CONFIRMED!: Rich People DO Create the Jobs

[cbirch2]

I'm for a flat percentage on ALL incomes, no exemptions. we'd increase tax rolls by 47% and decrease transfer payments by far more than that. A net gain for the economy and individual freedom.

The fact you discriminate against the rich because they achieve shows you desire to take someone else's money for no merit other than they have some. This both illustrates your greed and desire to steal by using the government to do so, keeping your hands clean. These are undeniable facts because you just did them.

Lol please run any candidate that is for a flat tax. Im sorry, but i think someone making $10 million a year should pay more in taxes than someone that makes $30,000. If thats stealing in your mind, then call if whatever you want. But most american do not want a flat tax, if anything they want rich people to pay more. So go ahead and call anyone that isnt supportive of a flat tax a socialist, because i bet most voters wont like that very much.

Under a flat tax, someone making $10 million a year WILL pay more in taxes than someone that makes $30,000.

As a percentage of total income you god damn moron.

 

[daveman]

So because the soviet union existed in the 20th century, every liberal from this point forward is trying to steal money? Insanity.

Is not one of the basic tenets of the left that taxes must be raised?

Hint: Yes, it is.

Again, hes just proposed a 4% raise on the top tax bracket. SOCIALISM!!!

You have offered no reasoning to show he would be satisfied with that amount.

I, however, have offered reasoning to show that he would not and would indeed seek to raise it again and yet again.

Again, you just keep proving my point. I wish republicans in public would argue like you are now, because it just keeps showing how biased you are.

You dont like obama so you project all your fears upon him. You assume that if he could, he would come and take all of your money, gold, and guns. Its a paranoid fantasy of ignorant lifelong conservatives that has absolutely no basis in reality.

Say, I've got an idea:

How about you argue against the things I actually say, and not the things leftist echo-chamber websites tell you I say?

You up for that? Because despite your pouting and foot-stamping, I really feel no obligation to defend things I didn't say.

 

[cbirch2]

If you vote liberal, you're voting to take money away from people who have it and give it to people who don't. You don't have to be the recipient, and I never claimed you had to be the recipient.

This, too, is inarguable.

I suggest you check your stats.

Source: Democratic Party (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Wow slightly misleading.

No, it's not. It proves your claim is wrong.

Tell me, how does the trend look for all education levels? How do people with graduate degrees compare?

How about you back up your claims instead of expecting me to?

Heres a table

Party Affiliation Versus Education Level | The Quantum Pontiff

While people with bachelors degrees are very slightly more likely (1-2%) to be republicans, people with graduate degrees are much more likely (4-5%) to be democrats.

Technically, your graph doesnt even correctly address my claim, and so couldnt have proved it wrong. My claim is that as someone achieves a higher level of education they are more likely to vote democratic. To prove or disprove this, you would have to show voting trends over several levels of educational attainment. Your graph only shows a 4 year degree, and therefore doesnt even address the basic topic of progression through school from just high school, to bachelors, to masters, to doctoral.

 

[daveman]

Lol please run any candidate that is for a flat tax. Im sorry, but i think someone making $10 million a year should pay more in taxes than someone that makes $30,000. If thats stealing in your mind, then call if whatever you want. But most american do not want a flat tax, if anything they want rich people to pay more. So go ahead and call anyone that isnt supportive of a flat tax a socialist, because i bet most voters wont like that very much.

Under a flat tax, someone making $10 million a year WILL pay more in taxes than someone that makes $30,000.

As a percentage of total income you god damn moron.

My goodness, what an emotional sort you are.

Let's look at it. 10% flat tax, no exemptions.

$10 million/year annual income = $1 million tax or $1,923 a week.

$30K/year annual income = $3K tax or $58 a week.

$1million > $3K in any mathematical system.

It's when you toss in childish and emotional notions of what's FAAAAIR!! that $58 a week is too much and almost 2 grand a week is not enough.

 

[cbirch2]

Is not one of the basic tenets of the left that taxes must be raised?

Hint: Yes, it is.

