Hide Comments Below
  • -3
  • -2
  • -1
  • 0
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • off
  • But if the working poor would just pay their fair share of taxes, we wouldn't have a deficit anymore! That makes perfect sense!



    Comment 0
    Cool
  • vote cool
  • vote uncool
  • Terms of Service Violation
  • strike inappropriate
  • not inappropriate
  • Other
  • sunlight
  • get permlink
  • Tagged with : ponies , ponies ponies

    What are tags?
    eddyatwork 998 2012-04-12 11:36:40.0 login to vote score 0
    Interesting alt-headlines.
    gradivus 3607 2012-04-12 11:38:06.0 login to vote score 0
    And we also wouldnt have $trillions in government spending to keep the rich wealthy is they didnt have enough money to buy congress every year.
    sloth 222 2012-04-12 11:39:43.0 login to vote score 1
    Wow, all that derp in the alt-headlines, and we went with the one that's unquestionably a straw-man? Good job, guys!
    quick1 501 2012-04-12 11:40:27.0 login to vote score 0
    sloth: Wow, all that derp in the alt-headlines, and we went with the one that's unquestionably a straw-man? Good job, guys!

    They're all strawmen.
    grotfabrieken rubbishhausen 561 2012-04-12 11:41:01.0 login to vote score 2
    quick1: They're all strawmen.

    And soylent green is people!

    brazil 316 2012-04-12 11:41:35.0 login to vote score 3
    Stop living on credit.
    sloth 222 2012-04-12 11:42:24.0 login to vote score 0
    quick1: They're all strawmen.

    This is the only one that actively asserts a position that does not appear in the video in a manner which suggests that it is actually being promoted in the video. IOW, a straw-man.
    quick1 501 2012-04-12 11:45:48.0 login to vote score 3
    grotfabrieken rubbishhausen: And soylent green is people!


    brazil 316 2012-04-12 11:47:53.0 login to vote score 2
    It doesn't matter that it won't work. Or that it's immoral to some. It's what's fair.
    fatsean 3838 2012-04-12 11:48:26.0 login to vote score 1
    sloth: Wow, all that derp in the alt-headlines, and we went with the one that's unquestionably a straw-man? Good job, guys!

    May the better strawman win!
    fatsean 3838 2012-04-12 11:48:51.0 login to vote score 1
    brazil: Stop living on credit.

    Stop extending me credit!
    quinblake 1476 2012-04-12 11:51:24.0 login to vote score 4
    fatsean: May the better strawman win!

    Make the strawman pay taxes!
    little hands of concrete 1804 2012-04-12 11:52:25.0 login to vote score 1
    Obama invented credit!
    the sonic dildo 11340 2012-04-12 11:53:15.0 login to vote score 1
    We need to broaden the base... more people who don't pay need to chip in. the reality is clear.

    We also need to cut spending.

    Placing a punitive tax on a handful of rich people won't make a dent. In this economic crisis it is clear that Obama has not a clue to actually fix anything and just wants to be reelected based on class envy and bullshit.
    little hands of concrete 1804 2012-04-12 11:54:32.0 login to vote score 2
    OBAMA HAS RAISED TAXES ON EVERYBODY THAT HAS A GOOD JOB AND GIVES IT TO FREELOADERS!1!!!!!
    fatsean 3838 2012-04-12 11:57:19.0 login to vote score 2
    quinblake: Make the strawman pay taxes!

    It is true, not a single strawman has ever paid income tax.
    keerbip 4358 2012-04-12 11:58:34.0 login to vote score 4
    fatsean: It is true, not a single strawman has ever paid income tax.

    I don't have a problem with strawmen, but I wouldn't want one dating my daughter.
    fatsean 3838 2012-04-12 12:04:27.0 login to vote score 1
    keerbip: I don't have a problem with strawmen, but I wouldn't want one dating my daughter.

    Your maizeism is saddening in this day and age.
    flashlv 1657 2012-04-12 12:04:36.0 login to vote score 0
    The obvious answer is to spend more and increase the tax on the rich to 95%, because they can afford it!
    brazil 316 2012-04-12 12:04:41.0 login to vote score 0

    flashlv 1657 2012-04-12 12:05:19.0 login to vote score 0
    the sonic dildo: We need to broaden the base... more people who don't pay need to chip in. the reality is clear.

