ecoli Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 The tax rate doesn't necessarily tell you about the overall tax burden Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rigney Posted July 20, 2012 Author Share Posted July 20, 2012 (edited) Because you like having things like roads, fire departments, cops, and clean drinking water but refuse to pay for them? Because you wear the badge of fiscal responsibility but forget to practice it? Because math is hard and stuff? Please use a better decorum; (Because math is hard and stuff?) Edited July 20, 2012 by rigney Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 The tax rate doesn't necessarily tell you about the overall tax burden Clearly, raising taxes on the bottom 20%... those suffering most from poverty... as would happen under Romney... is far more burdensome than raising taxes on the hyper-wealthy back to Clinton era numbers as would happen under Obama, is it not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rigney Posted July 20, 2012 Author Share Posted July 20, 2012 Clearly, raising taxes on the bottom 20%... those suffering most from poverty... as would happen under Romney... is far more burdensome than raising taxes on the hyper-wealthy back to Clinton era numbers as would happen under Obama, is it not? Do you think either of these guys will solve our problems? "Bull Shit". The lower 20% up and through 45 % don't pay taxes to start with. Yes! We should reformulate a persons fair share. But when we eventually kill the golden goose who lays those golden eggs, the nest will no longer be needed. -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uncool Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Um, no. He didn't say what you quoted. You don't get to manufacture quotes just because you don't like him, and to justify calling him a "fukkin' idiot" The quote that rigney is referring to - "If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen." is in the quote I supplied; rigney's version of the quote is a paraphrased version of the partial quote. However, the partial quote is being bandied around without context in what seems to be a very deliberate attempt to remove context from Obama's quote. Rigney, what exactly are you saying "bullshit" on? That I have the correct quote? That "that" is referring to the public infrastructure? Or are you saying that the sentiment of the quote is "bullshit"? =Uncool- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 The quote that rigney is referring to - "If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen." is in the quote I supplied; rigney's version of the quote is a paraphrased version of the partial quote. However, the partial quote is being bandied around without context in what seems to be a very deliberate attempt to remove context from Obama's quote. I think that "You didn't build that business, the people who work for you did" is, at best, a poor paraphrase, since it changes the meaning. By putting quotation marks around it, though, there is the implication that it's a direct quote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Severian Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 And please note that half the people earn less than the average. That isn't true. Considerably more than half the people earn less than the average. Half the people earn less than the median (which is what is shown in the plot you link to). 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Would you give me a better description of his words, if you will. It's not a long quote, so a description isn't going to be much different than the quote, but he's saying that any business relies on government-provided infrastructure of some sort; the business did not build roads or bridges that allow for goods to be shipped to or from the business, and for customers and employees to get to it. Road and bridges are mentioned in the quote. What he did NOT mention is "the people who work for you". I see no honest way to get to that from the quote. Do you think either of these guys will solve our problems? "Bull Shit". The lower 20% up and through 45 % don't pay taxes to start with. Yes! We should reformulate a persons fair share. But when we eventually kill the golden goose who lays those golden eggs, the nest will no longer be needed. Emphasis added in orange. That part is Bull Shit. They may not pay income taxes, but they most certainly pay taxes. As for killing the golden goose, that's fear-mongering and more Bull Shit. Taxes on high incomes and on capital gains have been historically low for the last decade — where are all the jobs? Bush II had the worst job-creation record since WWII with these low taxes. All of the presidents with higher taxes saw better job creation — presidents with half the population to work with had more job creation! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rigney Posted July 20, 2012 Author Share Posted July 20, 2012 (edited) It's not a long quote, so a description isn't going to be much different than the quote, but he's saying that any business relies on government-provided infrastructure of some sort; the business did not build roads or bridges that allow for goods to be shipped to or from the business, and for customers and employees to get to it. Road and bridges are mentioned in the quote. What he did NOT mention is "the people who work for you". I see no honest way to get to that from the quote. Emphasis added in orange. That part is Bull Shit. They may not pay income taxes, but they most certainly pay taxes. As for killing the golden goose, that's fear-mongering and more Bull Shit. Taxes on high incomes and on capital gains have been historically low for the last decade — where are all the jobs? Bush II had the worst job-creation record since WWII with these low taxes. All of the presidents with higher taxes saw better job creation — presidents with half the population to work with had more job creation! Absolutely! It is fear mongering. But isn't that what politics are all about? You scare hell out of the populace, hoping your tactics will sway them into voting in your direction. The following link will give you the B.S. from both sides. And if you think for a moment that i hate Obama, you're wrong. I simply despise his formula for getting our nation back on an even keel. And by the way, Al Gore invented the internet. Edited July 20, 2012 by rigney Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Absolutely! It is fear mongering. But isn't that what politics are all about? You scare hell out of the populace, hoping your tactics will sway them into voting in your direction. The following link will give you the B.S. from both sides. And if you think for a moment that i hate Obama, you're wrong. I simply despise his formula for getting our nation back on an Except that here, we aren't politicians, we have discussions about politics, and try to hold to a higher standard of using actual facts. Whatever you claim to despise about Obama's tactics have not been made clear here, because you have not cited any factual statements in your criticisms. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rigney Posted July 20, 2012 Author Share Posted July 20, 2012 Except that here, we aren't politicians, we have discussions about politics, and try to hold to a higher standard of using actual facts. Whatever you claim to despise about Obama's tactics have not been made clear here, because you have not cited any factual statements in your criticisms. Then you would dismiss Krauthammers statement as malarkey? I am not a politician nor a very good speaker, and not nearly as quick mindes as some of you here on the forum, but it doesn't take me all day to inspect a hot horseshoe, especially if I'm holding it. And to my way of thinking, this guy is worse than than a hot horseshoe. Then I may be wrong, but i doubt it. Cheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Clearly, raising taxes on the bottom 20%... those suffering most from poverty... as would happen under Romney... is far more burdensome than raising taxes on the hyper-wealthy back to Clinton era numbers as would happen under Obama, is it not? Yeah sure. I was commenting more on the fact that what's reported is usually the rates, rather than how much people are actually paying. In general, I support a flat tax where the "effective" rate is the actual rate that you pay. I'm not sure how this exemption business got started but its blown completely out of control. That's how someone making $200k can bring home half of that, while if you're rich enough to afford good accountants and lawyers, your rates are much, much lower. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rigney Posted July 20, 2012 Author Share Posted July 20, 2012 (edited) The quote that rigney is referring to - "If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen." is in the quote I supplied; rigney's version of the quote is a paraphrased version of the partial quote. However, the partial quote is being bandied around without context in what seems to be a very deliberate attempt to remove context from Obama's quote. Rigney, what exactly are you saying "bullshit" on? That I have the correct quote? That "that" is referring to the public infrastructure? Or are you saying that the sentiment of the quote is "bullshit"? =Uncool- Yes, I sometimes run with the ball before I have both hands on it, but to me his entire statement was pure BS and reminded me of Germany in the 30s and 40s. Not that that's where we are going, but it seems to be in that direction. I did like Krauthammers reply though. Edited July 20, 2012 by rigney Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uncool Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Yes, I sometimes run with the ball before I have both hands on it, but his entire statement was pure BS to me. I did like Krauthammers reply though. What about it was BS? Do you think the businesses would have had anywhere near their current levels of success without the infrastructure? The point of the speech is that trying to reduce taxes to nothing - a la Grover Norquist, who promotes a pledge where the signers never raise taxes under any circumstances - destroys the very infrastructure that businesses in America need. There is no denigration of business owners. That's missing the point of the speech. There is no saying that business owners don't do anything. That's missing the point of the speech. The only denigration here is against people who claim to have made all of their success on their own; the point of the speech is that no man is an island in the business world. =Uncool- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rigney Posted July 20, 2012 Author Share Posted July 20, 2012 (edited) What about it was BS? Do you think the businesses would have had anywhere near their current levels of success without the infrastructure? The point of the speech is that trying to reduce taxes to nothing - a la Grover Norquist, who promotes a pledge where the signers never raise taxes under any circumstances - destroys the very infrastructure that businesses in America need. There is no denigration of business owners. That's missing the point of the speech. There is no saying that business owners don't do anything. That's missing the point of the speech. The only denigration here is against people who claim to have made all of their success on their own; the point of the speech is that no man is an island in the business world. =Uncool- We absolutely need infrastructure! Without it this country would go to hell in a handbasket before evening. But infrastructure should be exactly that, not "government superstructure". Krauthammer probably put it best in his theory and this opinion.http://www.businessinsider.com/charles-krauthammer-doesnt-know-left-from-right-2012-7 However, this is another way to look at politics. http://antioligarch.wordpress.com/2010/07/19/hiroshima-and-detroit-65-years-later/ Edited July 20, 2012 by rigney Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharonY Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 (edited) We absolutely need infrastructure! Without it this country would go to hell in a handbasket before evening. But infrastructure should be exactly that, not "government superstructure". Krauthammer probably put it best in his theory and this opinion. http://www.businessi...om-right-2012-7 I am quite confused. In the provided link the author (Dean Baker) is actually saying that Krauthammer is just giving "the right-wing caricature of the left". And then continues stating that The right also supports having the Federal Reserve Board deliberately raise unemployment to put downward pressure on the wages of ordinary workers and thereby keep inflation low. And, it supports having trade agreements that put manufacturing workers in direct competition with low-paid workers in the developing world, while leaving highly paid professionals like doctors and lawyers largely protected. This has the predicted and actual effect of redistributing income upward. I wonder whether you agree with Krauthammer or Baker here. Krauthammer's post is mostly a drivel attacking Obama using repetitions of well-known talking points starting with misquoting Obama. "Caricature" is actually quite fitting. So, a lot of opinion there, but little theory. Edited July 20, 2012 by CharonY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Then you would dismiss Krauthammers statement as malarkey? What statement by Krauthammer? I don't see where you've quoted him. EDIT: OK, I see a link after the post to which I responded. Edit II: Nope, still don't see anything by Krauthammer I am not a politician nor a very good speaker, and not nearly as quick mindes as some of you here on the forum, but it doesn't