• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama to call for middle class tax cut extension

TurtleDude said:
You want the rich to pay even more when they pay more of the tax burden than their share of the income

tell us why its UNFAIR to YOU that I don't pay 35% on my investment income?
Click to expand...

I want ALL AMericans earning dollar one to pay more.

When you ask me the question how is it unfair to me personally - you make the serious and terrible error of deluding yourself to think that I or others judge major issues of national policy as you do with your own standards - that is to say what benefits me is all I give two craps about. Sorry Turtle, but my standards for America are not based on where the sun shines on my own ass.
 
haymarket said:
I want ALL AMericans earning dollar one to pay more.

When you ask me the question how is it unfair to me personally - you make the serious and terrible error of deluding yourself to think that I or others judge major issues of national policy as you do with your own standards - that is to say what benefits me is all I give two craps about. Sorry Turtle, but my standards for America are not based on where the sun shines on my own ass.
Click to expand...

we start at a point where the rich pay too much and you want them to pay even more

BUT YOU SUPPORT THE OBAMA TAX PLAN DON'T YOU?
 
hazlnut said:
This is the last time I'm going to explain this to you.


That bridge that brings people to businesses owned by wealthy investors was built by and is maintained by TAX REVENUE. The wealthy investors benefit the most from the partnership between government and business, therefore they contribute the most to keep the ALL the necessary programs running.

Get it?


The giant ramp off the 5 Freeway in Anaheim that delivers cars right to the Disneyland Resort parking structure was paid for with tax dollars. Why? Because the Disney company was going to double their employment with the expansion of the resort. Disney stock goes up, investors make money, CEOs get bonuses +++ people get jobs, get a salary and buy goods and services. The ramp was stimulus. It created 10 jobs for ever $1 tax dollar. Get it?

All this is made possible because of a partnership between the PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SECTORS. Wealthy investors and business owners benefit the most when the economy is working. So they contribute the most to keep the Necessary Programs running.

I explained this to you a year ago, using the same example. You never refuted it or offered anything but a meaningless string of Limbaugh talking points.

You understand nothing about the economic principles behind taxation and how government functions to support businesses.
Click to expand...
Your point would make a certain degree of sense if a significant portion of annual federal spending from income tax revenue went toward roads and bridges. It doesnt. Roads and bridges are largely paid for by those who use them through gas taxes. And has been pointed out to you, the major role of the federal government is wealth transfers, so your argument that business and the rich should somehow pay more to an entity whose sole job it is is not to provide services but to spread wealth around from those who created it to those who did not is a fraud. People are more than willing to pay for those things from which they derive a direct benefit. Sorry, but the rich derive no benefit from the thief; whether that thief takes the form of a common thug or a thuggish state.
 
Fletch said:
Your point would make a certain degree of sense if a significant portion of annual federal spending from income tax revenue went toward roads and bridges. It doesnt. Roads and bridges are largely paid for by those who use them through gas taxes. And has been pointed out to you, the major role of the federal government is wealth transfers, so your argument that business and the rich should somehow pay more to an entity whose sole job it is is not to provide services but to spread wealth around from those who created it to those who did not is a fraud. People are more than willing to pay for those things from which they derive a direct benefit. Sorry, but the rich derive no benefit from the thief; whether that thief takes the form of a common thug or a thuggish state.
Click to expand...
excellent post-when we fund dependence on the government created by the left to make more voters dependent on them-we create more demands for taxes because the dependents are like addicts who have to get more and more and more and those who pander to them must try to tax us more and more and more to keep buying votes
 
TurtleDude said:
Karl said:
TurtleDude said:
rich people have complete choice. union members do not. Look up the BECK vs Communications Workers of America case in front of the supreme court. 487 US 735 (1988)
Click to expand...
That case illustrates that union members do indeed have a choice. Once again, your argument defeats your position. Odd, but entertaining. . . . .

Under the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Communications Workers of America v. Beck, union workers subject to a union-security agreement enjoy what are known as “Beck Rights.” You can go to your local union leadership and tell them you’d like to exercise these rights. When you do, the union will recategorize you as an “agency fee payer.” The union will still collect fees to spend on negotiating a contract with employers and collective bargaining, but it can no longer legally spend those fees on political campaigns.

Protecting American Workers
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
LOL you fell for it-under the Clinton administration he ordered the DOL not to prosecute those claims meaning if I am a union member and the union violated my BECK Rights the DOL would not help me. Under GHWB the DOL would bring the charges and a federal attorney would go after the union

big difference but as is often the case with the far left you are arguing tangents. the BECK case proved that union member's dues were often USED FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES THAT NOT ALL THE MEMBERS WANTED while in the case of rich people its generally purely voluntary

another fail on your part
Click to expand...
Your argument defeats your positon and I fail? Interesting. Let's review:

1. You claim that "union workers do not [have complete choice]". As substantiation, you provide BECK.

2. I show that BECK, rather than proving that "union workers do not [have complete choice]", proves that union workers do indeed have choice.

