first proposed the Cuts during his campaign. We have been hearing this crap for 10 years and now all of sudden this same plan becomes Obama's tax cuts for the Middle Class simply by removing the top 2% from the cuts.
Please .... the Dems have been using this rhetoric for 10 years.

Whats really interesting is this ... the top 1% already pay 37% of the Taxes and the top 10% pay 67% of the Taxes. However thats not enough.. in your eyes thats criminal. Oh whats more criminal? Had Bush not implemented the Tax Cuts for the Rich... the top 1% would have paid 31% instead of 37% and the top 10% would have paid 63% instead of 67%. Not bad revenue

Here is the type of rhetoric we heard for 10 years about the Bush Tax Cuts...
"It is long past time to roll back this President's unfair, unaffordable tax cuts for those who make more than $200,000 a year. In 2006 alone, these tax cuts give $49 billion to people making a million dollars a year or more. A middle class steadily falling behind. And trickle-down tax cuts for the rich that left most Americans feeling trickled on." John Kerry October 1, 2007 at Boston's Faneuil Hall

Notice the word GIVE ... this is how Democrats think... they think the Government gives people money by cutting Taxes.. in other words the Government owns the money that you earn and merely allows you to keep a portion of it. Its effin sick .....

 

[Timshel]

But we have not had near the levels of massively unbalanced trade we've had recently. This kind of unbalanced trade is a one way suck of wealth and competencies that is only destructive.

We have been running a trade deficit since that has been quantifiable and most indications are that we did from the start.

While trade has increased dramatically since the 70s the effects of that are mostly shown by the rise of China (they were impoverished by moronic protectionist leaders) not by a decline in the US.

No it doesn't. It's not beneficial to all. It's beneficial to multinationals only.

the new slave laborers are basically like prisoners, and the first world citizens are seeing all their jobs vanish.

you live a reality based on internationalist fascist propaganda, not actualities.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. More bullshit for which you have no proof or even argument in support. You just make shit up.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

We have been running a trade deficit since that has been quantifiable and most indications are that we did from the start.

Not to this degree. Its a matter of degees and that matters.

While trade has increased dramatically since the 70s the effects of that are mostly shown by the rise of China (they were impoverished by moronic protectionist leaders) not by a decline in the US.

We have been going from bubble to bubble since the seventies. Our decline is in full force now, with outsourcing and trade deficits showing no signs of abating. All the bubbles have popped. And housing is being let down slowly.

We're just now heading into the 'new normal', due to globalization idiocy.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. More bullshit for which you have no proof or even argument in support. You just make shit up.

I've defeated you once again, so shut your internationalist fascist idiot mouth, before i shut it for you.

 

[Minister of Truth]

We've only been experiencing bubbles since the 70s?

 

[Sammy Jankis]

We've only been experiencing bubbles since the 70s?

More precisely, the bubbles since the seventies have hid the damage the massive globalization has caused, and that began in the seventies, so those have been the relevant bubbles. Satisfied, Edwina?


Do you enjoy being a nitpicking dog-whore?

 

[Cancel7]

You are kidding me correct? This mantra goes back to the Gore/Bush election when Bush first proposed the Cuts during his campaign. We have been hearing this crap for 10 years and now all of sudden this same plan becomes Obama's tax cuts for the Middle Class simply by removing the top 2% from the cuts.
Please .... the Dems have been using this rhetoric for 10 years.

Excellent, so it should be really easy to find them saying that:

"Just a note though.. if Bush's Tax policy was criminal and only for the rich upper 2%... how is it that Obama and the Democrats now acknowledge we need to maintain the tax cuts for the middle and lower tax brackets ... that was included in that same tax cut plan. Does this mean that you and your Democrats have been lying to the American Public for nearly 10 years by repeating the the mantra over and over again that the Bush Tax Cuts was only for the Rich?"

