Obama's REAL Religion

[8537]

Shouldn't you first be reminded that it was a mistake to cease your education at the fifth grade level?

...Oh the irony. Let it be noted that you completely avoided answering my question.

Let's try this: Answer the question for a change. Why should our tax code favor financial capital over human capital?

Post #10, dim-wit.

No, I already debunked that nonsense. People working is advantageous to the economy. People passing around savings does not benefit the economy.

So try answering the question this time, "dim-wit" lest we begin to think you"ceased your education at the fifth grade level": Why should our tax code favor financial capital over human capital?

 

[8537]

Do adopted children automatically hold the views of their biological father?

 

[naturegirl]

Funny, Obama wrote a book about dreams from his father, yet the lefties want us to believe it had nothing to do with his father.

I think it would be fair to say Obama Jr is trying to make his father's dreams come true.

I think the OP is right on the money and her post should make everyone think. It's easier to attack than to debunk something you can't debunk.

 

[Sallow]

1. In 1965, Barack Obama, Sr. wrote in the “East Africa Journal” the following: “We need…to eliminate power structures that have been built through excessive accumulation so that not only a few individuals shall control a vast magnitude of resources as is the case now.” How? Well, the state can take over large segments of the “commercial” or private sector. And, he said, there is no reason to worry about economic freedom or individual rights “We have to look at priorities in terms of what is good for society and on this basis we may find it necessary to force people to do things they would not do otherwise.”


2. In an article from 1965 entitled “Problems Facing Our Socialism,” Barack Obama’s father stated: Theoretically, there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed. . . It is a fallacy to say there is a limit (to tax rates), and it is a fallacy to rely mainly on individual free enterprise to get the savings. Barack Obama Sr. "Tax 100% of income." Like Father, Like Son? | Peace . Gold . Liberty | Revolution



3. Let’s examine the kind of thinking of the Left, the kind that supports “there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income…” Economist Arthur Laffer states that there are two levels of taxation that produce identical levels of revenue, both producing zero. The first case is obvious: a government tax rate of zero…it takes no money. A 100% tax rate produces the same result: taking everything gives absolutely no incentive to work.

a. Is it possible that there is a gene for Leftist thinking???? And our President inherited it???

4. No? Well, then…how does Mr. Obama, junior justify doubling the capital gains and dividend tax rate to 30 percent from 15 percent today? The motivation, it seems, is the “basic issue of tax fairness:” This is a recurrent theme for Obama. In a 2008 debate between Obama and Hillary Clinton, ABC’s Charles Gibson asked Obama why he would support raising capital-gains taxes given the historical record of government’s losing net revenue as a result. “Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital-gains tax for purposes of fairness,” Obama replied. This moment revealed that Obama isn’t simply or even primarily interested in raising taxes for economic reasons (e.g., raising revenues or spurring growth). He sees taxes through a moral prism, as an instrument to advance “fairness,” which he takes to mean leveling higher taxes on wealthy Americans in order to decrease income inequality. Liberals, Conservatives and Tax Fairness « Commentary Magazine


a. Liberal folks regularly complain about religion in the public arena, carping about turning our nation into a theocracy….but without an economic basis for taxation, it is no more than a religious belief to set policy on such a basis.





But Obama, sr and jr represent the socialist religion that is undergoing a 'reformation' elsewhere....



5. "The EU's welfare states are going broke, and the knives are out for their budgets and the politicians who have supported the EU project. Voters to the north are electing anti-EU candidates who are lecturing about "responsibility" and "thriftiness" to profligate neighbors such as the "lazy" Greeks, Spanish and Portuguese, as German Chancellor Angela Merkel described her southern partners in May.

European Council President Herman Van Rompuy summed up Europe's situation: "We can't finance our social model anymore."
In Europe, economic meltdown tears at unity


Our President is not smart enough to catch what is blowin' in the wind.

Without getting into how this pertains to the president..

1. Correct. Each and every time you have power and wealth in the hands of a few..revolution breaks out.

2. That's correct. Our own constitution has no limit on tax rates.

3. You guys support 0 or close to 0 tax rates. Tax rates are the lowest in this country right now then they have been in many years. Where's the benefit? And by benefit..I ain't talking about the Koch Brothers.

4. "Capital gains" is a euphemism for money for nothing. And it relies on government infrastructure to make it possible. So? You like the money for nothing thing? Vote Republican".

5. You guys hold a religious litmus test to each and every candidate. That's not very constitutional of yas..

Done..without the cut and paste..

1. "Correct. Each and every time you have power and wealth in the hands of a few..revolution breaks out."
How about we stick to the United States...not some third world monarchy.

In the United Stats there is no...as in zero....perennial rich class, no eternal "1%.

There is both social and economic mobility. In fact, in a recession, the top earners lose more than other.

Sadly...your mode of learning is to accept what Leftist media and schooling tells you, rather than research and study.
I admit that your method is easy....but you wind up being wrong and manipulated.



Sally....I appreciate that you, at least, made an effort....but you are so ignorant, when I read your post, I shake my head so fast you could mix paint in my mouth!


" That's correct. Our own constitution has no limit on tax rates."

You don't understand that the Constitution (capital "C") is not an economic text, it is a document explaining liberty!

Don't you understand that every time command and control economies are compared to capitalism, there is no comparison????

When Haitian refugees flee their island, do they aim for Cuba (53 miles), Turks and Caicos (110 miles), Jamaica (124 miles), the Cayman Islands ( 440 miles), or Florida (523 miles ) ? Why is that?


Finland and Estonia

In 1939 Finland and its southern neighbor Estonia were identical in many ways. Then, in 1940, the USSR occupied Estonia, and it remained under communist rule for 50 years. Here are the words of Mart Laar, Estonia’s former prime minister, stating what communism did to his country:

“Look at what happened in this context during these fifty years and then you can understand how terrible the communist system really is. And it’s not only in the economy. This is in all fields of life—the social structure, cultural standards, education, healthcare, or whatever. When you compare those two countries, which were exactly the same in 1939, in 1989, then you will find what communism really means, and how bad it is. Our economy, our nature, and our environment was [sic] destroyed.”
The conclusion:

their economic and social differences grew so large that no informed person could honestly dispute the pernicious effect that communist rule had on occupied Estonia.
The Filter^: Finland and Estonia

In 1991 Estonia became capitalist, and experienced massive economic growth. They discovered the errors of progressive class warfare.


"...no informed person could honestly dispute the pernicious effect..."




"You guys support 0 or close to 0 tax rates. "
Horsefeathers.
Don't make things up! Prove it!


"...relies on government infrastructure to make it possible."
Wrong again!
If business needed a road, it would build it.
Government's function is to establish law and order.
Not pick winners and losers.

"You guys hold a religious litmus test to each and every candidate. That's not very constitutional of yas.."
Another fib designed to make yourself feel better.
No religion is a religion for the left. It is based on belief....'taxation for fairness."


Wise up.

1. The US doesn't exist in a vacuum and didn't come to be out of spontaneous generation. And it's funny that you post this then go on to post examples of events in other parts of the world. Gosh..no wonder your head is spinning.

2. The constitution is not document explaining "liberty". It is a template for the governance of this country. You should read it. Pretty interesting stuff.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Without getting into how this pertains to the president..

1. Correct. Each and every time you have power and wealth in the hands of a few..revolution breaks out.

2. That's correct. Our own constitution has no limit on tax rates.

3. You guys support 0 or close to 0 tax rates. Tax rates are the lowest in this country right now then they have been in many years. Where's the benefit? And by benefit..I ain't talking about the Koch Brothers.

4. "Capital gains" is a euphemism for money for nothing. And it relies on government infrastructure to make it possible. So? You like the money for nothing thing? Vote Republican".

5. You guys hold a religious litmus test to each and every candidate. That's not very constitutional of yas..

Done..without the cut and paste..

1. "Correct. Each and every time you have power and wealth in the hands of a few..revolution breaks out."
How about we stick to the United States...not some third world monarchy.

In the United Stats there is no...as in zero....perennial rich class, no eternal "1%.

There is both social and economic mobility. In fact, in a recession, the top earners lose more than other.

Sadly...your mode of learning is to accept what Leftist media and schooling tells you, rather than research and study.
I admit that your method is easy....but you wind up being wrong and manipulated.



Sally....I appreciate that you, at least, made an effort....but you are so ignorant, when I read your post, I shake my head so fast you could mix paint in my mouth!


" That's correct. Our own constitution has no limit on tax rates."

You don't understand that the Constitution (capital "C") is not an economic text, it is a document explaining liberty!

Don't you understand that every time command and control economies are compared to capitalism, there is no comparison????

When Haitian refugees flee their island, do they aim for Cuba (53 miles), Turks and Caicos (110 miles), Jamaica (124 miles), the Cayman Islands ( 440 miles), or Florida (523 miles ) ? Why is that?


Finland and Estonia

In 1939 Finland and its southern neighbor Estonia were identical in many ways. Then, in 1940, the USSR occupied Estonia, and it remained under communist rule for 50 years. Here are the words of Mart Laar, Estonia’s former prime minister, stating what communism did to his country:

“Look at what happened in this context during these fifty years and then you can understand how terrible the communist system really is. And it’s not only in the economy. This is in all fields of life—the social structure, cultural standards, education, healthcare, or whatever. When you compare those two countries, which were exactly the same in 1939, in 1989, then you will find what communism really means, and how bad it is. Our economy, our nature, and our environment was [sic] destroyed.”
The conclusion:

their economic and social differences grew so large that no informed person could honestly dispute the pernicious effect that communist rule had on occupied Estonia.
The Filter^: Finland and Estonia

In 1991 Estonia became capitalist, and experienced massive economic growth. They discovered the errors of progressive class warfare.


"...no informed person could honestly dispute the pernicious effect..."




"You guys support 0 or close to 0 tax rates. "
Horsefeathers.
Don't make things up! Prove it!


"...relies on government infrastructure to make it possible."
Wrong again!
If business needed a road, it would build it.
Government's function is to establish law and order.
Not pick winners and losers.

"You guys hold a religious litmus test to each and every candidate. That's not very constitutional of yas.."
Another fib designed to make yourself feel better.
No religion is a religion for the left. It is based on belief....'taxation for fairness."


Wise up.

1. The US doesn't exist in a vacuum and didn't come to be out of spontaneous generation. And it's funny that you post this then go on to post examples of events in other parts of the world. Gosh..no wonder your head is spinning.

2. The constitution is not document explaining "liberty". It is a template for the governance of this country. You should read it. Pretty interesting stuff.

Let's see you put your dinero where you put your dinner....

If you had your life savings ready to invest....


....who would you trust to determine how and where to invest same:


a. Barack Obama and Joe Biden

b. Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan

 

[LoneLaugher]

1. In 1965, Barack Obama, Sr. wrote in the “East Africa Journal” the following: “We need…to eliminate power structures that have been built through excessive accumulation so that not only a few individuals shall control a vast magnitude of resources as is the case now.” How? Well, the state can take over large segments of the “commercial” or private sector. And, he said, there is no reason to worry about economic freedom or individual rights “We have to look at priorities in terms of what is good for society and on this basis we may find it necessary to force people to do things they would not do otherwise.”


2. In an article from 1965 entitled “Problems Facing Our Socialism,” Barack Obama’s father stated: Theoretically, there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed. . . It is a fallacy to say there is a limit (to tax rates), and it is a fallacy to rely mainly on individual free enterprise to get the savings. Barack Obama Sr. "Tax 100% of income." Like Father, Like Son? | Peace . Gold . Liberty | Revolution



3. Let’s examine the kind of thinking of the Left, the kind that supports “there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income…” Economist Arthur Laffer states that there are two levels of taxation that produce identical levels of revenue, both producing zero. The first case is obvious: a government tax rate of zero…it takes no money. A 100% tax rate produces the same result: taking everything gives absolutely no incentive to work.

a. Is it possible that there is a gene for Leftist thinking???? And our President inherited it???

4. No? Well, then…how does Mr. Obama, junior justify doubling the capital gains and dividend tax rate to 30 percent from 15 percent today? The motivation, it seems, is the “basic issue of tax fairness:” This is a recurrent theme for Obama. In a 2008 debate between Obama and Hillary Clinton, ABC’s Charles Gibson asked Obama why he would support raising capital-gains taxes given the historical record of government’s losing net revenue as a result. “Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital-gains tax for purposes of fairness,” Obama replied. This moment revealed that Obama isn’t simply or even primarily interested in raising taxes for economic reasons (e.g., raising revenues or spurring growth). He sees taxes through a moral prism, as an instrument to advance “fairness,” which he takes to mean leveling higher taxes on wealthy Americans in order to decrease income inequality. Liberals, Conservatives and Tax Fairness « Commentary Magazine


a. Liberal folks regularly complain about religion in the public arena, carping about turning our nation into a theocracy….but without an economic basis for taxation, it is no more than a religious belief to set policy on such a basis.





But Obama, sr and jr represent the socialist religion that is undergoing a 'reformation' elsewhere....



5. "The EU's welfare states are going broke, and the knives are out for their budgets and the politicians who have supported the EU project. Voters to the north are electing anti-EU candidates who are lecturing about "responsibility" and "thriftiness" to profligate neighbors such as the "lazy" Greeks, Spanish and Portuguese, as German Chancellor Angela Merkel described her southern partners in May.

European Council President Herman Van Rompuy summed up Europe's situation: "We can't finance our social model anymore."
In Europe, economic meltdown tears at unity


Our President is not smart enough to catch what is blowin' in the wind.

Dumb ass. Get hooked on phonics, will ya?

 

[rightwinger]

1. In 1965, Barack Obama, Sr. wrote in the “East Africa Journal” the following: “We need…to eliminate power structures that have been built through excessive accumulation so that not only a few individuals shall control a vast magnitude of resources as is the case now.” How? Well, the state can take over large segments of the “commercial” or private sector. And, he said, there is no reason to worry about economic freedom or individual rights “We have to look at priorities in terms of what is good for society and on this basis we may find it necessary to force people to do things they would not do otherwise.”


2. In an article from 1965 entitled “Problems Facing Our Socialism,” Barack Obama’s father stated: Theoretically, there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed. . . It is a fallacy to say there is a limit (to tax rates), and it is a fallacy to rely mainly on individual free enterprise to get the savings. Barack Obama Sr. "Tax 100% of income." Like Father, Like Son? | Peace . Gold . Liberty | Revolution



3. Let’s examine the kind of thinking of the Left, the kind that supports “there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income…” Economist Arthur Laffer states that there are two levels of taxation that produce identical levels of revenue, both producing zero. The first case is obvious: a government tax rate of zero…it takes no money. A 100% tax rate produces the same result: taking everything gives absolutely no incentive to work.

a. Is it possible that there is a gene for Leftist thinking???? And our President inherited it???

4. No? Well, then…how does Mr. Obama, junior justify doubling the capital gains and dividend tax rate to 30 percent from 15 percent today? The motivation, it seems, is the “basic issue of tax fairness:” This is a recurrent theme for Obama. In a 2008 debate between Obama and Hillary Clinton, ABC’s Charles Gibson asked Obama why he would support raising capital-gains taxes given the historical record of government’s losing net revenue as a result. “Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital-gains tax for purposes of fairness,” Obama replied. This moment revealed that Obama isn’t simply or even primarily interested in raising taxes for economic reasons (e.g., raising revenues or spurring growth). He sees taxes through a moral prism, as an instrument to advance “fairness,” which he takes to mean leveling higher taxes on wealthy Americans in order to decrease income inequality. Liberals, Conservatives and Tax Fairness « Commentary Magazine


a. Liberal folks regularly complain about religion in the public arena, carping about turning our nation into a theocracy….but without an economic basis for taxation, it is no more than a religious belief to set policy on such a basis.





But Obama, sr and jr represent the socialist religion that is undergoing a 'reformation' elsewhere....



5. "The EU's welfare states are going broke, and the knives are out for their budgets and the politicians who have supported the EU project. Voters to the north are electing anti-EU candidates who are lecturing about "responsibility" and "thriftiness" to profligate neighbors such as the "lazy" Greeks, Spanish and Portuguese, as German Chancellor Angela Merkel described her southern partners in May.

European Council President Herman Van Rompuy summed up Europe's situation: "We can't finance our social model anymore."
In Europe, economic meltdown tears at unity


Our President is not smart enough to catch what is blowin' in the wind.

Wow....All this for a man President Obama met once in his life

C'mon, now, old timer....

...surely you see the connection between the views of father and son.
And the error of both.


But...I'd love for you to claim that you're in favor of 100% taxation...
...would you do that for me?

Obviously I see no connection between the President and the man who had little influence on his upbringing

Maybe you can explain it

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. In 1965, Barack Obama, Sr. wrote in the “East Africa Journal” the following: “We need…to eliminate power structures that have been built through excessive accumulation so that not only a few individuals shall control a vast magnitude of resources as is the case now.” How? Well, the state can take over large segments of the “commercial” or private sector. And, he said, there is no reason to worry about economic freedom or individual rights “We have to look at priorities in terms of what is good for society and on this basis we may find it necessary to force people to do things they would not do otherwise.”


