Maybe you prefer a great father on Wall Street to take care of all your ills and order your hirings and firings, but a great many of us have a spine and prefer collective action. We're called adults. The adults among us do much better when government works to curb the excesses of Drunken Gambler Daddy capitalism.
Beaten and disgraced, he slinks off with his tail between his legs. I wish I could take pleasure in this, but the fact that there are people like him out there trying to screw up my country just pisses me off.
I care whether or not Obama is dishonest, but all you have presented is OPINION, no facts to back anything up. Oh, you tried to pretend like you had facts, but I have proved that you don't. Your self image will not allow you to admit that you are dishonest and unpatriotic, but your intellect can not deny that you have been, so you are caught in the throws of cognitive dissonance.
You know that I have exposed your lies, (with your own help, thanks again for posting that Richardson clip, it proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that his words mean something very different from what you implied they did. I simply love tricking my opponents into providing evidence against themselves.) which is why you keep debating. You hope to confuse and sidetrack the issue, which is that you implied that Richardson's statement disproves Barack's statement. I have rubbed your nose in the fact that it does not, again, and again, and again. You can spin it all you like, but your words are right there for all to see. You can't deny what you did, you can't pretend like you meant it any other way. Your original words and intent are very clear.
Again, this is not about your 'opinion.' This is about your flat out lies. Lies that you have stopped defending because you know you can't, and instead you try to make your point in a different fashion and sidestep your original intent.
I have thoroughly enjoyed destroying your argument and proving you a liar. All you are left with is speculation and opinion, a far cry from your original position. Yes, yes, we know that it is your opinion that Obama will raise taxes, but nobody cares about the opinions of a proven liar.
Sure, we don't know who is right, but you used Bill Richardson's line to support your thesis, and it does not support your thesis at all. You are confusing Obama's pledge not to raise taxes for those making $250,000 or less, with a speculative statement by Bill Richardson about lowering taxes for the 90% of Americans making $120,000 and less. Your statement about politicians lying about tax policy carries more wight, albeit still very little, but that wasn't your original argument.
In case I need to, you made a comment about a "$250,000" myth. The $250,000 figure refers to those who will not see their taxes raised. As support of this, you brought up Bill Richardson's statement, about who may see a tax break. You deliberately tried to conflate the two. You deliberately tried to make it seem as if Richardson was claiming Obama would raise taxes on those making over $120,000. Moreover, you tried to make it seem as if there is a conflict between these two statement. And you used this incredible hodge podge of lies and misdirection to support the idea that Obama will raise everybody's taxes. He might, quite frankly I don't care. But you have not argued your case in an honest fashion, you have used the typical tricks of the Republican party to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt.
I don't see the utility in arguing this further. I've proven the point I set out to prove, that your statements are misleading and don't support your thesis. With a only little help from you in posting the actual evidence. Thanks. My vindication will come tomorrow when the dirty tricks you and your party use will simply fail. I can only hope the unpatriotic divisiveness of the Republicans will not make working together to save our country too difficult, and that the damage brought on by Republican policies has not been too great.
Excuse me, but what am I supposed to make of a five second sound bite without picture? What does that have to do with your original statement, "You don't really believe the myth of "$250,000" do you?" The $250,000 is the cutoff for not RAISING your taxes. I'm fine with tax cuts for those making under $120,000. 90% of Americans make $120,000 or less. Please, just stop, I think your brain has gotten soggy from those right wing echo chambers.
You can claim transactions in the free market are voluntary, but the reality is, most people get the choice of being kicked in the balls, or stabbed in the neck. They 'choose' getting kicked in the balls because the only other option is worse.
How do you explain the fact that the top 10% took 90% of the increase in the GDP for the last 30 years? Do you really think those people deserve it? Do you really think everyone else would go along with it, if not for force?
Do you really think the little guy stands a chance in court against huge corporate legal teams?