3. You then claim that BECK proves that "union workers do not [have complete choice]" at some point in the past, which somehow makes your present tense claim in #1 correct? Pardon me, and others I suspect, while we ROFLMAO :lol:
 
TurtleDude said:
how many rich have no earned income

so you are lying when you claim the rich are getting a free ride
Click to expand...
Why have the rich gamed the system to categorize their income as unearned income? Income is income -- why are you and the free-riding rich lying about that?
 
Karl said:
Why have the rich gamed the system to categorize their income as unearned income? Income is income -- why are you and the free-riding rich lying about that?
Click to expand...


A small far right minority seems to be completely unaware that the rich only got their tax cuts because we allowed it, and due to the failure of trickle down theory, there is no longer a reason for us to allow it.
 
TurtleDude said:
we start at a point where the rich pay too much and you want them to pay even more

BUT YOU SUPPORT THE OBAMA TAX PLAN DON'T YOU?
Click to expand...

the rich pay less in tax today as a percentage of their income that at anytime in the last six decades. By definition, that is the DIRECT OPPOSITE of them paying too much.

They need to pay more if they at all care about American and the American people. We all need to pay more. For some it will be tough but necessary. For the rich, less tough but still necessary.

What Obama tax plan are you talking about? Has he endorsed mine? I gave you mine.
 
Karl said:
Why have the rich gamed the system to categorize their income as unearned income? Income is income -- why are you and the free-riding rich lying about that?
Click to expand...

Excellent point. The rich have indeed rigged the game to benefit them above all others. They have successfully negated the progressive nature of the income tax by carving out huge discriminatory preferences for themselves.

We probably should not be too hard on folks like Turtle. They were born with a silver spoon in their mouth and a silk diaper on their bottoms. When the nanny changed them they had to coo and tell them it smelled like rose petals. As they got older, most babies were weaned of mothers breast but not them. They continued to feed and a trust fund and family connections simply replaced one breast with a different support system.

It is probably normal and predictable that folks like Turtle cannot be weaned at this late date. They have enjoyed the discriminatory preferences and have gotten quite used to them as simply what they are entitled to.

I pity them.
 
TurtleDude said:
excellent post-when we fund dependence on the government created by the left to make more voters dependent on them-we create more [COLOR=""]demands for taxes[/COLOR] because the dependents are like[COLOR=""] addicts[/COLOR] who have to get more and more and more and those who pander to them must try to tax us more and more and more to keep buying votes
Click to expand...

I thought a little rainbow color might make it look different. But it is still uglier than manure in the field after a hard rain.

Its amazing how spam rules allow this nonsense to keep being posted in thread after thread after thread.
 
TurtleDude said:
real property is taxed under the assumption that state functions are used to maintain or protect that property such as fire, police and garbage [...]
Click to expand...
Wildly untrue. The majority of real property tax is used for public schools[SUP][1][/SUP]. Can the right get anything correct?


______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1. -- Question about property tax breakdown and income tax (Sussex: sales, real estate) - City-Data Forum (GA - 67%)
- - - New Jersey Property Taxes (NJ - 65%)
- - - http://www.in.gov/dlgf/files/proptax_Vermillion.pdf (IN - 60%)
 
TurtleDude said:
[...] the military isn't defending "wealth" but the nation as a whole.
Click to expand...
Since the nation has never been invaded, at least not since the Declaration of Independence, your claim is humorous to the point that you probably don't intend for it to be taken seriously. Not to worry.... ;)
 
Karl said:
Why have the rich gamed the system to categorize their income as unearned income? Income is income -- why are you and the free-riding rich lying about that?
Click to expand...

more stupidity. its the government that distinguishes between the two

how much tax dollars do you pay?
 
Karl said:
Since the nation has never been invaded, at least not since the Declaration of Independence, your claim is humorous to the point that you probably don't intend for it to be taken seriously. Not to worry.... ;)
Click to expand...



more gaping idiocy. the war of 1812 ring a bell with you?
 
Karl said:
Wildly untrue. The majority of real property tax is used for public schools[SUP][1][/SUP]. Can the right get anything correct?


______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1. -- Question about property tax breakdown and income tax (Sussex: sales, real estate) - City-Data Forum (GA - 67%)
- - - New Jersey Property Taxes (NJ - 65%)
- - - http://www.in.gov/dlgf/files/proptax_Vermillion.pdf (IN - 60%)
Click to expand...



I never said the contrary
you lied about my post-I said protection of private property comes from property taxes

I never said how those property taxes were allocated

another fail
 
Karl said:
Since the nation has never been invaded, at least not since the Declaration of Independence, your claim is humorous to the point that you probably don't intend for it to be taken seriously. Not to worry.... ;)
Click to expand...

