Voters Prefer To Cut The Federal Payroll
-
I see you've gone back and changed "pay no taxes" to "pay no income taxes" in your original post. And now you're talking like you never claimed that 50% of Americans paid no taxes. A little disingenuous, but at least it's now correct. And you're now arguing that you don't care that the working poor don't pay income taxes, which is 180 from what you started out arguing in this post.
So, congrats, John. You just argued for a progressive income tax code, where the working poor are exempt from the income tax through lower rates and things like the Earned Income Tax Credit. Or what the right calls "redistributing the wealth."
So your gut instinct was more Republican. After you thought about it for a few minutes, you decided the Democratic position made more sense.
And it's a good thing, too, because if there's anyone who makes me laugh more it's someone who rails against tax increases of any kind, especially those on "the job creators", hates capital gains taxes, estate taxes, wants the top rates cut, wants corporate rate cuts ...but then finally finds the one group of Americans who need to have their taxes raised: the poor.
This is essentially what every Republican candidate is arguing for right now.
-
The Republican primary is pretty entertaining though
-
I see you've gone back and changed "pay no taxes" to "pay no income taxes" in your original post. And now you're talking like you never claimed that 50% of Americans paid no taxes. A little disingenuous, but at least it's now correct. And you're now arguing that you don't care that the working poor don't pay income taxes, which is 180 from what you started out arguing in this post.
So, congrats, John. You just argued for a progressive income tax code, where the working poor are exempt from the income tax through lower rates and things like the Earned Income Tax Credit. Or what the right calls "redistributing the wealth."
So your gut instinct was more Republican. After you thought about it for a few minutes, you decided the Democratic position made more sense.
And it's a good thing, too, because if there's anyone who makes me laugh more it's someone who rails against tax increases of any kind, especially those on "the job creators", hates capital gains taxes, estate taxes, wants the top rates cut, wants corporate rate cuts ...but then finally finds the one group of Americans who need to have their taxes raised: the poor.
This is essentially what every Republican candidate is arguing for right now.
>>I see you've gone back and changed "pay no taxes" to "pay no income taxes" in your original post. And now you're talking like you never claimed that 50% of Americans paid no taxes. A little disingenuous, but at least it's now correct. And you're now arguing that you don't care that the working poor don't pay income taxes, which is 180 from what you started out arguing in this post.>>
Maybe it's just a matter of me doing what you, apparently, never do: 'stand corrected". I apologize, Heck.
>>So, congrats, John. You just argued for a progressive income tax code, where the working poor are exempt from the income tax through lower rates and things like the Earned Income Tax Credit. Or what the right calls "redistributing the wealth.">>
Not at all. My point is that the system will crash under its own weight if some types of actions are not taken. I said that taking every penney from "1%ers" won't cover the gap. What about this don't you understand or refuse to accept.??
So your gut instinct was more Republican. After you thought about it for a few minutes, you decided the Democratic position made more sense.
And it's a good thing, too, because if there's anyone who makes me laugh more it's someone who rails against tax increases of any kind, especially those on "the job creators", hates capital gains taxes, estate taxes, wants the top rates cut, wants corporate rate cuts ...but then finally finds the one group of Americans who need to have their taxes raised: the poor.
This is essentially what every Republican candidate is arguing for right now.
And you never uttered a word about curtailing spending. You fall into the category of wanting to squeeze and squeeze the working public so your academic exercises can be implemented.
By the way, I am unclear of whom you are describing as 'Left' And 'Right'. I assume its not nearly as simple as saying, "Democrat" and "Republican". Is the Right always Right and is the Left always Left? Are some people Left on certain subjects and Right on others? My guess is that a heck of a lot of people cross your pigeon holes more often than you'd admit.
-
>>I see you've gone back and changed "pay no taxes" to "pay no income taxes" in your original post. And now you're talking like you never claimed that 50% of Americans paid no taxes. A little disingenuous, but at least it's now correct. And you're now arguing that you don't care that the working poor don't pay income taxes, which is 180 from what you started out arguing in this post.>>
Maybe it's just a matter of me doing what you, apparently, never do: 'stand corrected". I apologize, Heck.
>>So, congrats, John. You just argued for a progressive income tax code, where the working poor are exempt from the income tax through lower rates and things like the Earned Income Tax Credit. Or what the right calls "redistributing the wealth.">>
Not at all. My point is that the system will crash under its own weight if some types of actions are not taken. I said that taking every penney from "1%ers" won't cover the gap. What about this don't you understand or refuse to accept.??
So your gut instinct was more Republican. After you thought about it for a few minutes, you decided the Democratic position made more sense.
And it's a good thing, too, because if there's anyone who makes me laugh more it's someone who rails against tax increases of any kind, especially those on "the job creators", hates capital gains taxes, estate taxes, wants the top rates cut, wants corporate rate cuts ...but then finally finds the one group of Americans who need to have their taxes raised: the poor.
This is essentially what every Republican candidate is arguing for right now.