Let's see what you have presented:

"It is long past time to roll back this President's unfair, unaffordable tax cuts for those who make more than $200,000 a year. In 2006 alone, these tax cuts give $49 billion to people making a million dollars a year or more. A middle class steadily falling behind. And trickle-down tax cuts for the rich that left most Americans feeling trickled on." John Kerry October 1, 2007 at Boston's Faneuil Hall

So what you found was KErry stating that the cuts for people making over 200k a year gave 49 billion in tax cuts to millionaires, and that those cuts need to be "roll backed".

Which is precisely what Obama is proposing to do, except he is going to raise that limit to 250k.

So Democrats did not say that "only" the rich benefitted from the tax cuts, they said that most of the cuts went to the rich and that they would like to end them. Democrats have been remarkably consistent in this policy.

Ok, Klaatu, you have convinced me. Although just between you and me, I was leaning towards doing away with the tax cuts for the rich but keeping the tax rate in place for the middle class.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Libertarians take ideas the founding fathers used to tackle 18th century issues and extend them indefinitely, claiming that they are universally applicable and brilliant beyond everything that ever could or will be thought up. This is idiocy. Sure, the founders never envisioned a welfare state. But they lived in a time when people had difficulty wiping the shit off their faces. The society wasn't wealthy enough to afford a welfare state, so it's a moot point that isn't even worth discussing. In this day and age where the average middle class family has a plasma screen, I don't think it's a radical proposition at all.

When they were opposed to government power, they were always opposed to the government using that power to benefit the elites in society, because that's all governmental power was used for back then. Using governmental power to benefit the people as a whole was a concept that wasn't even on the drawing board. Some founders, like Thomas Paine, actually did come up with ideas for a welfare state in their time (although Paine used a very convulted extension of his "natural rights" ideology to justify it, it's plain to see that he thought the idea had merit in its own right). Yet we still see libertarians using arguments against using governmental power for the benefit of a few to tackle governmental power for the many. They are small minded idiots, protectors of the powerful, defenders of the defended, and will always be nothing but a historical footnote in the section about various cults that existed in the early 21st century.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Not to this degree. Its a matter of degees and that matters.

Our trade deficit is now lower than it was when we were booming, guys. The economy must be in the best shape it ever has been according to AHZ's asinine ideology.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Our trade deficit is now lower than it was when we were booming, guys. The economy must be in the best shape it ever has been according to AHZ's asinine ideology.

Since what point in time?

 

[DamnYankee]

Libertarians take ideas the founding fathers used to tackle 18th century issues and extend them indefinitely, claiming that they are universally applicable and brilliant beyond everything that ever could or will be thought up. This is idiocy. Sure, the founders never envisioned a welfare state. But they lived in a time when people had difficulty wiping the shit off their faces. The society wasn't wealthy enough to afford a welfare state, so it's a moot point that isn't even worth discussing. In this day and age where the average middle class family has a plasma screen, I don't think it's a radical proposition at all.

When they were opposed to government power, they were always opposed to the government using that power to benefit the elites in society, because that's all governmental power was used for back then. Using governmental power to benefit the people as a whole was a concept that wasn't even on the drawing board. Some founders, like Thomas Paine, actually did come up with ideas for a welfare state in their time (although Paine used a very convulted extension of his "natural rights" ideology to justify it, it's plain to see that he thought the idea had merit in its own right). Yet we still see libertarians using arguments against using governmental power for the benefit of a few to tackle governmental power for the many. They are small minded idiots, protectors of the powerful, defenders of the defended, and will always be nothing but a historical footnote in the section about various cults that existed in the early 21st century.

The Founders realized that society would change over time, in fact there is extensive writings such as ' the present belongs to the living' and such. So they developed a method for the Constitution to change, called the Amendment Process. So if you want the federal government to wipe your ass for you, then go through the process and give them the power and the authority to do so.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

The Founders realized that society would change over time, in fact there is extensive writings such as ' the present belongs to the living' and such. So they developed a method for the Constitution to change, called the Amendment Process. So if you want the federal government to wipe your ass for you, then go through the process and give them the power and the authority to do so.

I would quote the passage for you but I'm sure you're pretty familiar with how this works by now.