You have offered no reasoning to show he would be satisfied with that amount.

I, however, have offered reasoning to show that he would not and would indeed seek to raise it again and yet again.

Again, you just keep proving my point. I wish republicans in public would argue like you are now, because it just keeps showing how biased you are.

You dont like obama so you project all your fears upon him. You assume that if he could, he would come and take all of your money, gold, and guns. Its a paranoid fantasy of ignorant lifelong conservatives that has absolutely no basis in reality.

Say, I've got an idea:

How about you argue against the things I actually say, and not the things leftist echo-chamber websites tell you I say?

You up for that? Because despite your pouting and foot-stamping, I really feel no obligation to defend things I didn't say.

"How about you argue against the things I actually say, and not the things leftist echo-chamber websites tell you I say?"

Lmao!!!

Your the one doing that!!! wow!

Your the one that is arguing against what you think obama is going to do!

Wow!

 

[daveman]

Wow slightly misleading.

No, it's not. It proves your claim is wrong.

Tell me, how does the trend look for all education levels? How do people with graduate degrees compare?

How about you back up your claims instead of expecting me to?

Heres a table

Party Affiliation Versus Education Level | The Quantum Pontiff

While people with bachelors degrees are very slightly more likely (1-2%) to be republicans, people with graduate degrees are much more likely (4-5%) to be democrats.

Technically, your graph doesnt even correctly address my claim, and so couldnt have proved it wrong. My claim is that as someone achieves a higher level of education they are more likely to vote democratic. To prove or disprove this, you would have to show voting trends over several levels of educational attainment. Your graph only shows a 4 year degree, and therefore doesnt even address the basic topic of progression through school from just high school, to bachelors, to masters, to doctoral.

I'd like to see the original study, but the link in your blog is broken. Try again.

 

[cbirch2]

Under a flat tax, someone making $10 million a year WILL pay more in taxes than someone that makes $30,000.

As a percentage of total income you god damn moron.

My goodness, what an emotional sort you are.

Let's look at it. 10% flat tax, no exemptions.

$10 million/year annual income = $1 million tax or $1,923 a week.

$30K/year annual income = $3K tax or $58 a week.

$1million > $3K in any mathematical system.

It's when you toss in childish and emotional notions of what's FAAAAIR!! that $58 a week is too much and almost 2 grand a week is not enough.

Did you totally ignore the post you quoted in order to try and sound smart? The part where i said "as a percentage of income"?

Do you get what percentages are? If a poor person is making 10% a rich person should be paying 11%. Get it? Anyone disagreeing is clearly out of touch with the consensus of the public.

 

[cbirch2]

No, it's not. It proves your claim is wrong.

How about you back up your claims instead of expecting me to?

Heres a table

Party Affiliation Versus Education Level | The Quantum Pontiff

While people with bachelors degrees are very slightly more likely (1-2%) to be republicans, people with graduate degrees are much more likely (4-5%) to be democrats.

Technically, your graph doesnt even correctly address my claim, and so couldnt have proved it wrong. My claim is that as someone achieves a higher level of education they are more likely to vote democratic. To prove or disprove this, you would have to show voting trends over several levels of educational attainment. Your graph only shows a 4 year degree, and therefore doesnt even address the basic topic of progression through school from just high school, to bachelors, to masters, to doctoral.

I'd like to see the original study, but the link in your blog is broken. Try again.

Lol what? You need to see my study? Your source was wiki so stfu.

My link is broken? Idk works fine for me friend so i kind of have a hunch that your lying, but i can post the stats for you.

Percentages go from Less than HS to HS to Junior College to Bachelors Degree to Graduate Degree

STRONG DEMOCRAT 23.5 13.6 13.1 11.1 15.4
NOT STR DEMOCRAT 25.3 22.8 21.0 19.2 20.0
IND,NEAR DEM 9.7 12.7 13.5 12.6 14.6
INDEPENDENT 14.6 14.1 13.5 9.7 9.6
IND,NEAR REP 6.3 9.4 9.3 11.4 10.7
NOT STR REPUBLICAN 12.1 17.4 16.6 20.8 16.0
STRONG REPUBLICAN 7.3 8.6 10.9 13.8 11.7
OTHER PARTY 1.3 1.3 2.0 1.5 2.1

 

[daveman]

Again, you just keep proving my point. I wish republicans in public would argue like you are now, because it just keeps showing how biased you are.

You dont like obama so you project all your fears upon him. You assume that if he could, he would come and take all of your money, gold, and guns. Its a paranoid fantasy of ignorant lifelong conservatives that has absolutely no basis in reality.

Say, I've got an idea:

How about you argue against the things I actually say, and not the things leftist echo-chamber websites tell you I say?

You up for that? Because despite your pouting and foot-stamping, I really feel no obligation to defend things I didn't say.

"How about you argue against the things I actually say, and not the things leftist echo-chamber websites tell you I say?"

Lmao!!!

Your the one doing that!!! wow!

Your the one that is arguing against what you think obama is going to do!

Wow!

What justification do you have for acting superior? Because I can't see any.

You claimed I said Obama is going to take my guns, gold, and money.

I didn't. But that's what the leftist echo chambers you let do your thinking for you tell you I, as a conservative, have said.

I made my argument that Obama would not be satisfied with raising the top rate to 39% based on his asking for a second stimulus.

Your rebuttal has consisted solely of "Nuh-UH!!'

Out here in the real world, that's simply not sufficient.

 

[daveman]

As a percentage of total income you god damn moron.

My goodness, what an emotional sort you are.

Let's look at it. 10% flat tax, no exemptions.

$10 million/year annual income = $1 million tax or $1,923 a week.

$30K/year annual income = $3K tax or $58 a week.

$1million > $3K in any mathematical system.

It's when you toss in childish and emotional notions of what's FAAAAIR!! that $58 a week is too much and almost 2 grand a week is not enough.

Did you totally ignore the post you quoted in order to try and sound smart? The part where i said "as a percentage of income"?

Do you get what percentages are?

Yes. You can tell because I used them in my reply. Hint: They're the numbers in front of the little % thing.

If a poor person is making 10% a rich person should be paying 11%. Get it? Anyone disagreeing is clearly out of touch with the consensus of the public.

Thanks for proving my point: Childish and emotional notions of what's FAAAAIR!! say that $58 a week is too much and almost 2 grand a week is not enough.

 

[daveman]

Heres a table

Party Affiliation Versus Education Level | The Quantum Pontiff

While people with bachelors degrees are very slightly more likely (1-2%) to be republicans, people with graduate degrees are much more likely (4-5%) to be democrats.

Technically, your graph doesnt even correctly address my claim, and so couldnt have proved it wrong. My claim is that as someone achieves a higher level of education they are more likely to vote democratic. To prove or disprove this, you would have to show voting trends over several levels of educational attainment. Your graph only shows a 4 year degree, and therefore doesnt even address the basic topic of progression through school from just high school, to bachelors, to masters, to doctoral.

I'd like to see the original study, but the link in your blog is broken. Try again.

Lol what? You need to see my study? Your source was wiki so stfu.

My link is broken? Idk works fine for me friend so i kind of have a hunch that your lying, but i can post the stats for you.

The blog link works. The link therein to the original study does not.

SDA: Survey Documentation and Analysis
Oops! Google Chrome could not connect to csa.berkeley.edu:7502

Dumbass.

And I don't have to lie. I'm not a dumbass leftist.

 

[cbirch2]

Say, I've got an idea:

How about you argue against the things I actually say, and not the things leftist echo-chamber websites tell you I say?

You up for that? Because despite your pouting and foot-stamping, I really feel no obligation to defend things I didn't say.

"How about you argue against the things I actually say, and not the things leftist echo-chamber websites tell you I say?"

Lmao!!!

Your the one doing that!!! wow!

Your the one that is arguing against what you think obama is going to do!

Wow!

What justification do you have for acting superior? Because I can't see any.