take me all day to inspect a hot horseshoe, especially if I'm holding it. And to my way of thinking, this guy is worse than than a hot horseshoe. Then I may be wrong, but i doubt it. Cheers! Your "way of thinking" is not based on any facts, as far as you have been able to show here. Just some pithy statements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uncool Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 We absolutely need infrastructure! Without it this country would go to hell in a handbasket before evening. But infrastructure should be exactly that, not "government superstructure". Krauthammer probably put it best in his theory and this opinion. http://www.businessinsider.com/charles-krauthammer-doesnt-know-left-from-right-2012-7 However, this is another way to look at politics. http://antioligarch.wordpress.com/2010/07/19/hiroshima-and-detroit-65-years-later/ So does that make me correct in saying (with reference to the Obama quote) that you don't support public education? That you don't support public transportation (which includes the modern road system and bridges)? That you don't support the Defense Department creation of the Internet? =Uncool- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rigney Posted July 20, 2012 Author Share Posted July 20, 2012 (edited) What statement by Krauthammer? I don't see where you've quoted him. EDIT: OK, I see a link after the post to which I responded. Your "way of thinking" is not based on any facts, as far as you have been able to show here. Just some pithy statements. I like pithy statements! Are you telling me that facts are an issue when it comes to politics? PLEASE! Edited July 20, 2012 by rigney Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uncool Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 (edited) I'd also like to note that Krauthammer has done the exact thing I said - deliberately excising the context in order to make a point against what may technically have been said, but quite obviously was not meant. The entire article that's in the link inside your link is a complete strawman. =Uncool- Edited July 20, 2012 by uncool Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 I like pithy statements! Are you telling me that facts are an issue when it comes to politics? PLEASE! You are correct rigney, facts seldom seem to be an issue these days but to me that is the most basic of our problems. Facts, lies, and spinning those facts until they support lies is dragging us down as a society, what happened to the truth? Does the truth no longer matter if it gets our man elected? I refuse to believe that people really don't want the facts and that spinning the facts to support lies is the American Way, if it is then we really do need a revolution. I think our founding fathers would be shocked to see how low we have sank due to a lack of honor... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rigney Posted July 20, 2012 Author Share Posted July 20, 2012 So does that make me correct in saying (with reference to the Obama quote) that you don't support public education? That you don't support public transportation (which includes the modern road system and bridges)? That you don't support the Defense Department creation of the Internet? =Uncool- No! Not that at all. I support education K through 12 without question, but unless students maintain a descent grade average in college without some faculty member (teacher) hedging the bet for them, there should be no subsidies, and that to include student loans. This country has continuously built roads, super highways and bridges throughout my lifetime that eventually needs to be replaced, and these things we must do. But to mandate our current government, giving them power to do so; give me the chills. And our defense? Yes, it needs restructuring to erase some of the deadwood, but not to put us in harms way. This may also apply to our congress as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uncool Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 No! Not that at all. I support education K through 12 without question, but unless students maintain a descent grade average in college without some faculty member (teacher) hedging the bet for them, there should be no subsidies, and that to include student loans. This country has continuously built roads, super highways and bridges throughout my lifetime that eventually needs to be replaced, and these things we must do. But to mandate our current government, giving them power to do so; give me the chills. And our defense? Yes, it needs restructuring to erase some of the deadwood, but not to put us in harms way. This may also apply to our congress as well. I specifically said public education and public transportation - i.e. roads and bridges provided by the government. Are you saying you support public transportation or not? It sounds like you are saying you do support public K-12 education. Right? =Uncool- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rigney Posted July 20, 2012 Author Share Posted July 20, 2012 (edited) You are correct rigney, facts seldom seem to be an issue these days but to me that is the most basic of our problems. Facts, lies, and spinning those facts until they support lies is dragging us down as a society, what happened to the truth? Does the truth no longer matter if it gets our man elected? I refuse to believe that people really don't want the facts and that spinning the facts to support lies is the American Way, if it is then we really do need a revolution. I think our founding fathers would be shocked to see how low we have sank due to a lack of honor... Damn! And to think that we actually agree on something? Amazing! I specifically said public education and public transportation - i.e. roads and bridges provided by the government. Are you saying you support public transportation or not? It sounds like you are saying you do support public K-12 education. Right? =Uncool- I have never been opposed to k-12 local government sponsered education. And public transportation? i don't recall there ever being such unless you paid your fare. Edited July 20, 2012 by rigney Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uncool Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 (edited) I have never been opposed to k-12 local government sponsered education. And public transportation? i don't recall there ever being such unless you paid your fare. Public transportation includes public roads and bridges. I'm trying to confirm - what do you think about public roads and bridges? Further, do you support public transportation in the form of government-sponsored buses/etc.? Finally, there are some fare-free examples of public transportation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_free_public_transport_routes =Uncool- Edited July 20, 2012 by uncool Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now