Speaking of unintended hilarity, here's a visual aid for you:

1814-burning.jpg


Have I said many times that Karl is always his most smug when he's about to get owned hard? Yes, I think I have.
 
Last edited:
Harshaw said:
Speaking of unintended hilarity, here's a visual aid for you:

1814-burning.jpg


Have I said many times that Karl is always his most smug when he's about to get owned hard? Yes, I think I have.
Click to expand...

it was a massive fail of epic and HISTORICAL proportions

Nothing quite compares to that other than someone claiming that the SECOND AMENDMENT DOES NOT GIVE us the right to KBA (DUH the amendments merely RECOGNIZE rights)
 
TurtleDude said:
it was a massive fail of epic and HISTORICAL proportions

Nothing quite compares to that other than someone claiming that the SECOND AMENDMENT DOES NOT GIVE us the right to KBA (DUH the amendments merely RECOGNIZE rights)
Click to expand...

So who was it that gave you those rights?
 
TurtleDude said:
[1] more stupidity. its the government that distinguishes between the two

[2] how much tax dollars do you pay?
Click to expand...
1. So you are subordinating your thought process to the government? Letting it make your decisions for you, such as why income you sweat for is taxed at a higher rate than income you receive because you have excess money to invest while you sit in pampered air-conditioned comfort watching Sean Hannity?

2. Federal taxes? Do you want me to include FICA? Do you want me to include capital gains? Oil partnerships? (unfortunately these are taxed at ordinary income rates) Do you want me to include transfers? If so, just federal, or federal/state/local combined?

Do you want me to include overseas accounts?

Please, be specific -- the government doth distinguish....
 
TurtleDude said:
Karl said:
TurtleDude said:
[...] the military isn't defending "wealth" but the nation as a whole.
Click to expand...
Since the nation has never been invaded, at least not since the Declaration of Independence, your claim is humorous to the point that you probably don't intend for it to be taken seriously. Not to worry.... ;)
Click to expand...
more gaping idiocy. the war of 1812 ring a bell with you?
Click to expand...
Okay, I'll bite -- give us your gaping explanation of how Britain invaded the U.S. in 1812 :popcorn:

According to my Cliff Notes, the U.S. declared war on Britain for various provocations, none of which -- given the circumstances at the time -- justified war. Additionally, there were allegedly some ulterior expansionist motives in the U.S. effort, such as appropriating additional territory; that, and oceanic trade (another reason for the war) tends to be a defense of -- you guessed it, folks... "wealth".

Ideally, when one thinks of the military defending the nation, they think of teeming hordes assaulting our beaches (or dropping bombs over our cities). You know, kind of what the U.S. routinely does to other countries (weak ones, that is... the U.S. doesn't seem to pick on anyone its own size). I will reiterate that aside from the Revolutionary War, about the only nation to attack the U.S. directly is the Confederate States of America (recently known as The Southern Strategy of the GOP, the Moral Majority, the Dixiecrats (a.k.a. conservatives), and the Blue Dogs (a.k.a. conservative Democrats)). And I don't think they have yet conceded defeat . . . . .
 
TurtleDude said:
Karl said:
TurtleDude said:
real property is taxed under the assumption that state functions are used to maintain or protect that property such as fire, police and garbage [...]
Click to expand...
Wildly untrue. The majority of real property tax is used for public schools[SUP][1][/SUP]. Can the right get anything correct? [...]
Click to expand...
I never said the contrary. you lied about my post-I said protection of private property comes from property taxes. I never said how those property taxes were allocated. another fail
Click to expand...
Let me introduce to a radical new concept -- lying by omission. It's all the rage on the right... from selective quoting of the President to misrepresenting the allocation of property taxes. I'm surprised you haven't heard of it....

But your post raises another question -- do any of your arguments not involve calling your opponent a liar? That also seems to be all the rage on the right....
 
Harshaw said:
Speaking of unintended hilarity, here's a visual aid for you [...]
Click to expand...
Yes, the U.S. declared war on the British and mostly got their ass handed to them, including getting their capitol sacked. Personally I don't see the hilarity in that.

I will, however, await the hilarity of you joining TurtleDude in explaining just exactly how the British invasion of the U.S. precipitated the war of 1812, and just exactly where and when this war-causing British invasion happened. Let's review the original goalpost, which some seem to be tugging upon:

Karl said:
Since the nation has never been invaded, at least not since the Declaration of Independence, your claim is humorous to the point that you probably don't intend for it to be taken seriously. Not to worry....
Click to expand...
However, I will now readily concede one error -- TurtleDude was serious, and it appears he wasn't the only one :doh
 
haymarket said:
The deafening silence is getting obvious.
Click to expand...
No one gives you rights, haymarket. Rights are something that are yours by virtue of your nature as man. The state is erected to secure those rights.

But if you want a historical perspective--something one would think a person who spent his years 'teaching' history would offer himself--rights are bestowed upon man by God. So if you believe in that sort of thing, the answer to your question is God.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom