End income tax

[Doc1]

Yep,
End our leadership in science, tech and watch our infrastructure go to shit!

Good way to become a third world shit hole even faster.

You need to bone up, the best engineers in the Hi-Tech field are NOT American. Intel hires ore Indians and Asians than anything else.

We're 5% of the world population.

Are you suggesting that we try to win in hi tech while limiting ourselves to those of our kids who get to go to college?

I'm not suggesting anything, I am stating that our education system sucks in comparison to most of the world. Primary AND Secondary.

 

[Timmy]

There's no need for an income tax, or any tax, liberals will voluntarily give most of their money to the government for redistribution. Right libs, you people will lead by example, practice what you preach?

Take a peak at the give budget sometime. 30% goes to military shit but it's Medicare coverage for old people that upsets you ?

 

[Doc1]

No, logic says that if a Tax Deduction is a Gov expenditure, by extension the money must be theirs to spend.

Wow! I'm debating with someone who doesn't know what a tax expenditure is!

Here you go: Tax expenditure - Wikipedia

With all due respect your post assumes that your position is automatically correct.
You should actually read what you post friend.

"The history of tax expenditures"

In 1967, the tax expenditure concept was created by Stanley S. Surrey, former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury", as a way to represent the political use of tax breaks for means that were usually accomplished through budget spending." Secretary Surrey argued that members of Congress were using tax policy as a ``vast subsidy apparatus to reward favored constituencies or subsidize narrow policy areas."The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Act of 1974 (CBA) defines tax expenditures as "those revenue losses attributable to provisions of the Federal tax laws which allow a special credit, a preferential rate of tax, or a deferral of tax liability" (Surrey 1985).

Your source makes my point clear, that to view "Tax Breaks" as expenditures ALL monies belong to the Gov. "Revenues" is a misnomer, there are no real "revenues" in Gov, only confiscation.

The definition of "Revenue":

"Revenue is the amount of money that is brought into a company by its business activities. Revenue is also known as sales, as in the price-to-sales ratio, an alternative to the price-to-earnings ratio that uses revenue in the denominator.

Read more: Revenue Definition | Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/revenue.asp#ixzz4VhGk9LaS
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook

So you see, revenue is a word that does not apply in Gov, they don't create or make anything. They confiscate.
Just because the Gov decides to "define" something in no way makes it applicable to anything or anyone. So in order to define tax breaks as an "expenditure" you must START with the idea that ALL monies belong to the Gov.

Everyone understands what tax expenditures are, except you.

So tell me. Of the 19 Presidential candidates in 2016, whose tax plan did you prefer the most?

No, you've simply accepted the Govs redefinition of what "revenue" is.
You've accepted the word "revenue" in replacement of "taxation". In doing so it enables you to see "tax deductions" as expenditures, meaning only that the Gov takes less of MY money and in doing so it has therefore "spent" money that was never theirs to start with.
This is the real problem with Democratic Socialism, it seeks to (as it must) to redefine and control language thereby enabling folks like you and them to control how things are viewed. Most people don't pay attention, unfortunately for you I do.

Feel free to propose a revenue neutral direction.

Arguing terminology is just dodging the issue.

Nope, terminology is everything in this case. He/they who control the language and it's meaning control the discussion.
Redefining a word in order to "prove" your point is simply moving the goalposts because you don't like the way those words (in their true meanings) affect whatever point you are trying to make.
Accepting that "tax breaks" are expenditures is straight out of Orwell.

 

[Timmy]

Yep,
End our leadership in science, tech and watch our infrastructure go to shit!

Good way to become a third world shit hole even faster.

You need to bone up, the best engineers in the Hi-Tech field are NOT American. Intel hires ore Indians and Asians than anything else.

We're 5% of the world population.

Are you suggesting that we try to win in hi tech while limiting ourselves to those of our kids who get to go to college?

I'm not suggesting anything, I am stating that our education system sucks in comparison to most of the world. Primary AND Secondary.

