War on The Rich: Dumbest Idea in History of Man

[Dad2three]

So then no specific examples of Marxist propaganda, just sort of a generic knee jerk response.

So then, no ability to discern examples of Marxism in what was posted, and this is just a generic ignorant response.

I see, well then perhaps with your discerning perception you can tell me where these Marxist are he keeps droning on about. Who are they? Are they hiding? Why don't they show themselves and openly declare their Marxist sympathies?

The democrats are all marxists.

And Republicans are all fascists

Easy isn't it?

That's why i'm libertarian.

Fantasy

 

[Dad2three]

Citations?

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/files/bartlett_fair_tax.pdf


Adding up the Fair Tax

SUMMARY: Mike Huckabee says a national Fair Tax will be like a "magic wand." We say magic wands don't exist.

Critics of the Fair Tax are legion: The harshest say the idea is ridiculous nonsense; the mildest say it's an interesting thought experiment that can't work in practice. Few mainstream economists find the idea a worthwhile policy proposal for several reasons.

"At the end of this story, when you add in some state sales taxes, we could be close to 50 percent," Baker said.
Adding up the Fair Tax PolitiFact

Why The Fair Tax is Unworkable

Why The Fair Tax is Unworkable Arnold Kling EconLog Library of Economics and Liberty


According to Money magazine, while many economists and tax experts support the idea of a consumption tax, many of them view the FairTax proposal as having serious problems with evasion and revenue neutrality
Money Magazine Just how fair is the FairTax - Sep. 7 2005

Okay... You said: "No CREDIBLE economist thinks the 'FAIR' tax works with it's numbers. Period!"
I ask you for a citation and you gave me a left-wing think tank writer who is of the opinion that "few mainstream economists think [it's] worthwhile." (a far cry from no credible economist period)
Then you give me Money magazine which admits MANY economists support the idea! (definitely a far cry from 'no credible economist period'!)

I did not ask you if there were some economists who didn't like the Fair Tax idea. I didn't ask you if there were left-wing bloggers who didn't like the idea. I didn't ask you if there were people who were skeptical of it. I asked for a citation to support your claim that "No CREDIBLE economists thinks the 'FAIR' tax works with it's numbers. Period!"

You have FAILED to present that!

He used the word "credible". I assume he doesn't mean "credible" to you, since you seem to think only rightwing think tanks tell you anything of value.

the reality:

The flat tax is a fraud. It raises taxes on the poor and lowers them on the rich. ... The rich usually pay a higher percent of their incomes in income taxes than do the poor. A flat tax would eliminate that slight progressivity.

Nowadays most low-income households pay no federal income tax at all – a fact that sends many regressives into spasms of indignation. They conveniently ignore the fact that poor households pay a much larger share of their incomes in payroll taxes, sales taxes, and property taxes (directly, if they own their homes; indirectly, if they rent) than do people with high incomes. ...

The truth is the current tax code treats everyone the same. It’s organized around tax brackets. Everyone whose income reaches the same bracket is treated the same as everyone else whose income reaches that bracket (apart from various deductions, exemptions, and credits, of course).

For example, no one pays any income taxes on the first $20,000 or so of their income... People in higher brackets pay a higher rate only on the portion of their income that hits that bracket — not on their entire incomes.

more at link:

Economist s View The Flat-Tax Fraud

You are talking about the "Flat Tax" and I proposed the "Fair Tax" which is not the same thing. My proposal is not based on incomes at all. It replaces income tax with consumption tax. Now.... Don't care who you are, you should have sense enough to understand the wealthy spend more consuming than poor people. Poor people would get a prebate check to cover their taxes on basic needs, so there would be no tax burden for them.

I prosed instead the CONSTITUTIONAL TAX , ie, paying for those activities SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED IN THE CONSTITUTION ----SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED


.

It works that way now

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1

 

[Contumacious]

You keep making these cryptic references to "Marxist Propaganda". Perhaps you can point out the operative phrases so everyone can know what Marxism really looks like......being your field of special expertise and all.

There's nothing cryptic about Marxist propaganda. I understand some of you are too utterly stupid to realize what it is, you probably slept through history class... if liberals are still teaching history in public schools.

You can go to Amazon and order Karl Marx Communist Manifesto if you need a primer, or ask one of your more intelligent comrades, I'm sure they'd loan you a copy. OR... you can simply read the assorted memes we see here daily from the occutarded left, as most of it represents Marxist philosophy in a nutshell.

Now... Marxism has historically been such an unmitigated disaster when attempted, that leftist "intellectuals" have adopted the practice of naming it something else whenever they trot it back out. Pick a few peanuts out of the poo, make a few tweaks here and there, and present the same old Marxist philosophy by another name.... or sometimes, not labeling it at all, just blanket denials it is Marxism.

The entire 1% vs. 99% bullshit is almost verbatim Maoism, which is Chairman Mao's incarnation of Marxism. He managed to work people into a frenzy much the same as you cats are, over the evil capitalists who controlled all the wealth from the top. He sparked a revolution, came to power, killed the capitalists and took their wealth. He ended up having to kill over 70 million people before it was all said and done, and plunged China into economic darkness for 40 years.

So then no specific examples of Marxist propaganda, just sort of a generic knee jerk response.

Well, if you a victim of government education and a parasite to boot , then government supremacy is normal and liberty is weird. If you are used to having a bureaucrats fingers up your nostrils leading every step of the way then without him/her you feel lost.

.

 

[Dad2three]

I see, well then perhaps with your discerning perception you can tell me where these Marxist are he keeps droning on about. Who are they? Are they hiding? Why don't they show themselves and openly declare their Marxist sympathies?

The democrats are all marxists.

And Republicans are all fascists

Easy isn't it?

That's why i'm libertarian.

Libertarians are anarchists

Name one libertarian party plank eschewing anarchy.

Libertarian Party 2014 Platform



3.7 Self-Determination
Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of individual liberty, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to agree to such new governance as to them shall seem most likely to protect their liberty.

4.0 Omissions

Our silence about any other particular government law, regulation, ordinance, directive, edict, control, regulatory agency, activity, or machination should not be construed to imply approval.

Platform Libertarian Party

 

[Contumacious]

There's nothing cryptic about Marxist propaganda. I understand some of you are too utterly stupid to realize what it is, you probably slept through history class... if liberals are still teaching history in public schools.

You can go to Amazon and order Karl Marx Communist Manifesto if you need a primer, or ask one of your more intelligent comrades, I'm sure they'd loan you a copy. OR... you can simply read the assorted memes we see here daily from the occutarded left, as most of it represents Marxist philosophy in a nutshell.

Now... Marxism has historically been such an unmitigated disaster when attempted, that leftist "intellectuals" have adopted the practice of naming it something else whenever they trot it back out. Pick a few peanuts out of the poo, make a few tweaks here and there, and present the same old Marxist philosophy by another name.... or sometimes, not labeling it at all, just blanket denials it is Marxism.

The entire 1% vs. 99% bullshit is almost verbatim Maoism, which is Chairman Mao's incarnation of Marxism. He managed to work people into a frenzy much the same as you cats are, over the evil capitalists who controlled all the wealth from the top. He sparked a revolution, came to power, killed the capitalists and took their wealth. He ended up having to kill over 70 million people before it was all said and done, and plunged China into economic darkness for 40 years.

So then no specific examples of Marxist propaganda, just sort of a generic knee jerk response.

So then, no ability to discern examples of Marxism in what was posted, and this is just a generic ignorant response.

I see, well then perhaps with your discerning perception you can tell me where these Marxist are he keeps droning on about. Who are they? Are they hiding? Why don't they show themselves and openly declare their Marxist sympathies?

The democrats are all marxists.

no. and if you think that, perhaps a basic political theory class would help you understand what Marxism is and how it differs from democratic policies.

but thanks for playing.

HUH?

WTF.


Karl Marx suggested that democracy be used in order to acquire power.

In chapter two, immediately follows the observation that the proletariat must first seize control of "political supremacy". Once that is accomplished, well, Marx and Engels say it best: "The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state…"

.

 

[Contumacious]

You keep making these cryptic references to "Marxist Propaganda". Perhaps you can point out the operative phrases so everyone can know what Marxism really looks like......being your field of special expertise and all.

There's nothing cryptic about Marxist propaganda. I understand some of you are too utterly stupid to realize what it is, you probably slept through history class... if liberals are still teaching history in public schools.

You can go to Amazon and order Karl Marx Communist Manifesto if you need a primer, or ask one of your more intelligent comrades, I'm sure they'd loan you a copy. OR... you can simply read the assorted memes we see here daily from the occutarded left, as most of it represents Marxist philosophy in a nutshell.

Now... Marxism has historically been such an unmitigated disaster when attempted, that leftist "intellectuals" have adopted the practice of naming it something else whenever they trot it back out. Pick a few peanuts out of the poo, make a few tweaks here and there, and present the same old Marxist philosophy by another name.... or sometimes, not labeling it at all, just blanket denials it is Marxism.

The entire 1% vs. 99% bullshit is almost verbatim Maoism, which is Chairman Mao's incarnation of Marxism. He managed to work people into a frenzy much the same as you cats are, over the evil capitalists who controlled all the wealth from the top. He sparked a revolution, came to power, killed the capitalists and took their wealth. He ended up having to kill over 70 million people before it was all said and done, and plunged China into economic darkness for 40 years.

So then no specific examples of Marxist propaganda, just sort of a generic knee jerk response.

So then, no ability to discern examples of Marxism in what was posted, and this is just a generic ignorant response.

I see, well then perhaps with your discerning perception you can tell me where these Marxist are he keeps droning on about. Who are they? Are they hiding? Why don't they show themselves and openly declare their Marxist sympathies?

Because the narcotized want to believe that we still have a Constitutional Republic - they can't handle the truth , to wit, that we became a fascist republic circa, 1860.

 

[Contumacious]

So then, no ability to discern examples of Marxism in what was posted, and this is just a generic ignorant response.