    We also need to cut spending.

    Placing a punitive tax on a handful of rich people won't make a dent. In this economic crisis it is clear that Obama has not a clue to actually fix anything and just wants to be reelected based on class envy and bullshit.


    It will make Democrats feel better.
    gradivus 3607 2012-04-12 12:05:20.0 login to vote score 1
    flashlv: The obvious answer is to spend more and increase the tax on the rich to 95%, because they can afford it!

    $3trillion land wars in asia dont pay for themselves.
    flashlv 1657 2012-04-12 12:06:26.0 login to vote score 0
    gradivus: $3trillion land wars in asia dont pay for themselves.

    Just send more aircraft carriers and more troops, thanks Obama.

    They are free after all!
    fatsean 3838 2012-04-12 12:07:17.0 login to vote score 2
    flashlv: Just send more aircraft carriers and more troops, thanks Obama.

    They are free after all!


    Don't you want to defend our ally Israel by cultivating peace in the region?
    flashlv 1657 2012-04-12 12:08:30.0 login to vote score 0
    fatsean: Don't you want to defend our ally Israel by cultivating peace in the region?

    It's free, so why not!
    flashlv 1657 2012-04-12 12:09:43.0 login to vote score 1
    Why are Democrats against cutting spending before raising taxes?
    quinblake 1476 2012-04-12 12:09:49.0 login to vote score 1
    fatsean: Your maizeism is saddening in this day and age.

    Maybe we need a bunch of rehosted and hotlinked pictures of strawmen. Images always add so much to a discussion.
    gradivus 3607 2012-04-12 12:10:28.0 login to vote score 2
    flashlv: Just send more aircraft carriers and more troops, thanks Obama.

    They are free after all!


    Republicans starting $3trillion wars=FUCK YEAH THIS MERICA!

    Democrats having to clean up your fucking stupid mess=Commie scum taxing the rich because they hate freedom
    surfnazi 932 2012-04-12 12:10:48.0 login to vote score 2
    flashlv: Why are Democrats against cutting spending before raising taxes?

    Same reasons as the Republicans I'd imagine.
    gradivus 3607 2012-04-12 12:10:59.0 login to vote score 3
    flashlv: Why are Democrats against cutting spending before raising taxes?

    Because $3trillion wars.
    flashlv 1657 2012-04-12 12:12:04.0 login to vote score 0
    gradivus: Republicans starting $3trillion wars=FUCK YEAH THIS MERICA!

    Democrats having to clean up your fucking stupid mess=Commie scum taxing the rich because they hate freedom


    How soon you forget :(
    The congress republicans and Democrats approved the war. Not sure why you didn't know that.

    But either way, spending more is the answer Obama came up with.
    gradivus 3607 2012-04-12 12:12:30.0 login to vote score 2
    flashlv: How soon you forget :(
    The congress republicans and Democrats approved the war. Not sure why you didn't know that.

    But either way, spending more is the answer Obama came up with.


    $3trillion wars.
    flashlv 1657 2012-04-12 12:12:54.0 login to vote score 0
    gradivus: Because $3trillion wars.

    So your answer is but but republicans?

    Okay then.
    flashlv 1657 2012-04-12 12:13:35.0 login to vote score 0
    surfnazi: Same reasons as the Republicans I'd imagine.

    But that's not the Republicans platform :/
    little hands of concrete 1804 2012-04-12 12:14:11.0 login to vote score 0
    flashlv: The obvious answer is to spend more and increase the tax on the rich to 95%, because they can afford it!

    Is that your plan? It sounds radical to me. But, I respect your opinion.


    flashlv 1657 2012-04-12 12:14:24.0 login to vote score 0
    gradivus: $3trillion wars.

    So, spending more is the answer?

    So again, but but Republicans?
    surfnazi 932 2012-04-12 12:14:54.0 login to vote score 3
    flashlv: But that's not the Republicans platform :/

    What is "that" that you are referring to?
    flashlv 1657 2012-04-12 12:14:59.0 login to vote score 0
    little hands of concrete: Is that your plan? It sounds radical to me. But, I respect your opinion.