Not if you take red states out of the equation.

 

[Doc1]

Yep,
End our leadership in science, tech and watch our infrastructure go to shit!

Good way to become a third world shit hole even faster.

You need to bone up, the best engineers in the Hi-Tech field are NOT American. Intel hires ore Indians and Asians than anything else.

We're 5% of the world population.

Are you suggesting that we try to win in hi tech while limiting ourselves to those of our kids who get to go to college?

I'm not suggesting anything, I am stating that our education system sucks in comparison to most of the world. Primary AND Secondary.

Not if you take red states out of the equation.

Again, I am stating that as a whole our Education system sucks, the fact that you can't see it is immaterial. I am telling you that in the Tech world we are far behind, it's just a fact.

 

[Doc1]

But hey don't worry, I picked up on your partisanship there.

 

[WillReadmore]

Yep,
End our leadership in science, tech and watch our infrastructure go to shit!

Good way to become a third world shit hole even faster.

You need to bone up, the best engineers in the Hi-Tech field are NOT American. Intel hires ore Indians and Asians than anything else.

We're 5% of the world population.

Are you suggesting that we try to win in hi tech while limiting ourselves to those of our kids who get to go to college?

I'm not suggesting anything, I am stating that our education system sucks in comparison to most of the world. Primary AND Secondary.

OK.

I thought this thread was about taxes. Maybe we should go there.

 

[Doc1]

Yep,
End our leadership in science, tech and watch our infrastructure go to shit!

Good way to become a third world shit hole even faster.

You need to bone up, the best engineers in the Hi-Tech field are NOT American. Intel hires ore Indians and Asians than anything else.

We're 5% of the world population.

Are you suggesting that we try to win in hi tech while limiting ourselves to those of our kids who get to go to college?

I'm not suggesting anything, I am stating that our education system sucks in comparison to most of the world. Primary AND Secondary.

OK.

I thought this thread was about taxes. Maybe we should go there.

There are multiple discussions happening here, I am practicing multi-tasking.

 

[Timmy]

Yep,
End our leadership in science, tech and watch our infrastructure go to shit!

Good way to become a third world shit hole even faster.

You need to bone up, the best engineers in the Hi-Tech field are NOT American. Intel hires ore Indians and Asians than anything else.

We're 5% of the world population.

Are you suggesting that we try to win in hi tech while limiting ourselves to those of our kids who get to go to college?

I'm not suggesting anything, I am stating that our education system sucks in comparison to most of the world. Primary AND Secondary.

Not if you take red states out of the equation.

Again, I am stating that as a whole our Education system sucks, the fact that you can't see it is immaterial. I am telling you that in the Tech world we are far behind, it's just a fact.

I disagree . Sure there's room for improvement , but it's not as dire as people like to think .

For one, we strive to educate everyone. Rich , poor , disabled , difficult, disadvantaged . Other countries do not .

If we are so bad , why are we a world leader in most everything ?

 

[WillReadmore]

Wow! I'm debating with someone who doesn't know what a tax expenditure is!

Here you go: Tax expenditure - Wikipedia

With all due respect your post assumes that your position is automatically correct.
You should actually read what you post friend.

"The history of tax expenditures"

In 1967, the tax expenditure concept was created by Stanley S. Surrey, former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury", as a way to represent the political use of tax breaks for means that were usually accomplished through budget spending." Secretary Surrey argued that members of Congress were using tax policy as a ``vast subsidy apparatus to reward favored constituencies or subsidize narrow policy areas."The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Act of 1974 (CBA) defines tax expenditures as "those revenue losses attributable to provisions of the Federal tax laws which allow a special credit, a preferential rate of tax, or a deferral of tax liability" (Surrey 1985).

Your source makes my point clear, that to view "Tax Breaks" as expenditures ALL monies belong to the Gov. "Revenues" is a misnomer, there are no real "revenues" in Gov, only confiscation.

The definition of "Revenue":

"Revenue is the amount of money that is brought into a company by its business activities. Revenue is also known as sales, as in the price-to-sales ratio, an alternative to the price-to-earnings ratio that uses revenue in the denominator.

Read more: Revenue Definition | Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/revenue.asp#ixzz4VhGk9LaS
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook

So you see, revenue is a word that does not apply in Gov, they don't create or make anything. They confiscate.
Just because the Gov decides to "define" something in no way makes it applicable to anything or anyone. So in order to define tax breaks as an "expenditure" you must START with the idea that ALL monies belong to the Gov.

Everyone understands what tax expenditures are, except you.

So tell me. Of the 19 Presidential candidates in 2016, whose tax plan did you prefer the most?

No, you've simply accepted the Govs redefinition of what "revenue" is.
You've accepted the word "revenue" in replacement of "taxation". In doing so it enables you to see "tax deductions" as expenditures, meaning only that the Gov takes less of MY money and in doing so it has therefore "spent" money that was never theirs to start with.
This is the real problem with Democratic Socialism, it seeks to (as it must) to redefine and control language thereby enabling folks like you and them to control how things are viewed. Most people don't pay attention, unfortunately for you I do.

Feel free to propose a revenue neutral direction.

Arguing terminology is just dodging the issue.

Nope, terminology is everything in this case. He/they who control the language and it's meaning control the discussion.
Redefining a word in order to "prove" your point is simply moving the goalposts because you don't like the way those words (in their true meanings) affect whatever point you are trying to make.
Accepting that "tax breaks" are expenditures is straight out of Orwell.

Well, most tax breaks are given when we want to encourage specific behavior.

We give gigantic tax breaks to oil companies, because we want them to drill, baby, drill - and thus we are willing to help fund that activity.

We give subsidies to those who buy hybrid cars, because we want to not use oil, so we're willing to help pay for not using oil.

Etc.

I don't see that as particularly Orwellian.

 

[Doc1]

With all due respect your post assumes that your position is automatically correct.
You should actually read what you post friend.

"The history of tax expenditures"

In 1967, the tax expenditure concept was created by Stanley S. Surrey, former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury", as a way to represent the political use of tax breaks for means that were usually accomplished through budget spending." Secretary Surrey argued that members of Congress were using tax policy as a ``vast subsidy apparatus to reward favored constituencies or subsidize narrow policy areas."The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Act of 1974 (CBA) defines tax expenditures as "those revenue losses attributable to provisions of the Federal tax laws which allow a special credit, a preferential rate of tax, or a deferral of tax liability" (Surrey 1985).

Your source makes my point clear, that to view "Tax Breaks" as expenditures ALL monies belong to the Gov. "Revenues" is a misnomer, there are no real "revenues" in Gov, only confiscation.

The definition of "Revenue":

"Revenue is the amount of money that is brought into a company by its business activities. Revenue is also known as sales, as in the price-to-sales ratio, an alternative to the price-to-earnings ratio that uses revenue in the denominator.

Read more: Revenue Definition | Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/revenue.asp#ixzz4VhGk9LaS
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook

So you see, revenue is a word that does not apply in Gov, they don't create or make anything. They confiscate.
Just because the Gov decides to "define" something in no way makes it applicable to anything or anyone. So in order to define tax breaks as an "expenditure" you must START with the idea that ALL monies belong to the Gov.

Everyone understands what tax expenditures are, except you.

So tell me. Of the 19 Presidential candidates in 2016, whose tax plan did you prefer the most?

No, you've simply accepted the Govs redefinition of what "revenue" is.
You've accepted the word "revenue" in replacement of "taxation". In doing so it enables you to see "tax deductions" as expenditures, meaning only that the Gov takes less of MY money and in doing so it has therefore "spent" money that was never theirs to start with.
This is the real problem with Democratic Socialism, it seeks to (as it must) to redefine and control language thereby enabling folks like you and them to control how things are viewed. Most people don't pay attention, unfortunately for you I do.

Feel free to propose a revenue neutral direction.

Arguing terminology is just dodging the issue.

Nope, terminology is everything in this case. He/they who control the language and it's meaning control the discussion.
Redefining a word in order to "prove" your point is simply moving the goalposts because you don't like the way those words (in their true meanings) affect whatever point you are trying to make.
Accepting that "tax breaks" are expenditures is straight out of Orwell.

Well, most tax breaks are given when we want to encourage specific behavior.

We give gigantic tax breaks to oil companies, because we want them to drill, baby, drill - and thus we are willing to help fund that activity.

We give subsidies to those who buy hybrid cars, because we want to not use oil, so we're willing to help pay for not using oil.

Etc.

I don't see that as particularly Orwellian.

The Orwellian aspect of it is that for a "tax cut" to be an "expenditure" we must redefine what "expenditures" and "revenues" are.

 

[Timmy]

Yep,
End our leadership in science, tech and watch our infrastructure go to shit!

Good way to become a third world shit hole even faster.

You need to bone up, the best engineers in the Hi-Tech field are NOT American. Intel hires ore Indians and Asians than anything else.

We're 5% of the world population.

Are you suggesting that we try to win in hi tech while limiting ourselves to those of our kids who get to go to college?

I'm not suggesting anything, I am stating that our education system sucks in comparison to most of the world. Primary AND Secondary.

OK.

I thought this thread was about taxes. Maybe we should go there.

You are correct .

Flat tax won't fill the coffers . Unless it's super high.

And do you then eliminate all other taxes ?

 

[g5000]

No, logic says that if a Tax Deduction is a Gov expenditure, by extension the money must be theirs to spend.

Wow! I'm debating with someone who doesn't know what a tax expenditure is!

Here you go: Tax expenditure - Wikipedia

With all due respect your post assumes that your position is automatically correct.
You should actually read what you post friend.

"The history of tax expenditures"

In 1967, the tax expenditure concept was created by Stanley S. Surrey, former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury", as a way to represent the political use of tax breaks for means that were usually accomplished through budget spending." Secretary Surrey argued that members of Congress were using tax policy as a ``vast subsidy apparatus to reward favored constituencies or subsidize narrow policy areas."The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Act of 1974 (CBA) defines tax expenditures as "those revenue losses attributable to provisions of the Federal tax laws which allow a special credit, a preferential rate of tax, or a deferral of tax liability" (Surrey 1985).

Your source makes my point clear, that to view "Tax Breaks" as expenditures ALL monies belong to the Gov. "Revenues" is a misnomer, there are no real "revenues" in Gov, only confiscation.

The definition of "Revenue":

"Revenue is the amount of money that is brought into a company by its business activities. Revenue is also known as sales, as in the price-to-sales ratio, an alternative to the price-to-earnings ratio that uses revenue in the denominator.

Read more: Revenue Definition | Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/revenue.asp#ixzz4VhGk9LaS
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook

So you see, revenue is a word that does not apply in Gov, they don't create or make anything. They confiscate.
Just because the Gov decides to "define" something in no way makes it applicable to anything or anyone. So in order to define tax breaks as an "expenditure" you must START with the idea that ALL monies belong to the Gov.

Everyone understands what tax expenditures are, except you.

So tell me. Of the 19 Presidential candidates in 2016, whose tax plan did you prefer the most?

No, you've simply accepted the Govs redefinition of what "revenue" is.
You've accepted the word "revenue" in replacement of "taxation". In doing so it enables you to see "tax deductions" as expenditures, meaning only that the Gov takes less of MY money and in doing so it has therefore "spent" money that was never theirs to start with.
This is the real problem with Democratic Socialism, it seeks to (as it must) to redefine and control language thereby enabling folks like you and them to control how things are viewed. Most people don't pay attention, unfortunately for you I do.

I am a conservative, fool. The reason I call people like you "pseudocons" is because you don't recognize a core conservative principle when it is kicking you in the balls.

Now please answer my question. Of the 19 Presidential candidates in 2016, whose tax plan did you prefer the most?

 

[g5000]

Everyone understands what tax expenditures are, except you.

So tell me. Of the 19 Presidential candidates in 2016, whose tax plan did you prefer the most?

No, you've simply accepted the Govs redefinition of what "revenue" is.
You've accepted the word "revenue" in replacement of "taxation". In doing so it enables you to see "tax deductions" as expenditures, meaning only that the Gov takes less of MY money and in doing so it has therefore "spent" money that was never theirs to start with.
This is the real problem with Democratic Socialism, it seeks to (as it must) to redefine and control language thereby enabling folks like you and them to control how things are viewed. Most people don't pay attention, unfortunately for you I do.

Feel free to propose a revenue neutral direction.

Arguing terminology is just dodging the issue.

Nope, terminology is everything in this case. He/they who control the language and it's meaning control the discussion.
Redefining a word in order to "prove" your point is simply moving the goalposts because you don't like the way those words (in their true meanings) affect whatever point you are trying to make.
Accepting that "tax breaks" are expenditures is straight out of Orwell.

Well, most tax breaks are given when we want to encourage specific behavior.

We give gigantic tax breaks to oil companies, because we want them to drill, baby, drill - and thus we are willing to help fund that activity.

We give subsidies to those who buy hybrid cars, because we want to not use oil, so we're willing to help pay for not using oil.

Etc.

I don't see that as particularly Orwellian.

The Orwellian aspect of it is that for a "tax cut" to be an "expenditure" we must redefine what "expenditures" and "revenues" are.

A tax cut is not a tax expenditure.

Once again, you demonstrate you know nothing about tax expenditures.

 

[WillReadmore]

You need to bone up, the best engineers in the Hi-Tech field are NOT American. Intel hires ore Indians and Asians than anything else.

We're 5% of the world population.

Are you suggesting that we try to win in hi tech while limiting ourselves to those of our kids who get to go to college?

I'm not suggesting anything, I am stating that our education system sucks in comparison to most of the world. Primary AND Secondary.

Not if you take red states out of the equation.

Again, I am stating that as a whole our Education system sucks, the fact that you can't see it is immaterial. I am telling you that in the Tech world we are far behind, it's just a fact.

I disagree . Sure there's room for improvement , but it's not as dire as people like to think .

For one, we strive to educate everyone. Rich , poor , disabled , difficult, disadvantaged . Other countries do not .

If we are so bad , why are we a world leader in most everything ?

OK, I don't totally disagree with you. BUT...

Let's remember that our economy is changing rapidly. We're going past manufacturing into high tech. We can see the plight of manufacturing workers as:
- our manufacturing OUTPUT increases
- But, our manufacturing employment decreases
- our manufacturing corporations have open positions for engineers with college education who understand automation, not those who have spent their careers in manufacturing.
- our advantage in manufacturing has been seriously eroded by the advancement of manufacturing throughout the world. We just don't have much of a competitive edge anymore.

We're in the process of switching to high tech, information, innovation, etc., and that requires FAR more education than manufacturing does.

So, we could THINK we are doing fine now, even as we fail to prepare our children for the real world that they WILL face.

We're risking being the marathon runner who started out fast, but got gassed at mile 20.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

There's no need for an income tax, or any tax, liberals will voluntarily give most of their money to the government for redistribution. Right libs, you people will lead by example, practice what you preach?

Take a peak at the give budget sometime. 30% goes to military shit but it's Medicare coverage for old people that upsets you ?

 

[Doc1]

No, logic says that if a Tax Deduction is a Gov expenditure, by extension the money must be theirs to spend.

Wow! I'm debating with someone who doesn't know what a tax expenditure is!

Here you go: Tax expenditure - Wikipedia

With all due respect your post assumes that your position is automatically correct.
You should actually read what you post friend.

"The history of tax expenditures"

In 1967, the tax expenditure concept was created by Stanley S. Surrey, former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury", as a way to represent the political use of tax breaks for means that were usually accomplished through budget spending." Secretary Surrey argued that members of Congress were using tax policy as a ``vast subsidy apparatus to reward favored constituencies or subsidize narrow policy areas."The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Act of 1974 (CBA) defines tax expenditures as "those revenue losses attributable to provisions of the Federal tax laws which allow a special credit, a preferential rate of tax, or a deferral of tax liability" (Surrey 1985).

Your source makes my point clear, that to view "Tax Breaks" as expenditures ALL monies belong to the Gov. "Revenues" is a misnomer, there are no real "revenues" in Gov, only confiscation.

The definition of "Revenue":

"Revenue is the amount of money that is brought into a company by its business activities. Revenue is also known as sales, as in the price-to-sales ratio, an alternative to the price-to-earnings ratio that uses revenue in the denominator.

Read more: Revenue Definition | Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/revenue.asp#ixzz4VhGk9LaS
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook

So you see, revenue is a word that does not apply in Gov, they don't create or make anything. They confiscate.
Just because the Gov decides to "define" something in no way makes it applicable to anything or anyone. So in order to define tax breaks as an "expenditure" you must START with the idea that ALL monies belong to the Gov.

Everyone understands what tax expenditures are, except you.

So tell me. Of the 19 Presidential candidates in 2016, whose tax plan did you prefer the most?

No, you've simply accepted the Govs redefinition of what "revenue" is.
You've accepted the word "revenue" in replacement of "taxation". In doing so it enables you to see "tax deductions" as expenditures, meaning only that the Gov takes less of MY money and in doing so it has therefore "spent" money that was never theirs to start with.
This is the real problem with Democratic Socialism, it seeks to (as it must) to redefine and control language thereby enabling folks like you and them to control how things are viewed. Most people don't pay attention, unfortunately for you I do.

I am a conservative, fool. The reason I call people like you "pseudocons" is because you don't recognize a core conservative policy when it is kicking you in the balls.

Now please answer my question. Of the 19 Presidential candidates in 2016, whose tax plan did you prefer the most?
]

LOL, see?
You want/need to "redefine" a word so that you can "prove" your point, whatever that point may be at any given moment
You are no "Conservative" as any real Conservative would define the word. As to your question, it is a non-starter. I haven't even seen Donald's yet so I don't even knw if I support his. Unlike you I am not a blind partisan. I didn't support Bush's bailout's. I didn't support Bush's amnesty plan, so you see I wait for things to play out. I wait to actually see what someone's WORKS are, their words don't count.

 

[g5000]

Wow! I'm debating with someone who doesn't know what a tax expenditure is!

Here you go: Tax expenditure - Wikipedia

With all due respect your post assumes that your position is automatically correct.
You should actually read what you post friend.

"The history of tax expenditures"

In 1967, the tax expenditure concept was created by Stanley S. Surrey, former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury", as a way to represent the political use of tax breaks for means that were usually accomplished through budget spending." Secretary Surrey argued that members of Congress were using tax policy as a ``vast subsidy apparatus to reward favored constituencies or subsidize narrow policy areas."The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Act of 1974 (CBA) defines tax expenditures as "those revenue losses attributable to provisions of the Federal tax laws which allow a special credit, a preferential rate of tax, or a deferral of tax liability" (Surrey 1985).

Your source makes my point clear, that to view "Tax Breaks" as expenditures ALL monies belong to the Gov. "Revenues" is a misnomer, there are no real "revenues" in Gov, only confiscation.

The definition of "Revenue":

"Revenue is the amount of money that is brought into a company by its business activities. Revenue is also known as sales, as in the price-to-sales ratio, an alternative to the price-to-earnings ratio that uses revenue in the denominator.