I see, well then perhaps with your discerning perception you can tell me where these Marxist are he keeps droning on about. Who are they? Are they hiding? Why don't they show themselves and openly declare their Marxist sympathies?

The democrats are all marxists.

And Republicans are all fascists

Easy isn't it?

That's why i'm libertarian.

Libertarians are anarchists

The socialists believe that wanting to get rid their enslavement is anarchism.

.

 

[Contumacious]

I see, well then perhaps with your discerning perception you can tell me where these Marxist are he keeps droning on about. Who are they? Are they hiding? Why don't they show themselves and openly declare their Marxist sympathies?

The democrats are all marxists.

And Republicans are all fascists

Easy isn't it?

That's why i'm libertarian.

Libertarians are anarchists

the people who call themselves libertarians now are NOT libertarians. libertarians don't interfere with matters of reproductive choice and sexuality. what passes for libertarians today are a bunch of spoiled brats who don't want anyone telling them they have to do anything they don't want to do.

That's is true.

Yours truly has never supported interfering with sexuality or reproductive rights.

.

 

[Contumacious]

The democrats are all marxists.

And Republicans are all fascists

Easy isn't it?

That's why i'm libertarian.

Libertarians are anarchists

the people who call themselves libertarians now are NOT libertarians. libertarians don't interfere with matters of reproductive choice and sexuality. what passes for libertarians today are a bunch of spoiled brats who don't want anyone telling them they have to do anything they don't want to do.

Yeah Libertarians support murder. I don't. That's why I'm a conservative and not a libertarian.

HUH?

 

[Contumacious]

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/files/bartlett_fair_tax.pdf


Adding up the Fair Tax

SUMMARY: Mike Huckabee says a national Fair Tax will be like a "magic wand." We say magic wands don't exist.

Critics of the Fair Tax are legion: The harshest say the idea is ridiculous nonsense; the mildest say it's an interesting thought experiment that can't work in practice. Few mainstream economists find the idea a worthwhile policy proposal for several reasons.

"At the end of this story, when you add in some state sales taxes, we could be close to 50 percent," Baker said.
Adding up the Fair Tax PolitiFact

Why The Fair Tax is Unworkable

Why The Fair Tax is Unworkable Arnold Kling EconLog Library of Economics and Liberty


According to Money magazine, while many economists and tax experts support the idea of a consumption tax, many of them view the FairTax proposal as having serious problems with evasion and revenue neutrality
Money Magazine Just how fair is the FairTax - Sep. 7 2005

Okay... You said: "No CREDIBLE economist thinks the 'FAIR' tax works with it's numbers. Period!"
I ask you for a citation and you gave me a left-wing think tank writer who is of the opinion that "few mainstream economists think [it's] worthwhile." (a far cry from no credible economist period)
Then you give me Money magazine which admits MANY economists support the idea! (definitely a far cry from 'no credible economist period'!)

I did not ask you if there were some economists who didn't like the Fair Tax idea. I didn't ask you if there were left-wing bloggers who didn't like the idea. I didn't ask you if there were people who were skeptical of it. I asked for a citation to support your claim that "No CREDIBLE economists thinks the 'FAIR' tax works with it's numbers. Period!"

You have FAILED to present that!

He used the word "credible". I assume he doesn't mean "credible" to you, since you seem to think only rightwing think tanks tell you anything of value.

the reality:

The flat tax is a fraud. It raises taxes on the poor and lowers them on the rich. ... The rich usually pay a higher percent of their incomes in income taxes than do the poor. A flat tax would eliminate that slight progressivity.

Nowadays most low-income households pay no federal income tax at all – a fact that sends many regressives into spasms of indignation. They conveniently ignore the fact that poor households pay a much larger share of their incomes in payroll taxes, sales taxes, and property taxes (directly, if they own their homes; indirectly, if they rent) than do people with high incomes. ...

The truth is the current tax code treats everyone the same. It’s organized around tax brackets. Everyone whose income reaches the same bracket is treated the same as everyone else whose income reaches that bracket (apart from various deductions, exemptions, and credits, of course).

For example, no one pays any income taxes on the first $20,000 or so of their income... People in higher brackets pay a higher rate only on the portion of their income that hits that bracket — not on their entire incomes.

more at link:

Economist s View The Flat-Tax Fraud

You are talking about the "Flat Tax" and I proposed the "Fair Tax" which is not the same thing. My proposal is not based on incomes at all. It replaces income tax with consumption tax. Now.... Don't care who you are, you should have sense enough to understand the wealthy spend more consuming than poor people. Poor people would get a prebate check to cover their taxes on basic needs, so there would be no tax burden for them.

I prosed instead the CONSTITUTIONAL TAX , ie, paying for those activities SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED IN THE CONSTITUTION ----SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED


.

It works that way now

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1

Excuse me dingle berry,

if it was true that it works that way now , I would not be objecting.

.