    It would make Democrats happy.
    gradivus 3607 2012-04-12 12:15:30.0 login to vote score 5
    flashlv: So your answer is but but republicans?

    Okay then.


    Your answer is ignore the fact Clinton had the budget balanced until you fucking idiots pissed everything away fighting ghosts in the sand.

    Eat a massive dick, every one who supported the wars should be taxed 100% until that bullshit is paid off, until then you can SFTU and GBTW to pay for pissing away all out blood and treasure.
    little hands of concrete 1804 2012-04-12 12:16:06.0 login to vote score 2
    flashlv: It would make Democrats happy.

    It would? I haven't seen the democratic party proposing that. I wonder why.


    little hands of concrete 1804 2012-04-12 12:18:19.0 login to vote score 2
    flashlv: How soon you forget :(
    The congress republicans and Democrats approved the war. Not sure why you didn't know that.

    But either way, spending more is the answer Obama came up with.


    Congress gave President Bush authorization to start a war ... he is the one that started it. He didn't have to.


    flashlv 1657 2012-04-12 12:22:50.0 login to vote score 0
    gradivus: Your answer is ignore the fact Clinton had the budget balanced until you fucking idiots pissed everything away fighting ghosts in the sand.

    Eat a massive dick, every one who supported the wars should be taxed 100% until that bullshit is paid off, until then you can SFTU and GBTW to pay for pissing away all out blood and treasure.



    Chill out.

    sloth 222 2012-04-12 12:22:55.0 login to vote score 0
    gradivus: Republicans starting $3trillion wars=FUCK YEAH THIS MERICA!

    Democrats having to clean up your f**king stupid mess=Commie sc*m taxing the rich because they hate freedom


    How on Earth did this become Republicans vs Democrats?
    flashlv 1657 2012-04-12 12:23:21.0 login to vote score 0
    little hands of concrete: It would? I haven't seen the democratic party proposing that. I wonder why.

    I have. They say tax the rich because they can afford it.
    sabine 745 2012-04-12 12:25:17.0 login to vote score 0
    flashlv: I have.

    Please show us where the Democratic party has suggested a 95% tax bracket.
    little hands of concrete 1804 2012-04-12 12:29:09.0 login to vote score 0
    flashlv: I have. They say tax the rich because they can afford it.

    They say tax the rich more than they are currently paying. It is usually in terms of paying a higher rate on the amounts over a certain amount. For example, if you make $300,000 per year, you may pay taxes of 28% on the amount up to $250,000 and then 34% on the amount over $250,000.

    This is how taxes work. Now, could you please show me and sabine where the democrats are proposing a 95% tax on the rich? I know you are always just trying to be fair, so I am certain that this information exists within the democratic platform someplace, I just can't seem to find it.


    flashlv 1657 2012-04-12 12:29:46.0 login to vote score 0
    sabine: Please show us where the Democratic party has suggested a 95% tax bracket.

    Say what? I never said that phrase, you quote what I said and I will.
    flashlv 1657 2012-04-12 12:30:58.0 login to vote score 0
    little hands of concrete: They say tax the rich more than they are currently paying. It is usually in terms of paying a higher rate on the amounts over a certain amount. For example, if you make $300,000 per year, you may pay taxes of 28% on the amount up to $250,000 and then 34% on the amount over $250,000.

    This is how taxes work. Now, could you please show me and sabine where the democrats are proposing a 95% tax on the rich? I know you are always just trying to be fair, so I am certain that this information exists within the democratic platform someplace, I just can't seem to find it.


    Democrats here have said the rich should be taxed as much as they can afford. So my guess is they want 95%,.

    zolividor 642 2012-04-12 12:33:33.0 login to vote score 2

    little hands of concrete 1804 2012-04-12 12:34:11.0 login to vote score 1
    flashlv: Democrats here have said the rich should be taxed as much as they can afford. So my guess is they want 95%,.

    In other words, you just called on your bullshit and you got nothin ...


    flashlv 1657 2012-04-12 12:34:50.0 login to vote score 0
    zolividor: [image removed]

    Great pic Thatcher, oops I mean that is, not Thatcher Bell.
    flashlv 1657 2012-04-12 12:35:25.0 login to vote score 0
    little hands of concrete: In other words, you just called on your bullshit and you got nothin ...