Read more: Revenue Definition | Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/revenue.asp#ixzz4VhGk9LaS
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook

So you see, revenue is a word that does not apply in Gov, they don't create or make anything. They confiscate.
Just because the Gov decides to "define" something in no way makes it applicable to anything or anyone. So in order to define tax breaks as an "expenditure" you must START with the idea that ALL monies belong to the Gov.

Everyone understands what tax expenditures are, except you.

So tell me. Of the 19 Presidential candidates in 2016, whose tax plan did you prefer the most?

No, you've simply accepted the Govs redefinition of what "revenue" is.
You've accepted the word "revenue" in replacement of "taxation". In doing so it enables you to see "tax deductions" as expenditures, meaning only that the Gov takes less of MY money and in doing so it has therefore "spent" money that was never theirs to start with.
This is the real problem with Democratic Socialism, it seeks to (as it must) to redefine and control language thereby enabling folks like you and them to control how things are viewed. Most people don't pay attention, unfortunately for you I do.

I am a conservative, fool. The reason I call people like you "pseudocons" is because you don't recognize a core conservative policy when it is kicking you in the balls.

Now please answer my question. Of the 19 Presidential candidates in 2016, whose tax plan did you prefer the most?
]

LOL, see?
You want/need to "redefine" a word so that you can "prove" your point, whatever that point may be at any given moment
You are no "Conservative" as any real Conservative would define the word. As to your question, it is a non-starter. I haven't even seen Donald's yet so I don't even knw if I support his. Unlike you I am not a blind partisan. I didn't support Bush's bailout's. I didn't support Bush's amnesty plan, so you see I wait for things to play out. I wait to actually see what someone's WORKS are, their words don't count.

You are making the exact same stupid mistaken argument the pseudocons make.

Why are you avoiding answering the question? What are you afraid of?

 

[BluesLegend]

There's no need for an income tax, or any tax, liberals will voluntarily give most of their money to the government for redistribution. Right libs, you people will lead by example, practice what you preach?

Take a peak at the give budget sometime. 30% goes to military shit but it's Medicare coverage for old people that upsets you ?

Do you understand math? What's the highest grade you completed?

 

[Doc1]

No, you've simply accepted the Govs redefinition of what "revenue" is.
You've accepted the word "revenue" in replacement of "taxation". In doing so it enables you to see "tax deductions" as expenditures, meaning only that the Gov takes less of MY money and in doing so it has therefore "spent" money that was never theirs to start with.
This is the real problem with Democratic Socialism, it seeks to (as it must) to redefine and control language thereby enabling folks like you and them to control how things are viewed. Most people don't pay attention, unfortunately for you I do.

Feel free to propose a revenue neutral direction.

Arguing terminology is just dodging the issue.

Nope, terminology is everything in this case. He/they who control the language and it's meaning control the discussion.
Redefining a word in order to "prove" your point is simply moving the goalposts because you don't like the way those words (in their true meanings) affect whatever point you are trying to make.
Accepting that "tax breaks" are expenditures is straight out of Orwell.

Well, most tax breaks are given when we want to encourage specific behavior.

We give gigantic tax breaks to oil companies, because we want them to drill, baby, drill - and thus we are willing to help fund that activity.

We give subsidies to those who buy hybrid cars, because we want to not use oil, so we're willing to help pay for not using oil.

Etc.

I don't see that as particularly Orwellian.

The Orwellian aspect of it is that for a "tax cut" to be an "expenditure" we must redefine what "expenditures" and "revenues" are.

A tax cut is not a tax expenditure.

Once again, you demonstrate you know nothing about tax expenditures.

You're dismissed kid. Semantics are for the weak and I ain't playing.
Now if you think YOU are paying for the amount of money that the Gov let's me keep you are simply an idiot and cannot be helped.
You've bought into the entire Gov lie.