And you never uttered a word about curtailing spending. You fall into the category of wanting to squeeze and squeeze the working public so your academic exercises can be implemented.
By the way, I am unclear of whom you are describing as 'Left' And 'Right'. I assume its not nearly as simple as saying, "Democrat" and "Republican". Is the Right always Right and is the Left always Left? Are some people Left on certain subjects and Right on others? My guess is that a heck of a lot of people cross your pigeon holes more often than you'd admit.
And you never uttered a word about curtailing spending. You fall into the category of wanting to squeeze and squeeze the working public so your academic exercises can be implemented.
By the way, I am unclear of whom you are describing as 'Left' And 'Right'. I assume its not nearly as simple as saying, "Democrat" and "Republican". Is the Right always Right and is the Left always Left? Are some people Left on certain subjects and Right on others? My guess is that a heck of a lot of people cross your pigeon holes more often than you'd admit.
John, you're really outdoing yourself. You began this post by asserting that the main problem was that 50% of Americans at the bottom didn't pay any taxes, and that they should. Then you got corrected on that, because it wasn't true. And then what do you have the balls to say now? That I want to "squeeze and squeeze the working public so your academic exercises can be implemented."
Dude, you just spent the first few posts saying we needed to tax the working public more. Meanwhile, I argued that we shouldn't tax them more. And then you accuse me of wanting to tax them more. How do you get to make that statement? And what academic exercises are you talking about?
And then you break out a pathetic straw man argument. Apparently there's nothing between changing the top tax rates from 35% to 39%, back to where they were before Bush, and confiscating 100% of their income. What part of that don't I understand? The part that nobody gives a shit about, because no one is suggesting that we do that.
Plus, I mention curtailing spending all the time. In fact, I mentioned it in this very thread - that you need to deal with the main drivers of the debt, which are entitlements and military spending.
Other than everything you said, great post.
-
And you never uttered a word about curtailing spending. You fall into the category of wanting to squeeze and squeeze the working public so your academic exercises can be implemented.
By the way, I am unclear of whom you are describing as 'Left' And 'Right'. I assume its not nearly as simple as saying, "Democrat" and "Republican". Is the Right always Right and is the Left always Left? Are some people Left on certain subjects and Right on others? My guess is that a heck of a lot of people cross your pigeon holes more often than you'd admit.
John, you're really outdoing yourself. You began this post by asserting that the main problem was that 50% of Americans at the bottom didn't pay any taxes, and that they should. Then you got corrected on that, because it wasn't true. And then what do you have the balls to say now? That I want to "squeeze and squeeze the working public so your academic exercises can be implemented."
Dude, you just spent the first few posts saying we needed to tax the working public more. Meanwhile, I argued that we shouldn't tax them more. And then you accuse me of wanting to tax them more. How do you get to make that statement? And what academic exercises are you talking about?
And then you break out a pathetic straw man argument. Apparently there's nothing between changing the top tax rates from 35% to 39%, back to where they were before Bush, and confiscating 100% of their income. What part of that don't I understand? The part that nobody gives a shit about, because no one is suggesting that we do that.
Plus, I mention curtailing spending all the time. In fact, I mentioned it in this very thread - that you need to deal with the main drivers of the debt, which are entitlements and military spending.
Other than everything you said, great post.
John, you're really outdoing yourself. You began this post by asserting that the main problem was that 50% of Americans at the bottom didn't pay any taxes, and that they should. Then you got corrected on that, because it wasn't true. And then what do you have the balls to say now? That I want to "squeeze and squeeze the working public so your academic exercises can be implemented."
I don't recall saying the main problem was that................ I might have said it but I don't remember (you should buy into this type of statement in a NY minute
Dude, you just spent the first few posts saying we needed to tax the working public more. Meanwhile, I argued that we shouldn't tax them more. And then you accuse me of wanting to tax them more. How do you get to make that statement?There is a difference between the working public and the so-called working poor, Heck. If you continue to feed the spending engine, who wll be burdened with more taxes? The working poor? The 1%ers? The working public? You lost me.And what academic exercises are you talking about?
And then you break out a pathetic straw man argument. Apparently there's nothing between changing the top tax rates from 35% to 39%, back to where they were before Bush, and confiscating 100% of their income. What part of that don't I understand? The part that nobody gives a shit about, because no one is suggesting that we do that.
Plus, I mention curtailing spending all the time. In fact, I mentioned it in this very thread - that you need to deal with the main drivers of the debt, which are entitlements and military spending.
Other than everything you said, great post.
-
John, if the median wage in America is $26,363, that's half of the country that makes that or less. That's a large share of the working public.
So if you don't want to increase the tax burden on these people (since they don't make very much) who else should have their taxes increased to pay for all the government spending? Anyone? Are there any revenue increases to be had here? What would you do?
-
>>So if you don't want to increase the tax burden on these people (since they don't make very much) who else should have their taxes increased to pay for all the government spending? Anyone? Are there any revenue increases to be had here? What would you do?>>
I would cut with a very jagged knife, Heck. What else is there to do?