You claimed I said Obama is going to take my guns, gold, and money.

I didn't. But that's what the leftist echo chambers you let do your thinking for you tell you I, as a conservative, have said.

I made my argument that Obama would not be satisfied with raising the top rate to 39% based on his asking for a second stimulus.

Your rebuttal has consisted solely of "Nuh-UH!!'

Out here in the real world, that's simply not sufficient.

Your argument against obama is "why should we believe that he'll stop there"

Out here in the real world, that's simply not sufficient.

 

[daveman]

"How about you argue against the things I actually say, and not the things leftist echo-chamber websites tell you I say?"

Lmao!!!

Your the one doing that!!! wow!

Your the one that is arguing against what you think obama is going to do!

Wow!

What justification do you have for acting superior? Because I can't see any.

You claimed I said Obama is going to take my guns, gold, and money.

I didn't. But that's what the leftist echo chambers you let do your thinking for you tell you I, as a conservative, have said.

I made my argument that Obama would not be satisfied with raising the top rate to 39% based on his asking for a second stimulus.

Your rebuttal has consisted solely of "Nuh-UH!!'

Out here in the real world, that's simply not sufficient.

Your argument against obama is "why should we believe that he'll stop there"

Out here in the real world, that's simply not sufficient.

The first stimulus was going to fix all our problems.

What happened when it didn't?

He asked for another.

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to vote Democrat.

 

[cbirch2]

My goodness, what an emotional sort you are.

Let's look at it. 10% flat tax, no exemptions.

$10 million/year annual income = $1 million tax or $1,923 a week.

$30K/year annual income = $3K tax or $58 a week.

$1million > $3K in any mathematical system.

It's when you toss in childish and emotional notions of what's FAAAAIR!! that $58 a week is too much and almost 2 grand a week is not enough.

Did you totally ignore the post you quoted in order to try and sound smart? The part where i said "as a percentage of income"?

Do you get what percentages are?

Yes. You can tell because I used them in my reply. Hint: They're the numbers in front of the little % thing.

If a poor person is making 10% a rich person should be paying 11%. Get it? Anyone disagreeing is clearly out of touch with the consensus of the public.

Thanks for proving my point: Childish and emotional notions of what's FAAAAIR!! say that $58 a week is too much and almost 2 grand a week is not enough.

Werent you the one crying about me acting superior just like 2 posts up? And now your being condescending? Nice one.

Supporting a graduated tax system is not childish, even though you emotionally pin that title to your opponents. And ill say it again: poll after poll show that americans favor a progressive income tax system. They want the rich to pay more, but not everyone else. So you can bitch all you want, and you can act snarky, condescending and cocky all day long, but your in bad company with a flat-tax proposal.

 

[cbirch2]

I'd like to see the original study, but the link in your blog is broken. Try again.

Lol what? You need to see my study? Your source was wiki so stfu.

My link is broken? Idk works fine for me friend so i kind of have a hunch that your lying, but i can post the stats for you.

The blog link works. The link therein to the original study does not.

SDA: Survey Documentation and Analysis
Oops! Google Chrome could not connect to csa.berkeley.edu:7502

Dumbass.

And I don't have to lie. I'm not a dumbass leftist.

Yea you didnt lie. You just responded to a question about party affiliation among each educational level, with a graph that showed party affiliation of one educational group over time.

So you didnt lie, you just showed a graph that was irrelevant and misleading.

 

[cbirch2]

What justification do you have for acting superior? Because I can't see any.

You claimed I said Obama is going to take my guns, gold, and money.

I didn't. But that's what the leftist echo chambers you let do your thinking for you tell you I, as a conservative, have said.

I made my argument that Obama would not be satisfied with raising the top rate to 39% based on his asking for a second stimulus.

Your rebuttal has consisted solely of "Nuh-UH!!'

Out here in the real world, that's simply not sufficient.

Your argument against obama is "why should we believe that he'll stop there"

Out here in the real world, that's simply not sufficient.

The first stimulus was going to fix all our problems.

What happened when it didn't?