 

[Boss]

Okay... You said: "No CREDIBLE economist thinks the 'FAIR' tax works with it's numbers. Period!"
I ask you for a citation and you gave me a left-wing think tank writer who is of the opinion that "few mainstream economists think [it's] worthwhile." (a far cry from no credible economist period)
Then you give me Money magazine which admits MANY economists support the idea! (definitely a far cry from 'no credible economist period'!)

I did not ask you if there were some economists who didn't like the Fair Tax idea. I didn't ask you if there were left-wing bloggers who didn't like the idea. I didn't ask you if there were people who were skeptical of it. I asked for a citation to support your claim that "No CREDIBLE economists thinks the 'FAIR' tax works with it's numbers. Period!"

You have FAILED to present that!

He used the word "credible". I assume he doesn't mean "credible" to you, since you seem to think only rightwing think tanks tell you anything of value.

the reality:

The flat tax is a fraud. It raises taxes on the poor and lowers them on the rich. ... The rich usually pay a higher percent of their incomes in income taxes than do the poor. A flat tax would eliminate that slight progressivity.

Nowadays most low-income households pay no federal income tax at all – a fact that sends many regressives into spasms of indignation. They conveniently ignore the fact that poor households pay a much larger share of their incomes in payroll taxes, sales taxes, and property taxes (directly, if they own their homes; indirectly, if they rent) than do people with high incomes. ...

The truth is the current tax code treats everyone the same. It’s organized around tax brackets. Everyone whose income reaches the same bracket is treated the same as everyone else whose income reaches that bracket (apart from various deductions, exemptions, and credits, of course).

For example, no one pays any income taxes on the first $20,000 or so of their income... People in higher brackets pay a higher rate only on the portion of their income that hits that bracket — not on their entire incomes.

more at link:

Economist s View The Flat-Tax Fraud

Yeah an article by Robert Reich partisan hack extraordinaire.

he's just not one of *your* partisans. but i'll assume he knows a lot more on this subject than you and his opinions are more valuable than agenda-driven righties who have been ranting about the same things since Roosevelt.

And that's your opinion.

I 'll ask you how treating everyone exactly the same favors any group and is unfair but having different rules for different people is considered fair?

Thomas Jefferson:
"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise.”


Madison argues that inequalities can be remedied “by the silent operation of laws, which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigence towards a state of comfort.”

MORE HERE:

In short, leading figures of the Revolutionary generation, Federalists and Anti-Federalists alike, were convinced that a republic can only exist if property is broadly distributed throughout the citizenry and that great inequalities were dangerous.

The Founders on Taxation Redistribution and Property

Let me just say that if ANY of the Founding Fathers were alive today and could see the way you fuckwits pervert their words and take them completely out of context to promote your Marxism, they'd challenge you to a duel in the streets.

 

[Dad2three]

Okay... You said: "No CREDIBLE economist thinks the 'FAIR' tax works with it's numbers. Period!"
I ask you for a citation and you gave me a left-wing think tank writer who is of the opinion that "few mainstream economists think [it's] worthwhile." (a far cry from no credible economist period)
Then you give me Money magazine which admits MANY economists support the idea! (definitely a far cry from 'no credible economist period'!)

I did not ask you if there were some economists who didn't like the Fair Tax idea. I didn't ask you if there were left-wing bloggers who didn't like the idea. I didn't ask you if there were people who were skeptical of it. I asked for a citation to support your claim that "No CREDIBLE economists thinks the 'FAIR' tax works with it's numbers. Period!"

You have FAILED to present that!

He used the word "credible". I assume he doesn't mean "credible" to you, since you seem to think only rightwing think tanks tell you anything of value.

the reality:

The flat tax is a fraud. It raises taxes on the poor and lowers them on the rich. ... The rich usually pay a higher percent of their incomes in income taxes than do the poor. A flat tax would eliminate that slight progressivity.

Nowadays most low-income households pay no federal income tax at all – a fact that sends many regressives into spasms of indignation. They conveniently ignore the fact that poor households pay a much larger share of their incomes in payroll taxes, sales taxes, and property taxes (directly, if they own their homes; indirectly, if they rent) than do people with high incomes. ...

The truth is the current tax code treats everyone the same. It’s organized around tax brackets. Everyone whose income reaches the same bracket is treated the same as everyone else whose income reaches that bracket (apart from various deductions, exemptions, and credits, of course).

For example, no one pays any income taxes on the first $20,000 or so of their income... People in higher brackets pay a higher rate only on the portion of their income that hits that bracket — not on their entire incomes.

more at link:

Economist s View The Flat-Tax Fraud

You are talking about the "Flat Tax" and I proposed the "Fair Tax" which is not the same thing. My proposal is not based on incomes at all. It replaces income tax with consumption tax. Now.... Don't care who you are, you should have sense enough to understand the wealthy spend more consuming than poor people. Poor people would get a prebate check to cover their taxes on basic needs, so there would be no tax burden for them.

I prosed instead the CONSTITUTIONAL TAX , ie, paying for those activities SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED IN THE CONSTITUTION ----SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED


.

It works that way now

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1

Excuse me dingle berry,

if it was true that it works that way now , I would not be objecting.