Oh yea - cut earmarks.................like 1/12th of 1 % of the Federal Budget.
I can't stop laughing.
-
You keep suggesting that I proposed cutting earmarks as a solution. Except that I didn't.
-
Now that John has you backtracking, I have to laugh.
You didn't inhale, correct?
-
"I think we should go with plan A, because this this and this"
"But plan B is horrible and has these flaws"
"Right but I said A"
"How dare you keep talking about B, such a horrible plan"
"No, B is wrong for these reasons and I don't want to address it again"
"AH HA! You're backtracking. Why are you talking about B? I knew I was right"
-
Welcome to The Browns Board, Woody.
-
I think he enjoys not being surrounded by idiots
-
I think he enjoys not being surrounded by idiots
Actually woody is just smart enough to know that all he need do is to insult cal and kiss Hecks butt for dog treats.
WSS
www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons -
Insulting Cal does have a way of making one feel like an asshole. But in our defense, what else are you supposed to do with him, reason?
-
Heck - you don't try to reason with me, because you know you'd fail to
win me over as a dem voter convert. it's what you do in real life, I think.
I think you get paid to figure out emotional arguments that are affective in
influencing the middle of the road voters.
I was in the military, I've said many times that I know there is a lot of waste.
There is more waste in our welfare and other entitlements systems.
But with you libs, the only waste in in the military, that you all don't respect a whit.
Meanwhile, as to John's point about why an Air Force...
Basically, the Air Force must exist because of SAC. Strategic Air Command. That's my opinion.
The other services can have their own transports and fighters...
but it doesn't seem to me, to be a place in any of the other services for the strategic bombers and missiles.
Although, that function IS tied in to the attack class nuclear warhead submarines in the Navy. Not a bad question, John.
But like with most things, to much centralized is too much bureaucratic inefficiency.
Combining the functionality of all the different services would be an unmanageable burden, so to what degree
is it most efficient to divide up the functionalities of our self defense systems?.
-
I think he enjoys not being surrounded by idiots
Actually woody is just smart enough to know that all he need do is to insult cal and kiss Hecks butt for dog treats.
WSS
Actually woody is just smart enough to know that all he need do is to insult cal and kiss Hecks butt for dog treats.
WSS
It's funny that you all like it when it's all of you against me, but when Vapor starts posting, and then Woody jumps in, somehow the fact that there are a few guys who are now on my side (for the most part) is too much to handle.
Woody speaks his mind. So what? You guys can't take more than one person who thinks you're all exceedingly uninformed? Plus, he's being introduced to Cal, who is the most ignorant man I've ever met, for the first time. Trust me - as a liberal guy, it really does take some getting used to.
-
Actually woody is just smart enough to know that all he need do is to insult cal and kiss Hecks butt for dog treats.
WSS
It's funny that you all like it when it's all of you against me, but when Vapor starts posting, and then Woody jumps in, somehow the fact that there are a few guys who are now on my side (for the most part) is too much to handle.
Woody speaks his mind. So what? You guys can't take more than one person who thinks you're all exceedingly uninformed? Plus, he's being introduced to Cal, who is the most ignorant man I've ever met, for the first time. Trust me - as a liberal guy, it really does take some getting used to.
Woody speaks his mind. So what? You guys can't take more than one person who thinks you're all exceedingly uninformed? Plus, he's being introduced to Cal, who is the most ignorant man I've ever met, for the first time. Trust me - as a liberal guy, it really does take some getting used to.
I don't even consider myself liberal and Cal baffles me daily
-
I am super-human. I have the ability to clout liberals' feeble emotional psyches with logic, jokes, and reason.
They hate that.
-
Actually woody is just smart enough to know that all he need do is to insult cal and kiss Hecks butt for dog treats.
WSS
It's funny that you all like it when it's all of you against me, but when Vapor starts posting, and then Woody jumps in, somehow the fact that there are a few guys who are now on my side (for the most part) is too much to handle.
Woody speaks his mind. So what? You guys can't take more than one person who thinks you're all exceedingly uninformed? Plus, he's being introduced to Cal, who is the most ignorant man I've ever met, for the first time. Trust me - as a liberal guy, it really does take some getting used to.
It's funny that you all like it when it's all of you against me, but when Vapor starts posting, and then Woody
Against you?
On your side?
Do you think these guys are in lockstep with your ideology? Or me with anyone else here?
WSS
www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons -
I'm not sure you understood what I said, and now I don't understand what you are getting at.
I'm saying for a while I was the only voice that wasn't from the right wing, or the extreme right wing, or where you are - the "I'm not really for anything, just don't like liberals" wing. Now Vapor and Woody are in here, using sound, evidence-based arguments, and even something that's plainly obvious, like that Cal is insane and noxious, must mean something about him trying to win "dog treats."
Of course, you agree that Cal is horribly lost, you just don't say so.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login