2. In an article from 1965 entitled “Problems Facing Our Socialism,” Barack Obama’s father stated: Theoretically, there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed. . . It is a fallacy to say there is a limit (to tax rates), and it is a fallacy to rely mainly on individual free enterprise to get the savings. Barack Obama Sr. "Tax 100% of income." Like Father, Like Son? | Peace . Gold . Liberty | Revolution



3. Let’s examine the kind of thinking of the Left, the kind that supports “there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income…” Economist Arthur Laffer states that there are two levels of taxation that produce identical levels of revenue, both producing zero. The first case is obvious: a government tax rate of zero…it takes no money. A 100% tax rate produces the same result: taking everything gives absolutely no incentive to work.

a. Is it possible that there is a gene for Leftist thinking???? And our President inherited it???

4. No? Well, then…how does Mr. Obama, junior justify doubling the capital gains and dividend tax rate to 30 percent from 15 percent today? The motivation, it seems, is the “basic issue of tax fairness:” This is a recurrent theme for Obama. In a 2008 debate between Obama and Hillary Clinton, ABC’s Charles Gibson asked Obama why he would support raising capital-gains taxes given the historical record of government’s losing net revenue as a result. “Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital-gains tax for purposes of fairness,” Obama replied. This moment revealed that Obama isn’t simply or even primarily interested in raising taxes for economic reasons (e.g., raising revenues or spurring growth). He sees taxes through a moral prism, as an instrument to advance “fairness,” which he takes to mean leveling higher taxes on wealthy Americans in order to decrease income inequality. Liberals, Conservatives and Tax Fairness « Commentary Magazine


a. Liberal folks regularly complain about religion in the public arena, carping about turning our nation into a theocracy….but without an economic basis for taxation, it is no more than a religious belief to set policy on such a basis.





But Obama, sr and jr represent the socialist religion that is undergoing a 'reformation' elsewhere....



5. "The EU's welfare states are going broke, and the knives are out for their budgets and the politicians who have supported the EU project. Voters to the north are electing anti-EU candidates who are lecturing about "responsibility" and "thriftiness" to profligate neighbors such as the "lazy" Greeks, Spanish and Portuguese, as German Chancellor Angela Merkel described her southern partners in May.

European Council President Herman Van Rompuy summed up Europe's situation: "We can't finance our social model anymore."
In Europe, economic meltdown tears at unity


Our President is not smart enough to catch what is blowin' in the wind.

Dumb ass. Get hooked on phonics, will ya?

Another fearful Lib lacking the ability to form a cogent rebuttal....

....seeking education?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Wow....All this for a man President Obama met once in his life

C'mon, now, old timer....

...surely you see the connection between the views of father and son.
And the error of both.


But...I'd love for you to claim that you're in favor of 100% taxation...
...would you do that for me?

Obviously I see no connection between the President and the man who had little influence on his upbringing

Maybe you can explain it

Through skillful machinations, I was able to get my hands on the (apocryphal) “Liberal Libretto”, as ratified by Saul Alinsky.
Actually, I pointed over a libs shoulder and shouted ‘watch out’ and grabbed the book.

Seems you get full credit for rule #6b.

6. Claim to misunderstand, obfuscate, deflect and change the subject, and, if all else fails, allege that you misspoke.
a. Remember, left-wingers may make a ‘mistake,’ for right-wingers, it is a lie!
b. When relating a series of events that lead to a conclusion, if it is a right-wing conclusion, we must never see the connection! Never, ever, be able to connect the dots!
c. Any exposure of detrimental information must be referred to as either ‘fear-tactics,’ or ‘red-baiting.’
d. No matter how strong the opposition argument or data, always respond with “you falsely claimed…” or “I exposed your lies…” or “I destroyed your argument…” or 'that's just your opinion' etc.



Hooray!!!!



wingy gets party creds!!!!


Carry on: Left-right, left-right, left-right......

 

[Too Tall]

Reagan raised capital gains taxes, so he had no religion either, or no religion, whatever mythical metaphoric analagy you want.