    It's not bullshit since they want it.

    sloth 222 2012-04-12 12:35:56.0 login to vote score 3
    flashlv: Say what? I never said that phrase, you quote what I said and I will.

    -----

    flashlv: The obvious answer is to spend more and increase the tax on the rich to 95%, because they can afford it!

    little hands of concrete: Is that your plan? It sounds radical to me. But, I respect your opinion.

    flashlv: It would make Democrats happy.

    little hands of concrete: It would? I haven't seen the democratic party proposing that. I wonder why.

    flashlv: I have. They say tax the rich because they can afford it.

    Now let's run it backward - You have what?. Oh, you have seen the Democrats proposing that. What is that? That is spend more and increase the tax to 95%. Put it all together and what do you have?
    Flash: I have seen the Democrats proposing that were spend more and increase the tax to 95%.

    Your turn to uphold your end of the bargain.
    farkmeblind 482 2012-04-12 12:36:04.0 login to vote score 0
    little hands of concrete: In other words, you just called on your bullshit and you got nothin ...

    As usual.
    flashlv 1657 2012-04-12 12:37:40.0 login to vote score 0
    racist: As usual, I'm a dumbass.

    We know.
    flashlv 1657 2012-04-12 12:38:02.0 login to vote score 0
    sloth: -----



    I asked her to. Thanks.







    Now let's run it backward - You have what?. Oh, you have seen the Democrats proposing that. What is that? That is spend more and increase the tax to 95%. Put it all together and what do you have?
    Flash: I have seen the Democrats proposing that were spend more and increase the tax to 95%.

    Your turn to uphold your end of the bargain.



    sloth 222 2012-04-12 12:41:48.0 login to vote score 0
    flashlv: empty post

    What what?

    flashlv: I have little hands of concrete: seen the democratic party proposing flashlv: to spend more and increase the tax on the rich to 95%, because they can afford it!


    little hands of concrete 1804 2012-04-12 12:55:12.0 login to vote score 2
    flashlv: It's not bullshit since they want it.

    Again ... You got nothin other than being owned again.


    farkmeblind 482 2012-04-12 12:57:56.0 login to vote score 0
    little hands of concrete: Again ... You got nothin other than being owned again.

    Pretty much. Oh wait, he's also making a complete fool of himself every time I post. I'm liking the effect.
    clifton 1850 2012-04-12 13:58:19.0 login to vote score 1
    flashlv: It would make Democrats happy.

    Judging from your voting record in 2008, its also making you happy.

    :/
    mtbhucker 1201 2012-04-12 14:06:34.0 login to vote score 0
    flashlv: Democrats here have said the rich should be taxed as much as they can afford. So my guess is they want 95%,.

    So you want to return to the tax structure of the 1950's under Eisenhower(R)? It wasn't quite 95% but it was 91% to 92%.

    Does this make Eisenhower a RINO?
    sloth 222 2012-04-12 14:12:33.0 login to vote score 0
    mtbhucker: So you want to return to the tax structure of the 1950's under Eisenhower(R)? It wasn't quite 95% but it was 91% to 92%.

    The top tax bracket in 1960 was 91%, and it applied to taxable income over $400,000, which would be approximately $3,000,000 dollars today. Are you saying we need more tax brackets, including one that applies to taxable income over $3,000,000? How many people do you think have a taxable income over $3,000,000? (side note: this would not include people like Buffet and Gates - qualified dividend income is completely separate, typically tied to capital gains, but currently exempt from taxation)
    mtbhucker 1201 2012-04-12 14:16:39.0 login to vote score 1
    sloth: The top tax bracket in 1960 was 91%, and it applied to taxable income over $400,000, which would be approximately $3,000,000 dollars today. Are you saying we need more tax brackets, including one that applies to taxable income over $3,000,000? How many people do you think have a taxable income over $3,000,000? (side note: this would not include people like Buffet and Gates - qualified dividend income is completely separate, typically tied to capital gains, but currently exempt from taxation)

    Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. *rolls eyes*

    You are about as obtuse as flash.
    sloth 222 2012-04-12 14:19:18.0 login to vote score 0
    mtbhucker: You are about as obtuse as flash.