There is a systematic devaluation of labor, and overvaluation of capital, by those with capital. There are no options for people who do not own capital, they don't make the rules.
The pyramid scheme I refer to is the housing bubble. Bubbles are pyramid schemes that require more and more people to believe in the artificial valuation created by those at the top of the scheme. The crisis is not about people getting houses they can't afford. It is about unregulated financial instruments. The default rate has little to do with it.
All the money that went into pumping up the housing market could have gone into creating jobs. My analysis stands, you have not refuted it.
NO! He never said that, stop repeating bullshit! He was simply asked what his definition of the middle class was, and he said, "Anyone making less than $120,000 a year." That is all.
You can believe what you like, but that does not excuse you for repeating unsupported allegations you read on some right wing blog.
You absolutely lied. You said "The latest from the Obama surrogates was $120,000 a year (Gov. Richardson)," and that is not even remotely true. That simply wasn't what was said. As for the rest, you sure don't present it as opinion or speculation. You present it as fact. That is simply dishonest, but not an outright lie.
Nope, you misheard, or are deliberately spreading lies. Obama said, he will not raise taxes on people making less than $250,000 per year. That has never changed. He also said there would be a tax break for people making under $200,000 a year. That hasn't changed either. Other Democrats have said various things about who is in the middle class, but a.) Obama never pegged his tax plans to some arbitrary and undefined 'class,' but to specific income levels and b.) who gives a hoot what other Democrats claim, they aren't going to be president, Obama is.
In the end, you win. You got your propaganda out and modded +5, despite having no evidence. The people who countered your absurd claims have not been modded up, so people will see your lies more easily than the many refutations of those lies. Congratulations. Too bad for you, it isn't going to do squat to get grampa elected.
What is the difference between using economic power to redistribute wealth, as opposed to political force? People earn different incomes, but the rich have more say in who gets what income than you do.
Economic force is backed up by men with guns. Otherwise, people would simply equalize the imbalance once it reached the point of unfairness. People like to reward excellence in others, but they do not like to be taken advantage of.
The rich use money to cheat at the economic system. They enforce an oligopoly in many areas. They refuse to pay a decent wage, instead choosing to take unreasonable and unearned profits.
The crazy pyramid scheme I am talking about is quite evident, or didn't you notice the economic crisis brought on by bad investing practices? The rich did not want to invest in new jobs, because they want to widen the wealth gap, so the only decent place to put their money was the housing market, and 'speculation' aka gambling. Pyramid schemes fail, but the guys at the top make out like bandits.
You can attempt a reductio ad absurdum argument if you like, but this isn't an all or nothing thing. Do the rich have more property to protect? If so, then they see more value out of property protection than you do. The rich also see more value from roads, as you are unlikely to own fleets of vehicles. They see more value from the public schools, because they need more educated workers than you need. They benefit from the social stability that all the social services provide, as well, but probably not more so than others.
Care to back up your assertions with proof? I believe you are making up facts to back your position. I've worked in social services, and my experience is that almost anyone getting any kind of state assistance has to work for it, doing jobs for less than minimum wage, jobs that used to be union jobs with decent wages. Welfare is a joke, it is a way to force people to work for less than minimum wage.
The government is doing it, because without the 'men with guns' that the government supplies to protect the property rights of the rich, this massive wealth redistribution never would have happened.
Seeing as how the top 1% control the vast majority of wealth in the country, they should be the ones paying the vast majority of the taxes. The police, armed forces, and fire departments certainly aren't protecting the nonexistent property of the bum living under the bridge. They are protecting the property of the rich, and therefore the rich should pay.
I'm a socialist. The Democrats, and especially Obama, aren't. If you think they are, you don't know what socialism means.
Wealth redistribution has already happened. The top 1% took most of the increase in GNP for the last 30 years, and the top 10% took most of the rest, leaving less than 10% for the bottom 90% of us to split.
Money is power. Specifically, it is the power to control other people. It is anti-democratic. Having more money makes making money easier, because you can siphon off the value created by other people, using economic force. Economic force is just as real as political force, as it is backed up by the same 'men with guns.'
All the socialists want is to use collective power to offset the power amassed by capitalist robber barons. It is better for the economy, too. Look at the stock market during Republican presidential terms as opposed to Democratic presidential terms. If you had invested in stock only during Republican presidencies over the last 100 years, you would have made, on average,.4% on your investment. If you had invested only during Democratic terms, you would have made 8.4%.
See, the thing is, when the wealth is shared by all who produce it, the economy works better. The rich still get rich, but they know what to invest in: what people are buying. When the money just goes to the rich, they create crazy pyramid schemes instead of investing in job creation, because they don't have to care about the piddly 10% of wealth that the bottom 90% control.
Face facts: Democrats are better for the economy. Even millionaires and billionaires do better under Democrats. But the gap doesn't widen, and that is all the rich really care about, not their overall wealth level. They would rather have a million dollars when the rest of us have a thousand dollars than have a billion dollars when the rest of us have a million, because absolute wealth levels mean nothing. It is the wealth disparity that lets them control us and profit off of us unreasonably.
Way to misquote. Richardson said the middle class are the people making less than $120,000. No one said anything about changing Obama's proposals. You are just speculating based on incorrect information.
Socks, bubble wrap, pieces of Styrofoam, and duct tape work great. Uhh, or so I heard. I never did that. Nope, I, uhh, machined a soundproof case and engineered an active noise canceling solution. Yeah, that's the ticket! But I had help from, um... Morgan Fairchild!
Wrong, you've lost badly. First, you started foaming at the mouth. Then, you haven't refuted anything I've said. You whined about an 'ad hominem' when I never attacked a person, I merely said I didn't trust a biased source. And when I provided you with an in depth analysis that cites historical cases where you are flat out wrong, you won't even read it because you don't want to admit you are wrong. You are the one being the petulant douchebag here, because you are embarrassed about how badly I beat you. You can't admit that I'm simply smarter and more well informed than you.
And finally, you said you wouldn't be reading or replying to me. Haha! Loser, you can't even control your anger enough to do what you claim you will do. Any unbiased outside observer would have to agree, I beat you like red headed step-child. I have facts on my side, while you don't even know what the Laffer curve is! You can't even think for yourself, you can only parrot back other people's opinions.
Cutting taxes does not always reduce revenue, obviously if taxes are cut to 0%, revenue drops to zero. The point is, at what point do decreases actually start to decrease revenue? I presented you with solid scientific evidence and you ignored it, because you obviously only believe what is convenient for you to believe, so I think we're done here.
It's not an ad hominem, what I did is more properly it is referred to as poisoning the well, and there are certain situations where it is actually appropriate. For instance, if someone said our moon landings were faked it would be important to note whether they were, say, an astronaut or a UFO conspiracy nut when you looked at the evidence they presented. Here it is important to note that the heritage foundation is extremely biased, and the direction of that bias.
In any case, my point is not that the Laffer curve does not exist. My point is that we are operating on the left hand side of the Laffer curve, where tax cuts will lower revenue and tax increases will raise it. You may want to read the Congresional Budget Office's 2005 report, "Analyzing the Economic and Budgetary Effects of a 10 Percent Cut in Income Tax Rates". It takes into account projected differences in growth rates caused by tax decreases, and it proves that the government would lose money by lowering taxes.
Firstly, the heritage foundation is an extreme libertarian organization that I suspect massages figures to support their worldview, but be that as it may, 70 percent sounds about right for the highest tax rate. 90% is a bit extreme. I fully support your idea of raising the highest tax rate only back up to 70%.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe you prefer a great father on Wall Street to take care of all your ills and order your hirings and firings, but a great many of us have a spine and prefer collective action. We're called adults. The adults among us do much better when government works to curb the excesses of Drunken Gambler Daddy capitalism.
Beaten and disgraced, he slinks off with his tail between his legs. I wish I could take pleasure in this, but the fact that there are people like him out there trying to screw up my country just pisses me off.
I care whether or not Obama is dishonest, but all you have presented is OPINION, no facts to back anything up. Oh, you tried to pretend like you had facts, but I have proved that you don't. Your self image will not allow you to admit that you are dishonest and unpatriotic, but your intellect can not deny that you have been, so you are caught in the throws of cognitive dissonance.
You know that I have exposed your lies, (with your own help, thanks again for posting that Richardson clip, it proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that his words mean something very different from what you implied they did. I simply love tricking my opponents into providing evidence against themselves.) which is why you keep debating. You hope to confuse and sidetrack the issue, which is that you implied that Richardson's statement disproves Barack's statement. I have rubbed your nose in the fact that it does not, again, and again, and again. You can spin it all you like, but your words are right there for all to see. You can't deny what you did, you can't pretend like you meant it any other way. Your original words and intent are very clear.
Again, this is not about your 'opinion.' This is about your flat out lies. Lies that you have stopped defending because you know you can't, and instead you try to make your point in a different fashion and sidestep your original intent.
I have thoroughly enjoyed destroying your argument and proving you a liar. All you are left with is speculation and opinion, a far cry from your original position. Yes, yes, we know that it is your opinion that Obama will raise taxes, but nobody cares about the opinions of a proven liar.
Asshole, I care if he is dishonest, but you have not shown that he is dishonest. You have only shown that you are.
Sure, we don't know who is right, but you used Bill Richardson's line to support your thesis, and it does not support your thesis at all. You are confusing Obama's pledge not to raise taxes for those making $250,000 or less, with a speculative statement by Bill Richardson about lowering taxes for the 90% of Americans making $120,000 and less. Your statement about politicians lying about tax policy carries more wight, albeit still very little, but that wasn't your original argument.
In case I need to, you made a comment about a "$250,000" myth. The $250,000 figure refers to those who will not see their taxes raised. As support of this, you brought up Bill Richardson's statement, about who may see a tax break. You deliberately tried to conflate the two. You deliberately tried to make it seem as if Richardson was claiming Obama would raise taxes on those making over $120,000. Moreover, you tried to make it seem as if there is a conflict between these two statement. And you used this incredible hodge podge of lies and misdirection to support the idea that Obama will raise everybody's taxes. He might, quite frankly I don't care. But you have not argued your case in an honest fashion, you have used the typical tricks of the Republican party to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt.
I don't see the utility in arguing this further. I've proven the point I set out to prove, that your statements are misleading and don't support your thesis. With a only little help from you in posting the actual evidence. Thanks. My vindication will come tomorrow when the dirty tricks you and your party use will simply fail. I can only hope the unpatriotic divisiveness of the Republicans will not make working together to save our country too difficult, and that the damage brought on by Republican policies has not been too great.
Excuse me, but what am I supposed to make of a five second sound bite without picture? What does that have to do with your original statement, "You don't really believe the myth of "$250,000" do you?" The $250,000 is the cutoff for not RAISING your taxes. I'm fine with tax cuts for those making under $120,000. 90% of Americans make $120,000 or less. Please, just stop, I think your brain has gotten soggy from those right wing echo chambers.
You can claim transactions in the free market are voluntary, but the reality is, most people get the choice of being kicked in the balls, or stabbed in the neck. They 'choose' getting kicked in the balls because the only other option is worse.
How do you explain the fact that the top 10% took 90% of the increase in the GDP for the last 30 years? Do you really think those people deserve it? Do you really think everyone else would go along with it, if not for force?
Do you really think the little guy stands a chance in court against huge corporate legal teams?
There is a systematic devaluation of labor, and overvaluation of capital, by those with capital. There are no options for people who do not own capital, they don't make the rules.
