Tax the rich, lose the rich

[JakeStarkey]

I debate. I do not regurgiate what bloggers calim to be valid stats that are actually stats that are skewed to meet the argiment of the debater. <snip> ,.

In other words, you want to debate skewed philosophy. OK, go ahead, but that means nothing.

You opted to read it that way which speaks volumes of how you see your own "logic".
I never used the term "skewed philosophy".....but I guess you derive your own logic from skewed philosophy. That explains alot about your posts.

No. I said I apply logic and I ask anyone I debate to refute my logic. If they can, I admit defeat and rethink my stance on the subject.

Happens to be the best way to debate.....you should try it.

The skewed philosophy is yours, and you, yourself, are not an authority in these matters. But, go ahead and entertain us.

 

[Jarhead]

In other words, you want to debate skewed philosophy. OK, go ahead, but that means nothing.

You opted to read it that way which speaks volumes of how you see your own "logic".
I never used the term "skewed philosophy".....but I guess you derive your own logic from skewed philosophy. That explains alot about your posts.

No. I said I apply logic and I ask anyone I debate to refute my logic. If they can, I admit defeat and rethink my stance on the subject.

Happens to be the best way to debate.....you should try it.

The skewed philosophy is yours, and you, yourself, are not an authority in these matters. But, go ahead and entertain us.

Logic is by no means philosophy. And even it it were, if you are able to refute it, I will be the first to re-think my "logic".

It happens to be the purest form of debate.

 

[Jarhead]

In other words, you want to debate skewed philosophy. OK, go ahead, but that means nothing.

You opted to read it that way which speaks volumes of how you see your own "logic".
I never used the term "skewed philosophy".....but I guess you derive your own logic from skewed philosophy. That explains alot about your posts.

No. I said I apply logic and I ask anyone I debate to refute my logic. If they can, I admit defeat and rethink my stance on the subject.

Happens to be the best way to debate.....you should try it.

The skewed philosophy is yours, and you, yourself, are not an authority in these matters. But, go ahead and entertain us.

OK...so go ahead...refute what I say about logic being the purest form of debate.

 

[daveman]

In other words, you want to debate skewed philosophy. OK, go ahead, but that means nothing.

You opted to read it that way which speaks volumes of how you see your own "logic".
I never used the term "skewed philosophy".....but I guess you derive your own logic from skewed philosophy. That explains alot about your posts.

No. I said I apply logic and I ask anyone I debate to refute my logic. If they can, I admit defeat and rethink my stance on the subject.

Happens to be the best way to debate.....you should try it.

The skewed philosophy is yours, and you, yourself, are not an authority in these matters. But, go ahead and entertain us.

Someday, boy, you might do something to actually merit all that arrogance.

But I kinda doubt it.

 

[Jarhead]

You opted to read it that way which speaks volumes of how you see your own "logic".
I never used the term "skewed philosophy".....but I guess you derive your own logic from skewed philosophy. That explains alot about your posts.

No. I said I apply logic and I ask anyone I debate to refute my logic. If they can, I admit defeat and rethink my stance on the subject.

Happens to be the best way to debate.....you should try it.

The skewed philosophy is yours, and you, yourself, are not an authority in these matters. But, go ahead and entertain us.

Someday, boy, you might do something to actually merit all that arrogance.

But I kinda doubt it.

Still waiting for him to refute my argument that logic is the purest form of debate.

 

[Jarhead]

For example...

Statistics show that the tax cuts did not result in an increase in jobs.
Really?

OK...

Now logic says...

I do not recall there being a time where demand EXCEEDED the supply of goods and services so logic tells me that it was not the tax cuts that had anything to do with the lack of hiring...it was the demand for good and services....or the increase in technology...or a combination of both...or cheaper ways to manufacture or service such as outsourcing...or a combimnaton of all three.

Now the real argument is...will losing the cuts hurt job creation.

Looking at the stas....yuou would think not.

Applying logic:

Companies are not making money right now. They laid off. They are short staffed if there is an increase in demand. If demand increases, they will beed to hire. But they now have an even HIGHER financial burden on them with the tax cut roll backs along with the not making money for 2 years....so logically, I can see it likely hurting employment seeing as there is no credit out there for bridge loans to cover new employees.