    Dude, seriously? Uncool, bro.
    surfnazi 932 2012-04-12 14:22:43.0 login to vote score 1
    sloth: Dude, seriously? Uncool, bro.

    Yeah, ruminate on how uncool acting like flash is for a while.
    sloth 222 2012-04-12 14:27:00.0 login to vote score 2
    surfnazi: Yeah, ruminate on how uncool acting like flash is for a while.

    *sigh* Y'all are gonna have to do that tard-mob thing without me tonight. Sorry.
    mtbhucker 1201 2012-04-12 14:27:20.0 login to vote score 0
    sloth: Dude, seriously? Uncool, bro.

    When you jump to conclusions like that, yes.

    The US seemed to be doing fine when the tax rates were higher on the rich. Now, the mantra is OMG HIGH TAXES WILL DESTROY CIVILIZATION, SALT THE EARTH, FREEDOM AND MAKE BABY JEBUS CRY. It seems like they almost want to ignore that when the rich paid really high taxes, the world did not implode?
    sloth 222 2012-04-12 14:33:08.0 login to vote score 1
    mtbhucker: When you jump to conclusions like that, yes.

    The US seemed to be doing fine when the tax rates were higher on the rich. Now, the mantra is OMG HIGH TAXES WILL DESTROY CIVILIZATION, SALT THE EARTH, FREEDOM AND MAKE BABY JEBUS CRY. It seems like they almost want to ignore that when the rich paid really high taxes, the world did not implode?


    And again, you seem to have missed my point: You're pointing back to "the good old days" when the tax rate on taxable wage income over $3M was 91%. I'm saying, "Go ahead and push for a return to those tax rates - it won't affect more than a handful of people." Seriously, there are very few people who have taxable wage income over $3M annually. It's a tiny, tiny percentage of people, not even including the super-wealthy that we seem to be claiming we want to tax more. And I'm ok with you pushing for those kinds of brackets, but just questioning the effort it would take to pass such a change to the tax brackets for such a negligible return.
    flashlv 1657 2012-04-12 14:36:11.0 login to vote score 0
    mtbhucker: When you jump to conclusions like that, yes.

    The US seemed to be doing fine when the tax rates were higher on the rich. Now, the mantra is OMG HIGH TAXES WILL DESTROY CIVILIZATION, SALT THE EARTH, FREEDOM AND MAKE BABY JEBUS CRY. It seems like they almost want to ignore that when the rich paid really high taxes, the world did not implode?



    There have been MULTIPLE studies that have said the tax cuts haven't been as harmful as everyone says.

    Would you be okay with raising taxes and still have wasteful spending?

    I am not okay with that. We could easily balance our budget by being serious about cutting waste. Once that is done, tax the rich at 35% and I would be behind that 100%ยก

    sabine 745 2012-04-12 14:38:18.0 login to vote score 2
    sloth: such a negligible return

    I wonder how negligible it would be if capital gains taxes moved along. They've typically been half the marginal income tax rate.
    mtbhucker 1201 2012-04-12 14:38:20.0 login to vote score 0
    sloth: And again, you seem to have missed my point: You're pointing back to "the good old days" when the tax rate on taxable wage income over $3M was 91%. I'm saying, "Go ahead and push for a return to those tax rates - it won't affect more than a handful of people." Seriously, there are very few people who have taxable wage income over $3M annually. It's a tiny, tiny percentage of people, not even including the super-wealthy that we seem to be claiming we want to tax more. And I'm ok with you pushing for those kinds of brackets, but just questioning the effort it would take to pass such a change to the tax brackets for such a negligible return.

    And that is where you jumped to your conclusion. I never said it was the good old days. I was pointing out that under high tax rates, the western world did not collapse, which seems to be the mantra of those who don't want the rich to pay to pay taxes.

    Quit being pedantic. You might make more friends that way.
    sabine 745 2012-04-12 14:40:05.0 login to vote score 0
    flashlv: We could easily balance our budget by being serious about cutting waste.