.

Sorry, I can't help it with you wingnutters don't live in reality

 

[P@triot]

Yeah an article by Robert Reich partisan hack extraordinaire.

he's just not one of *your* partisans. but i'll assume he knows a lot more on this subject than you and his opinions are more valuable than agenda-driven righties who have been ranting about the same things since Roosevelt.

And that's your opinion.

I 'll ask you how treating everyone exactly the same favors any group and is unfair but having different rules for different people is considered fair?

i'd say my "opinion" as validated by legitimate economists and not just rightwing rants, are pretty valid. if I didn't think so, I wouldn't hold to those opinions.

history bears out the failure of mises style Austrian, laissez-faire economic policies. and a lot of people fought to right those failures. reactionary rightwingers still have the same axes to grind.

but you're entitled to your opinion, as well. the fact that you think you're not being partisan or only expressing opinion is where the problem is.

but have a great day. I have to get working.

One problem though Jillian - the "right-wing" view of economics is based on what actually occurred through out history. Proven, real-world results.

Meanwhile, the so-called "economists" that you point to when building your view are giving opinion based solely on what they wish would happen (ie an immature view of a utopia where everyone has everything, where resources are infinite, and where everybody works really hard because they care about each other). The problem is, that immature model has failed 100% of the time it has been tried world wide (including right here in the U.S.).

LMAOROG

REALLY? PLEASE tell me ANYTIME conservative economics has EVER worked? ANYWHERE?

You false premise and myth are bullshit

UNCLE MILITIE HAD HIS LAB TEST WITH CHILE, IT FAILED, MISERABLY

THE KLOWN IN WISCONSIN'S TRYING ANOTHER ONE TODAY, IT'S EQUALLY AS BAD AND FAILING, lol

Conservative economics have a 100% success rate through out history. Literally. And liberal economics has had a 100% failure rate through out history. Literally.

Success: Ronald Reagan took over the second worst economy in U.S. history (behind the Great Depression) and created an economic tidal wave with conservative economics.

Failure: Jimmy Carter collapsed the U.S. economy using failed liberal ideological economics.

Success: Texas has created an economic tidal wave with conservative economics (increasing revenue by $22 billion over the past 15 years by fostering a business-friendly environment causing business and thus jobs to flock to Texas).

Failure: California has about $70 billion in debt using failed liberal ideological economics (decreasing revenue by a staggering $31.7 billion because their ignorants left-wing "punish success and reward failure to keep everyone beholden to the government plantation" policies have caused business - and thus jobs - to flee California).

High Tax States Are Losing Taxpayers - US News

Success: North Dakota has created an economic tidal wave with conservative economics (at the forefront of energy production).

Failure: After 60 years of complete Dumbocrat control (Dem mayors, Dem city council) and liberal utopia (ground zero for the most powerful unions in the world - like the UAW at work in GM, Ford, and Chrysler), Detroit was forced to file bankruptcy earlier this year.

Bonus Failure: Hugo Chavez collapsed Venezuela by implementing unadulterated failed liberal ideological economics (everything relevant was nationalized and then rationed - and as is always the case with liberal policy, this caused people to stop making an effort and thus production has plummeted).

I could literally go on all day but this is more than enough to prove you have no idea what you're talking about. You have no credibility left. Best of luck to you my friend.

 

[Dad2three]

He used the word "credible". I assume he doesn't mean "credible" to you, since you seem to think only rightwing think tanks tell you anything of value.

the reality:

more at link:

Economist s View The Flat-Tax Fraud

Yeah an article by Robert Reich partisan hack extraordinaire.

he's just not one of *your* partisans. but i'll assume he knows a lot more on this subject than you and his opinions are more valuable than agenda-driven righties who have been ranting about the same things since Roosevelt.

And that's your opinion.

I 'll ask you how treating everyone exactly the same favors any group and is unfair but having different rules for different people is considered fair?

Thomas Jefferson:
"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise.”


Madison argues that inequalities can be remedied “by the silent operation of laws, which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigence towards a state of comfort.”

MORE HERE:

In short, leading figures of the Revolutionary generation, Federalists and Anti-Federalists alike, were convinced that a republic can only exist if property is broadly distributed throughout the citizenry and that great inequalities were dangerous.

The Founders on Taxation Redistribution and Property

Let me just say that if ANY of the Founding Fathers were alive today and could see the way you fuckwits pervert their words and take them completely out of context to promote your Marxism, they'd challenge you to a duel in the streets.

MORE opinion of the mindset that fought breaking from England and establishing the US Constitution. I'm shocked

Marxism? lol

 

[Contumacious]

He used the word "credible". I assume he doesn't mean "credible" to you, since you seem to think only rightwing think tanks tell you anything of value.

the reality:

more at link:

Economist s View The Flat-Tax Fraud

Yeah an article by Robert Reich partisan hack extraordinaire.

he's just not one of *your* partisans. but i'll assume he knows a lot more on this subject than you and his opinions are more valuable than agenda-driven righties who have been ranting about the same things since Roosevelt.