He asked for another.

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to vote Democrat.

Lol i love the argument that the stimulus was a failure. Compared to what? Do you have the estimates of what the economy would have been without it?

All ive seen conservatives do with this argument is either a) use the obama campaigns 8% unemployment figure, or b) reject the legitimacy of any organization that does have estimates.

You realize that unemployment was over 8% when the stimulus was passed right? And that the 8% remark was made from estimates of estimates of incomplete data months before the actual legislation was written. Its hilarious that it gets thrown around so much.

 

[daveman]

Did you totally ignore the post you quoted in order to try and sound smart? The part where i said "as a percentage of income"?

Do you get what percentages are?

Yes. You can tell because I used them in my reply. Hint: They're the numbers in front of the little % thing.

If a poor person is making 10% a rich person should be paying 11%. Get it? Anyone disagreeing is clearly out of touch with the consensus of the public.

Thanks for proving my point: Childish and emotional notions of what's FAAAAIR!! say that $58 a week is too much and almost 2 grand a week is not enough.

Werent you the one crying about me acting superior just like 2 posts up? And now your being condescending? Nice one.

If you don't act like a child, you won't get treated like a child. Simple, huh?

Supporting a graduated tax system is not childish, even though you emotionally pin that title to your opponents.

No emotion on my part. Sheer observation.

And ill say it again: poll after poll show that americans favor a progressive income tax system. They want the rich to pay more, but not everyone else. So you can bitch all you want, and you can act snarky, condescending and cocky all day long, but your in bad company with a flat-tax proposal.

Imagine that: People saying that other people, but not them, should pay more.

This is a huge surprise to you?

 

[daveman]

Lol what? You need to see my study? Your source was wiki so stfu.

My link is broken? Idk works fine for me friend so i kind of have a hunch that your lying, but i can post the stats for you.

The blog link works. The link therein to the original study does not.

SDA: Survey Documentation and Analysis
Oops! Google Chrome could not connect to csa.berkeley.edu:7502

Dumbass.

And I don't have to lie. I'm not a dumbass leftist.

Yea you didnt lie. You just responded to a question about party affiliation among each educational level, with a graph that showed party affiliation of one educational group over time.

So you didnt lie, you just showed a graph that was irrelevant and misleading.

I use that graph all the time when one of your fellow leftists claims that Republicans are less educated.

He sputters just like you do.

 

[daveman]

Your argument against obama is "why should we believe that he'll stop there"

Out here in the real world, that's simply not sufficient.

The first stimulus was going to fix all our problems.

What happened when it didn't?

He asked for another.

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to vote Democrat.

Lol i love the argument that the stimulus was a failure. Compared to what? Do you have the estimates of what the economy would have been without it?

All ive seen conservatives do with this argument is either a) use the obama campaigns 8% unemployment figure, or b) reject the legitimacy of any organization that does have estimates.

You realize that unemployment was over 8% when the stimulus was passed right? And that the 8% remark was made from estimates of estimates of incomplete data months before the actual legislation was written. Its hilarious that it gets thrown around so much.

What's also hilarious is the number of jobs "created or saved" keeps on magically going up -- along with the unemployment figures.

If we had to spend a trillion dollars, it would have been better used splitting it among every America citizen instead of just to Democrat special interest groups.

 

[Big Fitz]

No friend, i laugh because your projecting your imagination upon someone you dont know.

Leftists are addicting to other peoples money? You live in a fantasy land. As if every liberal in the nation is getting kick-backs or something. Again, i dont get money from the government and i pay my taxes. Why would i vote liberal?

If you vote liberal, you're voting to take money away from people who have it and give it to people who don't. You don't have to be the recipient, and I never claimed you had to be the recipient.

This, too, is inarguable.

No wonder the stats show that the more education you have the less likely you are to vote republican. it makes so much sense after talking to you.

I suggest you check your stats.

Source: Democratic Party (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Wow slightly misleading.

Tell me, how does the trend look for all education levels? How do people with graduate degrees compare?

and the goal posts move again.