    Show us how. Give specific numbers for how much "waste" you think could be cut from what budgetary line items.
    farkmeblind 482 2012-04-12 14:40:21.0 login to vote score -1
    mtbhucker: Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. *rolls eyes*

    You are about as obtuse as flash.


    surfnazi: Yeah, ruminate on how uncool acting like flash is for a while.

    At present, even flash isn't trying to make people believe (via repetition) that he is a psychiatrist/psychologist able to make a diagnosis of mental illness, nor how completely unethical that action would be on a public website like this.

    That's not to say flash wouldn't, just that he isn't, and sloth is.
    sloth 222 2012-04-12 14:45:21.0 login to vote score 1
    sabine: I wonder how negligible it would be if capital gains taxes moved along. They've typically been half the marginal income tax rate.

    Exactly the point - talking about the top marginal rate for wage income is irrelevant, because the money they want to capture is in capital gains and dividend income, not wage income.
    sloth 222 2012-04-12 14:46:54.0 login to vote score 1
    farkmeblind: At present, even flash isn't trying to make people believe (via repetition) that he is a psychiatrist/psychologist able to make a diagnosis of mental illness, nor how completely unethical that action would be on a public website like this.

    That's not to say flash wouldn't, just that he isn't, and sloth is.


    [citation needed]

    I've never claimed to be a psychiatrist/psychologist. I've also never tried to blame other people for stuff I did to myself. Anything else you need cleared up, nutbar?
    flashlv 1657 2012-04-12 14:47:07.0 login to vote score 0
    sabine: Show us how. Give specific numbers for how much "waste" you think could be cut from what budgetary line items.

    You want me to source that spending less will help us balance our budget? math, how does it work?

    Grand total annual spending cuts



    flashlv 1657 2012-04-12 14:47:52.0 login to vote score 0
    racebaiter: At present, even flash isn't trying to make people believe (via repetition) that he is a psychiatrist/psychologist able to make a diagnosis of mental illness, nor how completely unethical that action would be on a public website like this.

    That's not to say flash wouldn't, just that he isn't, and sloth is.


    If you sleep better.
    sabine 745 2012-04-12 14:49:38.0 login to vote score 1
    flashlv: Grand total annual spending cuts

    "The reforms listed in the table are deeper than the 'duplication' and 'waste' items often mentioned by federal policymakers, such as earmarks. The reality is that the nation faces a fiscal emergency, and we need to cut hundreds of billions of dollars of "meat" from federal departments, not just the obvious 'fat'."

    Try again.
    sloth 222 2012-04-12 14:50:39.0 login to vote score 0
    mtbhucker: And that is where you jumped to your conclusion. I never said it was the good old days. I was pointing out that under high tax rates, the western world did not collapse, which seems to be the mantra of those who don't want the rich to pay to pay taxes.

    So, just to be clear, you're not saying, "those days were pretty good," you're just saying, "those days didn't suck?" Is there a difference in that distinction?
    farkmeblind 482 2012-04-12 14:55:21.0 login to vote score 0
    farkmeblind: At present, even flash isn't trying to make people believe (via repetition) that he is a psychiatrist/psychologist able to make a diagnosis of mental illness, nor how completely unethical that action would be on a public website like this.

    That's not to say flash wouldn't, just that he isn't, and sloth is.


    And has been doing so since at least October of last year.

    sloth: You suck at not reading my posts - and your NPD is showing when you assume everything is about you. fyi
    flashlv 1657 2012-04-12 14:55:30.0 login to vote score 0
    sabine: "The reforms listed in the table are deeper than the 'duplication' and 'waste' items often mentioned by federal policymakers, such as earmarks. The reality is that the nation faces a fiscal emergency, and we need to cut hundreds of billions of dollars of "meat" from federal departments, not just the obvious 'fat'."

    Try again.


    Try nothing agian, you wanted a source that says it would help balance the budget.

    You source how raising taxes and raising spending will balance the budget then :/
    flashlv 1657 2012-04-12 14:56:16.0 login to vote score 0
    farkmeblind: And has been doing so since at least October of last year.