And that's your opinion.

I 'll ask you how treating everyone exactly the same favors any group and is unfair but having different rules for different people is considered fair?

Thomas Jefferson:
"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise.”


Madison argues that inequalities can be remedied “by the silent operation of laws, which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigence towards a state of comfort.”

MORE HERE:

In short, leading figures of the Revolutionary generation, Federalists and Anti-Federalists alike, were convinced that a republic can only exist if property is broadly distributed throughout the citizenry and that great inequalities were dangerous.

The Founders on Taxation Redistribution and Property

Let me just say that if ANY of the Founding Fathers were alive today and could see the way you fuckwits pervert their words and take them completely out of context to promote your Marxism, they'd challenge you to a duel in the streets.

A massive bloody revolution is unavoidable.

These low life motherfuckers believe that they have a right to enslave taxpayers/their neighbors.

.

 

[Dad2three]

he's just not one of *your* partisans. but i'll assume he knows a lot more on this subject than you and his opinions are more valuable than agenda-driven righties who have been ranting about the same things since Roosevelt.

And that's your opinion.

I 'll ask you how treating everyone exactly the same favors any group and is unfair but having different rules for different people is considered fair?

i'd say my "opinion" as validated by legitimate economists and not just rightwing rants, are pretty valid. if I didn't think so, I wouldn't hold to those opinions.

history bears out the failure of mises style Austrian, laissez-faire economic policies. and a lot of people fought to right those failures. reactionary rightwingers still have the same axes to grind.

but you're entitled to your opinion, as well. the fact that you think you're not being partisan or only expressing opinion is where the problem is.

but have a great day. I have to get working.

One problem though Jillian - the "right-wing" view of economics is based on what actually occurred through out history. Proven, real-world results.

Meanwhile, the so-called "economists" that you point to when building your view are giving opinion based solely on what they wish would happen (ie an immature view of a utopia where everyone has everything, where resources are infinite, and where everybody works really hard because they care about each other). The problem is, that immature model has failed 100% of the time it has been tried world wide (including right here in the U.S.).

LMAOROG

REALLY? PLEASE tell me ANYTIME conservative economics has EVER worked? ANYWHERE?

You false premise and myth are bullshit

UNCLE MILITIE HAD HIS LAB TEST WITH CHILE, IT FAILED, MISERABLY

THE KLOWN IN WISCONSIN'S TRYING ANOTHER ONE TODAY, IT'S EQUALLY AS BAD AND FAILING, lol

Conservative economics have a 100% success rate through out history. Literally. And liberal economics has had a 100% failure rate through out history. Literally.

Success: Ronald Reagan took over the second worst economy in U.S. history (behind the Great Depression) and created an economic tidal wave with conservative economics.

Failure: Jimmy Carter collapsed the U.S. economy using failed liberal ideological economics.

Success: Texas has created an economic tidal wave with conservative economics (increasing revenue by $22 billion over the past 15 years by fostering a business-friendly environment causing business and thus jobs to flock to Texas).

Failure: California has about $70 billion in debt using failed liberal ideological economics (decreasing revenue by a staggering $31.7 billion because their ignorants left-wing "punish success and reward failure to keep everyone beholden to the government plantation" policies have caused business - and thus jobs - to flee California).

High Tax States Are Losing Taxpayers - US News

Success: North Dakota has created an economic tidal wave with conservative economics (at the forefront of energy production).

Failure: After 60 years of complete Dumbocrat control (Dem mayors, Dem city council) and liberal utopia (ground zero for the most powerful unions in the world - like the UAW at work in GM, Ford, and Chrysler), Detroit was forced to file bankruptcy earlier this year.

Bonus Failure: Hugo Chavez collapsed Venezuela by implementing unadulterated failed liberal ideological economics (everything relevant was nationalized and then rationed - and as is always the case with liberal policy, this caused people to stop making an effort and thus production has plummeted).

I could literally go on all day but this is more than enough to prove you have no idea what you're talking about. You have no credibility left. Best of luck to you my friend.

Ronnie did that? Weird, Carter had 9 million private sector jobs in 4 years. How many for Ronnie's 8?

Ronnie tripled the debt AS he gutted revenues, even though he increased taxes 11 times AFTER his tax cuts for the rich, which had a top rate of 50% the first 6 teats. HOW?

LOL


Yes, Texas and ND are doing OK thanks to energy. AND?

EVERYTHING you posit is right wing garbage, always refuted by actual FACTS AND TRUTH

Yes, Cali had a GOP Guv for 20 of 24 years and tried the borrow till it hurts BS. Thankfully we got a fiscal Dem in Jerry to get Cali outy of the hole they, and Dubya's home ownership society ponzi scheme put US in!