The pyramid scheme I refer to is the housing bubble. Bubbles are pyramid schemes that require more and more people to believe in the artificial valuation created by those at the top of the scheme. The crisis is not about people getting houses they can't afford. It is about unregulated financial instruments. The default rate has little to do with it.
All the money that went into pumping up the housing market could have gone into creating jobs. My analysis stands, you have not refuted it.
Enjoy having your mod privileges revoked in meta-mod, bitches.
NO! He never said that, stop repeating bullshit! He was simply asked what his definition of the middle class was, and he said, "Anyone making less than $120,000 a year." That is all.
You can believe what you like, but that does not excuse you for repeating unsupported allegations you read on some right wing blog.
With all the weird things we find on Earth, I wonder what could be in that water?
Trash? Wrappers?
Enchiladas? There simply have to be enchiladas on Enceladus, or my whole plan to set up an extraterrestrial enchilada mine is shot.
You absolutely lied. You said "The latest from the Obama surrogates was $120,000 a year (Gov. Richardson)," and that is not even remotely true. That simply wasn't what was said. As for the rest, you sure don't present it as opinion or speculation. You present it as fact. That is simply dishonest, but not an outright lie.
Nope, you misheard, or are deliberately spreading lies. Obama said, he will not raise taxes on people making less than $250,000 per year. That has never changed. He also said there would be a tax break for people making under $200,000 a year. That hasn't changed either. Other Democrats have said various things about who is in the middle class, but a.) Obama never pegged his tax plans to some arbitrary and undefined 'class,' but to specific income levels and b.) who gives a hoot what other Democrats claim, they aren't going to be president, Obama is.
In the end, you win. You got your propaganda out and modded +5, despite having no evidence. The people who countered your absurd claims have not been modded up, so people will see your lies more easily than the many refutations of those lies. Congratulations. Too bad for you, it isn't going to do squat to get grampa elected.
What is the difference between using economic power to redistribute wealth, as opposed to political force? People earn different incomes, but the rich have more say in who gets what income than you do.
Economic force is backed up by men with guns. Otherwise, people would simply equalize the imbalance once it reached the point of unfairness. People like to reward excellence in others, but they do not like to be taken advantage of.
The rich use money to cheat at the economic system. They enforce an oligopoly in many areas. They refuse to pay a decent wage, instead choosing to take unreasonable and unearned profits.
The crazy pyramid scheme I am talking about is quite evident, or didn't you notice the economic crisis brought on by bad investing practices? The rich did not want to invest in new jobs, because they want to widen the wealth gap, so the only decent place to put their money was the housing market, and 'speculation' aka gambling. Pyramid schemes fail, but the guys at the top make out like bandits.
You can attempt a reductio ad absurdum argument if you like, but this isn't an all or nothing thing. Do the rich have more property to protect? If so, then they see more value out of property protection than you do. The rich also see more value from roads, as you are unlikely to own fleets of vehicles. They see more value from the public schools, because they need more educated workers than you need. They benefit from the social stability that all the social services provide, as well, but probably not more so than others.
Care to back up your assertions with proof? I believe you are making up facts to back your position. I've worked in social services, and my experience is that almost anyone getting any kind of state assistance has to work for it, doing jobs for less than minimum wage, jobs that used to be union jobs with decent wages. Welfare is a joke, it is a way to force people to work for less than minimum wage.
The government is doing it, because without the 'men with guns' that the government supplies to protect the property rights of the rich, this massive wealth redistribution never would have happened.
Seeing as how the top 1% control the vast majority of wealth in the country, they should be the ones paying the vast majority of the taxes. The police, armed forces, and fire departments certainly aren't protecting the nonexistent property of the bum living under the bridge. They are protecting the property of the rich, and therefore the rich should pay.
I'm a socialist. The Democrats, and especially Obama, aren't. If you think they are, you don't know what socialism means.
Wealth redistribution has already happened. The top 1% took most of the increase in GNP for the last 30 years, and the top 10% took most of the rest, leaving less than 10% for the bottom 90% of us to split.