    Oops, you forgot to posts anon, uh oh.
    sabine 745 2012-04-12 14:57:50.0 login to vote score 0
    flashlv: you wanted a source that says it would help balance the budget

    No, you said "we could easily balance our budget by being serious about cutting waste". Even the Cato Institute proposal you cited acknowledges that there isn't enough "waste" such that cutting it would balance the budget, so it does not support your assertion.
    sloth 222 2012-04-12 15:00:53.0 login to vote score 2
    farkmeblind: And has been doing so since at least October of last year.

    Holy crazypants - did you just quote a post from a year ago pointing out that not everything is about you, and throw it in my face in this thread, where I didn't say a damn thing to or about you before you flipped out on me? Crap, but you're obsessive and scary-crazy. But thanks for proving that the year-old post still applies! Feel free to read it again, nutbar.
    sloth 222 2012-04-12 15:02:55.0 login to vote score 0
    sabine: No, you said "we could easily balance our budget by being serious about cutting waste". Even the Cato Institute proposal you cited acknowledges that there isn't enough "waste" such that cutting it would balance the budget, so it does not support your assertion.

    Depends on what you consider "waste." If you lump programs you don't like into that category... I know, it's painful to try and think that effed-up.
    flashlv 1657 2012-04-12 15:05:03.0 login to vote score 0
    sabine: No, you said "we could easily balance our budget by being serious about cutting waste". Even the Cato Institute proposal you cited acknowledges that there isn't enough "waste" such that cutting it would balance the budget, so it does not support your assertion.

    It sure as hell does. Because you have to be serious about it. and cut waste like welfare fraud, then we can balance the budget.

    But I guess we can go your route, increase spending and taxes to balance the budget :/
    mtbhucker 1201 2012-04-12 15:06:49.0 login to vote score 0
    sloth: So, just to be clear, you're not saying, "those days were pretty good," you're just saying, "those days didn't suck?" Is there a difference in that distinction?

    So everything in your world is either black or white? You have no concept when it comes to shades of color on your planet?
    sabine 745 2012-04-12 15:10:25.0 login to vote score 3
    sloth: Depends on what you consider "waste." If you lump programs you don't like into that category...

    Yeah, but if you're going to twist words like that, probably best to find teammates that are using the same playbook, instead of ones that explicitly contradict your usage so prominently.

    flashlv: cut waste like welfare fraud, then we can balance the budget

    Again, prove it. I claim that welfare fraud (and everything else properly termed "waste") is but a tiny drop in the bucket. In some cases, it would actually cost more to find and eliminate the waste than the amount saved by cutting said waste. Talking about cutting waste sounds nice, but is a thoroughly insufficient activity that would in no way balance the budget, let alone "easily".
    sloth 222 2012-04-12 15:10:42.0 login to vote score 1
    flashlv: It sure as hell does. Because you have to be serious about it. and cut waste like welfare fraud, then we can balance the budget.

    Putting aside such minor technicalities as the fact that welfare fraud wouldn't affect the federal deficit (the fed sends block grants to the States - they get to absorb any fraud losses), do you really think that welfare fraud is going to approach anything resembling a meaningful fraction of one trillion dollars? How much fraud do you think is happening?
    sloth 222 2012-04-12 15:14:21.0 login to vote score 1
    mtbhucker: So everything in your world is either black or white? You have no concept when it comes to shades of color on your planet?

    Dude, wtf? I wasn't attacking you or making a black-and-white argument. Chill, man. I just said that the "91% tax bracket" is more chrome than substantive tax policy. Sure, the top marginal rate in 1960 was 91%. I'm willing to bet that it affected approximately nobody for approximately zero tax revenue gain. And I do think it's an unfair percentage for any level of wage income (not estate income, though - tax that income till it bleeds), though I wouldn't mind seeing a significantly higher bracket (say 60%?) for extremely high incomes. But at the same time, you really gotta look at other-than-wage income and fix the fact that a lot of it is taxed from 0% to 15%.
    mtbhucker 1201 2012-04-12 15:24:33.0 login to vote score 1
    sloth: Dude, wtf? I wasn't attacking you or making a black-and-white argument. Chill, man. I just said that the "91% tax bracket" is more chrome than substantive tax policy. Sure, the top marginal rate in 1960 was 91%. I'm willing to bet that it affected approximately nobody for approximately zero tax revenue gain. And I do think it's an unfair percentage for any level of wage income (not estate income, though - tax that income till it bleeds), though I wouldn't mind seeing a significantly higher bracket (say 60%?) for extremely high incomes. But at the same time, you really gotta look at other-than-wage income and fix the fact that a lot of it is taxed from 0% to 15%.