New Study Shows Rich New Yorkers Not Fleeing High Taxe

Studies: Rich Don't Flee High-Tax States
Studies Rich Don t Flee High-Tax States Planet Money NPR

Yeah, Detroit wasn't harmed by conservative policies like cutting taxes for the rich, war on union rights, and deindustrializing US in favor of low costs nations? No national policy harmed them? lol


ONCE MORE BUBBA

UNCLE MILITIE TRIED, AND FAILED WITH CONSERVATIVE POLICY WITH A REAL DICTATOR IN CHILE! LOL

 

[Dad2three]

he's just not one of *your* partisans. but i'll assume he knows a lot more on this subject than you and his opinions are more valuable than agenda-driven righties who have been ranting about the same things since Roosevelt.

And that's your opinion.

I 'll ask you how treating everyone exactly the same favors any group and is unfair but having different rules for different people is considered fair?

i'd say my "opinion" as validated by legitimate economists and not just rightwing rants, are pretty valid. if I didn't think so, I wouldn't hold to those opinions.

history bears out the failure of mises style Austrian, laissez-faire economic policies. and a lot of people fought to right those failures. reactionary rightwingers still have the same axes to grind.

but you're entitled to your opinion, as well. the fact that you think you're not being partisan or only expressing opinion is where the problem is.

but have a great day. I have to get working.

One problem though Jillian - the "right-wing" view of economics is based on what actually occurred through out history. Proven, real-world results.

Meanwhile, the so-called "economists" that you point to when building your view are giving opinion based solely on what they wish would happen (ie an immature view of a utopia where everyone has everything, where resources are infinite, and where everybody works really hard because they care about each other). The problem is, that immature model has failed 100% of the time it has been tried world wide (including right here in the U.S.).

LMAOROG

REALLY? PLEASE tell me ANYTIME conservative economics has EVER worked? ANYWHERE?

You false premise and myth are bullshit

UNCLE MILITIE HAD HIS LAB TEST WITH CHILE, IT FAILED, MISERABLY

THE KLOWN IN WISCONSIN'S TRYING ANOTHER ONE TODAY, IT'S EQUALLY AS BAD AND FAILING, lol

Conservative economics have a 100% success rate through out history. Literally. And liberal economics has had a 100% failure rate through out history. Literally.

Success: Ronald Reagan took over the second worst economy in U.S. history (behind the Great Depression) and created an economic tidal wave with conservative economics.

Failure: Jimmy Carter collapsed the U.S. economy using failed liberal ideological economics.

Success: Texas has created an economic tidal wave with conservative economics (increasing revenue by $22 billion over the past 15 years by fostering a business-friendly environment causing business and thus jobs to flock to Texas).

Failure: California has about $70 billion in debt using failed liberal ideological economics (decreasing revenue by a staggering $31.7 billion because their ignorants left-wing "punish success and reward failure to keep everyone beholden to the government plantation" policies have caused business - and thus jobs - to flee California).

High Tax States Are Losing Taxpayers - US News

Success: North Dakota has created an economic tidal wave with conservative economics (at the forefront of energy production).

Failure: After 60 years of complete Dumbocrat control (Dem mayors, Dem city council) and liberal utopia (ground zero for the most powerful unions in the world - like the UAW at work in GM, Ford, and Chrysler), Detroit was forced to file bankruptcy earlier this year.

Bonus Failure: Hugo Chavez collapsed Venezuela by implementing unadulterated failed liberal ideological economics (everything relevant was nationalized and then rationed - and as is always the case with liberal policy, this caused people to stop making an effort and thus production has plummeted).

I could literally go on all day but this is more than enough to prove you have no idea what you're talking about. You have no credibility left. Best of luck to you my friend.

Lived in Cali my entire life, which means for 40+ years I've heard the 'fleeing' Cali BS, it is bogus. Largest US state economy by 50%? lol

As Robert Tannenwald, Jon Shure, and Nicholas Johnson put it in their 2011 paper, Tax Flight Is a Myth, “raising taxes won’t spark a large wave of out-migration, and cutting taxes won’t spark a large wave of in-migration.”



Several studies have shown that nearly as many companies and jobs move into California each year as leave it. A 2005 study by the Public Policy Institute of California found that from 1993 to 2002 — when the question of jobs leaving California figured prominently in gubernatorial campaigns — the net job losses from relocation were tiny; never higher than 0.1 percent of the state’s total jobs.

Little has changed in the years since, with minimal leakage of jobs in a given year as companies move into and out of California, according to Donald Walls, who assembles the data PPIC used for its study.

 

[MikeK]

[...]
In short, leading figures of the Revolutionary generation, Federalists and Anti-Federalists alike, were convinced that a republic can only exist if property is broadly distributed throughout the citizenry and that great inequalities were dangerous.

The Founders on Taxation Redistribution and Property

In keeping with that fundamental wisdom, if the Founders had been able to anticipate the kind of monumental wealth the Industrial Revolution would eventually enable the Republic to generate, the Constitution would surely have prohibited the greed-driven accumulations which have led to the rise of a financial aristocracy.

As it is, a noble legislative effort was made early in the post-Depression era to prevent exploitation of the working class by enabling rise of the union movement and the imposition of regulations governing the activities of banks and the finance industry. But beginning with the Reagan Administration this effort has been incrementally sabotaged by the systematic removal and circumvention of these preventive regulations.