Money is power. Specifically, it is the power to control other people. It is anti-democratic. Having more money makes making money easier, because you can siphon off the value created by other people, using economic force. Economic force is just as real as political force, as it is backed up by the same 'men with guns.'
All the socialists want is to use collective power to offset the power amassed by capitalist robber barons. It is better for the economy, too. Look at the stock market during Republican presidential terms as opposed to Democratic presidential terms. If you had invested in stock only during Republican presidencies over the last 100 years, you would have made, on average, .4% on your investment. If you had invested only during Democratic terms, you would have made 8.4%.
See, the thing is, when the wealth is shared by all who produce it, the economy works better. The rich still get rich, but they know what to invest in: what people are buying. When the money just goes to the rich, they create crazy pyramid schemes instead of investing in job creation, because they don't have to care about the piddly 10% of wealth that the bottom 90% control.
Face facts: Democrats are better for the economy. Even millionaires and billionaires do better under Democrats. But the gap doesn't widen, and that is all the rich really care about, not their overall wealth level. They would rather have a million dollars when the rest of us have a thousand dollars than have a billion dollars when the rest of us have a million, because absolute wealth levels mean nothing. It is the wealth disparity that lets them control us and profit off of us unreasonably.
Way to misquote. Richardson said the middle class are the people making less than $120,000. No one said anything about changing Obama's proposals. You are just speculating based on incorrect information.
Socks, bubble wrap, pieces of Styrofoam, and duct tape work great. Uhh, or so I heard. I never did that. Nope, I, uhh, machined a soundproof case and engineered an active noise canceling solution. Yeah, that's the ticket! But I had help from, um... Morgan Fairchild!
Wrong, you've lost badly. First, you started foaming at the mouth. Then, you haven't refuted anything I've said. You whined about an 'ad hominem' when I never attacked a person, I merely said I didn't trust a biased source. And when I provided you with an in depth analysis that cites historical cases where you are flat out wrong, you won't even read it because you don't want to admit you are wrong. You are the one being the petulant douchebag here, because you are embarrassed about how badly I beat you. You can't admit that I'm simply smarter and more well informed than you.
And finally, you said you wouldn't be reading or replying to me. Haha! Loser, you can't even control your anger enough to do what you claim you will do. Any unbiased outside observer would have to agree, I beat you like red headed step-child. I have facts on my side, while you don't even know what the Laffer curve is! You can't even think for yourself, you can only parrot back other people's opinions.
Cutting taxes does not always reduce revenue, obviously if taxes are cut to 0%, revenue drops to zero. The point is, at what point do decreases actually start to decrease revenue? I presented you with solid scientific evidence and you ignored it, because you obviously only believe what is convenient for you to believe, so I think we're done here.
It's not an ad hominem, what I did is more properly it is referred to as poisoning the well, and there are certain situations where it is actually appropriate. For instance, if someone said our moon landings were faked it would be important to note whether they were, say, an astronaut or a UFO conspiracy nut when you looked at the evidence they presented. Here it is important to note that the heritage foundation is extremely biased, and the direction of that bias.
In any case, my point is not that the Laffer curve does not exist. My point is that we are operating on the left hand side of the Laffer curve, where tax cuts will lower revenue and tax increases will raise it. You may want to read the Congresional Budget Office's 2005 report, "Analyzing the Economic and Budgetary Effects of a 10 Percent Cut in Income Tax Rates". It takes into account projected differences in growth rates caused by tax decreases, and it proves that the government would lose money by lowering taxes.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/69xx/doc6908/12-01-10PercentTaxCut.pdf
Does it always, though? Obviously, lowering it to zero will lower revenue. Where is the actual cutoff?
Firstly, the heritage foundation is an extreme libertarian organization that I suspect massages figures to support their worldview, but be that as it may, 70 percent sounds about right for the highest tax rate. 90% is a bit extreme. I fully support your idea of raising the highest tax rate only back up to 70%.