This moment revealed that Obama isn’t simply or even primarily interested in raising taxes for economic reasons (e.g., raising revenues or spurring growth). He sees taxes through a moral prism, as an instrument to advance “fairness,” which he takes to mean leveling higher taxes on wealthy Americans in order to decrease income inequality

Why should I pay more for taxes on my labor, than a man that gets income from an investment?

The man that made the investment already paid taxes on the money that he is investing so he gets taxed twice.

 

[Papageorgio]

Obama is not religious, unless it means votes.

 

[Too Tall]

Wow....All this for a man President Obama met once in his life

C'mon, now, old timer....

...surely you see the connection between the views of father and son.
And the error of both.


But...I'd love for you to claim that you're in favor of 100% taxation...
...would you do that for me?

Obviously I see no connection between the President and the man who had little influence on his upbringing

Maybe you can explain it

Obama wrote a book titled "Dreams of My Father" so there had to have been some influence. If not, he would have written a book titled "Dreams of My Mother."

 

[Mac1958]

Reagan raised capital gains taxes, so he had no religion either, or no religion, whatever mythical metaphoric analagy you want.

This moment revealed that Obama isn’t simply or even primarily interested in raising taxes for economic reasons (e.g., raising revenues or spurring growth). He sees taxes through a moral prism, as an instrument to advance “fairness,” which he takes to mean leveling higher taxes on wealthy Americans in order to decrease income inequality

Why should I pay more for taxes on my labor, than a man that gets income from an investment?

The man that made the investment already paid taxes on the money that he is investing so he gets taxed twice.

Correct.

A lot of people don't seem to know this. Or, more likely, they don't care.

.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Wow....All this for a man President Obama met once in his life

C'mon, now, old timer....

...surely you see the connection between the views of father and son.
And the error of both.


But...I'd love for you to claim that you're in favor of 100% taxation...
...would you do that for me?

Obviously I see no connection between the President and the man who had little influence on his upbringing

Maybe you can explain it

Hey, wingy....I just noticed your CEO-cookie sig line....

...and remembering how you said you enjoyed Happy Hour, I was wondering if you would like to change it for 'Bar Stool Economics"


Bar Stool Economics

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20."

Drinks for the ten now cost just $80
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay! And so...

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics, University of Georgia



So.....when can I expect to see the new sig???

 

[Plasmaball]

wow is there anything you will post thats your own?

 

[del]

political chunk may not be the biggest dope on the interwebz, but that's only because rdean still posts.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

My father was an industrial chemist - I am not.

Your post, sweet darling, is crap.

True, yet another tedious, inane, and failed attempt on the part of the OP to portray the president as some sort of ‘radical socialist.’

 

[PoliticalChic]

wow is there anything you will post thats your own?

Bulletin: Every post with my avi is my own.

 

[PoliticalChic]

My father was an industrial chemist - I am not.

Your post, sweet darling, is crap.

True, yet another tedious, inane, and failed attempt on the part of the OP to portray the president as some sort of ‘radical socialist.’

Is there some other variety of socialist that you find more accurate, torte?

 

[rightwinger]

C'mon, now, old timer....

...surely you see the connection between the views of father and son.
And the error of both.


But...I'd love for you to claim that you're in favor of 100% taxation...
...would you do that for me?

Obviously I see no connection between the President and the man who had little influence on his upbringing

Maybe you can explain it

Through skillful machinations, I was able to get my hands on the (apocryphal) “Liberal Libretto”, as ratified by Saul Alinsky.
Actually, I pointed over a libs shoulder and shouted ‘watch out’ and grabbed the book.

Seems you get full credit for rule #6b.

6. Claim to misunderstand, obfuscate, deflect and change the subject, and, if all else fails, allege that you misspoke.
a. Remember, left-wingers may make a ‘mistake,’ for right-wingers, it is a lie!
b. When relating a series of events that lead to a conclusion, if it is a right-wing conclusion, we must never see the connection! Never, ever, be able to connect the dots!
c. Any exposure of detrimental information must be referred to as either ‘fear-tactics,’ or ‘red-baiting.’
d. No matter how strong the opposition argument or data, always respond with “you falsely claimed…” or “I exposed your lies…” or “I destroyed your argument…” or 'that's just your opinion' etc.



Hooray!!!!



wingy gets party creds!!!!


Carry on: Left-right, left-right, left-right......

Once again, your academics fail

What you replied with had nothing to do with the topic at hand. I know this shit got you through college, but it doesn't sell here

Stay on topic......namely, you have no point