    I pretty mush agree with everything you said there. I was not saying that things were better back then, but it sure seemed like you were saying it either good or bad with no room in between. I wasn't saying that is was neither good or bad. The rich still paid more then than they do now, and the world didn't explode. That doesn't really seem like a value statement.
    sloth 222 2012-04-12 15:29:25.0 login to vote score 0
    mtbhucker: I pretty mush agree with everything you said there. I was not saying that things were better back then, but it sure seemed like you were saying it either good or bad with no room in between.

    OK - seems like we just accidentally locked horns on that one. Nope - that's not what I was saying.

    mtbhucker: The rich still paid more then than they do now, and the world didn't explode. That doesn't really seem like a value statement.

    A few rich paid a bit more, yes. All I was trying to say is that top marginal rate can be very misleading - 91% looks like a big number, but not necessarily so much when you realize just how little income it would actually apply to. In general, effective tax rates WERE higher back in the 50s and 60s - just not as much higher as the top rates would lead you to think.
    farkmeblind 482 2012-04-12 16:26:13.0 login to vote score 0
    sloth: Holy crazypants - did you just quote a post from a year ago pointing out that not everything is about you, and throw it in my face in this thread, where I didn't say a damn thing to or about you before you flipped out on me? Crap, but you're obsessive and scary-crazy. But thanks for proving that the year-old post still applies! Feel free to read it again, nutbar.

    Yep, thqat's the even-tempered not-at-all pedantic semantics and faux outrage that characterize so many of your posts. The fact that you've mentioned NPD in two othe threads today tends to bear this out.

    Either you're a psychiatrist or a psychologist and breaking several oaths and professional codes of conduct, or you're just some guy with an axe to grind who can't admit he has no authority to make said determinations.

    Pick one.
    vliam 1096 2012-04-12 18:05:39.0 login to vote score 1
    gradivus: Your answer is ignore the fact Clinton had the budget balanced until you fucking idiots pissed everything away fighting ghosts in the sand.

    Eat a massive dick, every one who supported the wars should be taxed 100% until that bullshit is paid off, until then you can SFTU and GBTW to pay for pissing away all out blood and treasure.


    That.

    sloth 222 2012-04-12 18:21:44.0 login to vote score 1
    farkmeblind: Yep, thqat's the even-tempered not-at-all pedantic semantics and faux outrage that characterize so many of your posts. The fact that you've mentioned NPD in two othe threads today tends to bear this out.

    Either you're a psychiatrist or a psychologist and breaking several oaths and professional codes of conduct, or you're just some guy with an axe to grind who can't admit he has no authority to make said determinations.

    Pick one.


    Aside from not being able to count (I only mentioned NPD in one other thread, about phil), and not understanding that one doesn't have to be a psychiatrist/psychologist to express a personal opinion about someone's mental issues, you sure do seem to get REALLY upset when I criticize phil. Why is that? Do you often see criticisms of other people and think they are secretly criticisms of yourself?

    But, certainly, let us certainly agree to be against "completely unethical...action[s]...on a public website like this." You know, unethical actions like making false accusations against other people for actions one has secretly taken oneself. That's twice in one week you've agreed with me. Such progress! Congratulations!
    someone who may or may not be so totally surprised 2012-04-12 18:22:52.0 login to vote score 0
    sloth: How on Earth did this become Republicans vs Democrats?

    Oh my goodness! When did sloth start acting all disingenuous?
    sloth 222 2012-04-12 18:26:15.0 login to vote score 1
    Well, I see somebody's not going to be taking the open bet about who likes to make bugfuck creepy anonymous attacks on people any time soon. :)
    cannonhawk 849 2012-04-12 22:07:20.0 login to vote score 0
    WAIT WAIT WAIT one fucking minute Thatcher Bell is a real fucking name?
    If you logged in, you could post here.