Soi applying that "it didnt work" is an error

Logic is the purest form of debate.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Asterism has no idea what marxism is. That is clear from his posts. Asterism has no idea that almost all wealth is based on confidence. We have confidence the paper, the balance sheets, the statements, etc., reflect the wealth they say they do.

Asterism, go get a basic economics text book and start reading. You are embarrassing yourself here.

Can't refute the claim so you refute the source.

Typical.

Do you suggest I "start reading" macro or micro?

Your claim is meaningless, because you are not an authority. What is it with you far righties that you think your opinions are evidence? You would be laughed out of court with this type of procedure.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Jarhead, your claim is meaningless, because you are not an authority. What is it with you far righties that you think your opinions are evidence? You would be laughed out of court with this type of procedure.

 

[Jarhead]

Asterism has no idea what marxism is. That is clear from his posts. Asterism has no idea that almost all wealth is based on confidence. We have confidence the paper, the balance sheets, the statements, etc., reflect the wealth they say they do.

Asterism, go get a basic economics text book and start reading. You are embarrassing yourself here.

Can't refute the claim so you refute the source.

Typical.

Do you suggest I "start reading" macro or micro?

Your claim is meaningless, because you are not an authority. What is it with you far righties that you think your opinions are evidence? You would be laughed out of court with this type of procedure.

Jake. Wake up. This is a debate board. Not a court room.

Like I said, I like to debate with logic. Prove my logic wrong and you win the debate.
Show me links and you are showing me exactly what you refer to logic as....skewed philosophy.

I know one thing for sure. Your posts are angry, vindictive and accusatory. They are arrogant and dark in nature.

I am a pretty happy guy.

I certainly prefer the way I see life over the way you see life.

And seeing as we only have one life, I believe my way is the best.

But if you enjoy being angry and dark, then I guess yours is best for you....SO GO FOR IT!

 

[daveman]

Asterism has no idea what marxism is. That is clear from his posts. Asterism has no idea that almost all wealth is based on confidence. We have confidence the paper, the balance sheets, the statements, etc., reflect the wealth they say they do.

Asterism, go get a basic economics text book and start reading. You are embarrassing yourself here.

Can't refute the claim so you refute the source.

Typical.

Do you suggest I "start reading" macro or micro?

Your claim is meaningless, because you are not an authority. What is it with you far righties that you think your opinions are evidence? You would be laughed out of court with this type of procedure.

Jarhead, your claim is meaningless, because you are not an authority. What is it with you far righties that you think your opinions are evidence? You would be laughed out of court with this type of procedure.

And your evidence of their lack of authority is...your opinion.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Jarhead, thank you for the clarity of what you expect here. (A side observation: anger or darkness that you perceive is your own angst.) Debate all you want, but it is worthless in and of itself because you see through the prism of bias. You discount information on your side that undercuts your argument while it ignores positive information one the other side. This is what I mean about you guys demanding your own reality and your own definitions. It is not how the world works.

 

[daveman]

Jarhead, thank you for the clarity of what you expect here. (A side observation: anger or darkness that you perceive is your own angst.) Debate all you want, but it is worthless in and of itself because you see through the prism of bias. You discount information on your side that undercuts your argument while it ignores positive information one the other side. This is what I mean about you guys demanding your own reality and your own definitions. It is not how the world works.

 

[Jarhead]

Jarhead, thank you for the clarity of what you expect here. (A side observation: anger or darkness that you perceive is your own angst.) Debate all you want, but it is worthless in and of itself because you see through the prism of bias. You discount information on your side that undercuts your argument while it ignores positive information one the other side. This is what I mean about you guys demanding your own reality and your own definitions. It is not how the world works.

lol...

ok. Thanks.

 

[The Rabbi]

Jarhead, thank you for the clarity of what you expect here. (A side observation: anger or darkness that you perceive is your own angst.) Debate all you want, but it is worthless in and of itself because you see through the prism of bias. You discount information on your side that undercuts your argument while it ignores positive information one the other side. This is what I mean about you guys demanding your own reality and your own definitions. It is not how the world works.

lol...

ok. Thanks.