More specific information of this sabotage of our relatively equitable economy is contained in the extremely informative video, Inside Job, which may be viewed free of charge via the URL in my signature line.

 

[P@triot]

And that's your opinion.

I 'll ask you how treating everyone exactly the same favors any group and is unfair but having different rules for different people is considered fair?

i'd say my "opinion" as validated by legitimate economists and not just rightwing rants, are pretty valid. if I didn't think so, I wouldn't hold to those opinions.

history bears out the failure of mises style Austrian, laissez-faire economic policies. and a lot of people fought to right those failures. reactionary rightwingers still have the same axes to grind.

but you're entitled to your opinion, as well. the fact that you think you're not being partisan or only expressing opinion is where the problem is.

but have a great day. I have to get working.

One problem though Jillian - the "right-wing" view of economics is based on what actually occurred through out history. Proven, real-world results.

Meanwhile, the so-called "economists" that you point to when building your view are giving opinion based solely on what they wish would happen (ie an immature view of a utopia where everyone has everything, where resources are infinite, and where everybody works really hard because they care about each other). The problem is, that immature model has failed 100% of the time it has been tried world wide (including right here in the U.S.).

LMAOROG

REALLY? PLEASE tell me ANYTIME conservative economics has EVER worked? ANYWHERE?

You false premise and myth are bullshit

UNCLE MILITIE HAD HIS LAB TEST WITH CHILE, IT FAILED, MISERABLY

THE KLOWN IN WISCONSIN'S TRYING ANOTHER ONE TODAY, IT'S EQUALLY AS BAD AND FAILING, lol

Conservative economics have a 100% success rate through out history. Literally. And liberal economics has had a 100% failure rate through out history. Literally.

Success: Ronald Reagan took over the second worst economy in U.S. history (behind the Great Depression) and created an economic tidal wave with conservative economics.

Failure: Jimmy Carter collapsed the U.S. economy using failed liberal ideological economics.

Success: Texas has created an economic tidal wave with conservative economics (increasing revenue by $22 billion over the past 15 years by fostering a business-friendly environment causing business and thus jobs to flock to Texas).

Failure: California has about $70 billion in debt using failed liberal ideological economics (decreasing revenue by a staggering $31.7 billion because their ignorants left-wing "punish success and reward failure to keep everyone beholden to the government plantation" policies have caused business - and thus jobs - to flee California).

High Tax States Are Losing Taxpayers - US News

Success: North Dakota has created an economic tidal wave with conservative economics (at the forefront of energy production).

Failure: After 60 years of complete Dumbocrat control (Dem mayors, Dem city council) and liberal utopia (ground zero for the most powerful unions in the world - like the UAW at work in GM, Ford, and Chrysler), Detroit was forced to file bankruptcy earlier this year.

Bonus Failure: Hugo Chavez collapsed Venezuela by implementing unadulterated failed liberal ideological economics (everything relevant was nationalized and then rationed - and as is always the case with liberal policy, this caused people to stop making an effort and thus production has plummeted).

I could literally go on all day but this is more than enough to prove you have no idea what you're talking about. You have no credibility left. Best of luck to you my friend.

Lived in Cali my entire life, which means for 40+ years I've heard the 'fleeing' Cali BS, it is bogus. Largest US state economy by 50%? lol

As Robert Tannenwald, Jon Shure, and Nicholas Johnson put it in their 2011 paper, Tax Flight Is a Myth, “raising taxes won’t spark a large wave of out-migration, and cutting taxes won’t spark a large wave of in-migration.”



Several studies have shown that nearly as many companies and jobs move into California each year as leave it. A 2005 study by the Public Policy Institute of California found that from 1993 to 2002 — when the question of jobs leaving California figured prominently in gubernatorial campaigns — the net job losses from relocation were tiny; never higher than 0.1 percent of the state’s total jobs.

Little has changed in the years since, with minimal leakage of jobs in a given year as companies move into and out of California, according to Donald Walls, who assembles the data PPIC used for its study.

In other words - disregard the indisputable IRS data. D2T here on USMB called it "bogus" so it must be.

Sorry my friend, cold-hard data from IRS taxes trumps your "it's bogus simply because I say it's bogus and I'm saying it because the facts are beating me in this debate" position.

 

[Boss]

A massive bloody revolution is unavoidable.

These low life motherfuckers believe that they have a right to enslave taxpayers/their neighbors.

.

Ultimately, I think you might be correct... BUT... Never underestimate the politics of future generations. We're currently dealing with the misfits who were raised by the acid-tripping hippy generation through the Prozac-popping ME generation. The next generation will deal with facing the mess they've left behind. Left-right politics have always swung like a pendulum, and they will continue to do so.

I think we're due for a generation ready to LEAD instead of following Socialists around with their noses stuck up their butts like they hung the moon and stars. It all comes in cycles and the cycle is due to change. Young "hip and cool" people will pontificate on Rand and Hayek instead of Chomsky and Marx. Those who promote today's Neo-Marxism will be viewed as "out of touch" old-timers who can't relate.