So says Jake, King of the Unsubstantiated Statement.

Jake will tell you we lost the war in Iraq, the Bush years were marked by no growth in GDP and high unemployment, that Reagan was a war monger. That the stimulus is working just fine, and that people love the Democratic Congress.
When challenged to provide proof he merely attacks you.
All hail, King of the Fools.

 

[Douger]

I had 17 employees in murka. I didn't leave taxes or high wages.
I left stupidity.
I'll gladly pay 50%. Stop the empire action/ military offensive and kill all aid to IsntReal and all the other dirtbags. I'll go back home.............
To what used to be the greatest nation on earth.
If you fuckers would learn to vote properly I would have retired near the Olympic rain forest.
I chose a rain forest a lil south of that.
3200 miles south.

 

[oreo]

More Rich Americans Renounce U.S. Citizenship over Taxes - DailyFinance

Keep in mind that wealthy people represent the dynamic force in our economy, starting businesses, expanding existing businesses or investing in new or starting companies. That they want to take their marbles and leave is a bad sign for us.
All you "don't let the screen door hit you where the good Lord split you" liberal class warriors can just STFU now.

Agreed--currently 67% of the entire tax base of this country is paid for by the over 250K crowd. Yet they only represent 5% of the working population. And only 1% of this country make over 300K per year. This while 49% of working Americans pay no federal income tax what-so-ever.

It's in this 49% class--(that pay no taxes anyway) that want the wealthy to pay more taxes--thinking this will result in more "free" stuff for them-- Taxing the 250K crowd will hit small business owners in this country hard. And as we know small business is the largest employer in this country.

Now--while I have seen liberals who do pay some tax--state--well under Obama I am going to get another $400.00 in tax refunds each year. I then ask them if they plan on hiring any employees with that--and usually get no response--

This is Obama's flood the basement economic policy. But this economic moron doesn't quite get it. There has never been a poor person that has employed another poor person.

Not only that but capital gains tax is expected to rise with the non-extension of the Bush tax cuts which will result in a tax hike to middle class Americans investing for retirement and seniors that depend on dividend checks to get by each month.

You voted for it--You got it--and now you OWN it.

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.
5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the beginning of the end of any nation. Adrian Rogers, 1931

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are hailing yourself again, I see, Rabbi. The only thing you have right about me above is that we lost the war in Iraq to gain a Mideast ally is the day Rumsfeld fired the general who told him and congress that we would need several hundred thousand solders to pacify Iraq.

The bastard Bush and buddy bastard Cheney and super dumb bastard Rumsfeld did not commit those troops (and the mercenaries needed to make up the extra numbers) until 2007. If we had done that in 2003, we would have a solid ally in Iraq. Now we leave looking stupid, because we achieved getting rid of Saddam and nothing else. Morons.

Rabbi cannot document that I ever supported any of the other specific charges that he made without links. Why? I never said any such things.

Rabbi, like so many of the reactionaries and pretend Republicans here, will lie. They will lie continually. Why? Truth is not on their side.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And as we know the GOP minority in the Senate are blocking credit and tax relief to small business, Oreo.

 

[oreo]

And as we know the GOP minority in the Senate are blocking credit and tax relief to small business, Oreo.

That's B.S. too. I am a 30+ year small business owner. There is nothing anyone can do to help small business in this country. Employers aren't going to take Reid's idea of a tax credit of $3000 to hire an employee when there is no need for an employee.

Nor should the government guarantee business loans to small business when there is no business--sales or profit--that would insure repayment of the loan amount.

That's what Republicans are against--and I agree whole-heartedly with them. The thing that is lacking in this country is DEMAND for goods and services, and until that goes up this country is going to be in the tank.

Been there done that--with Fannie/Freddie.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your opinion is your opinion, and you are entitled to it, although you are wrong.

What is not a lie is this: the GOP minority is holding up legislation to aid the small business owner. To say otherwise is a lie.