Schuylaars Sesh - Executive Order and Minimum Wage..

[Canna Sylvan]

pro tip for having an honest debate: avoided loaded language and false presuppositions.

The question is stupid, but not loaded nor false. Your next talking point is, "the poorest would still need a consumption subsidy to enable a savings function greater than zero." Ok Ginwilly, let's pretend that's UB's answer.

 

[UncleBuck]

The question is stupid, but not loaded nor false. Your next talking point is, "the poorest would still need a consumption subsidy to enable a savings function greater than zero." Ok Ginwilly, let's pretend that's UB's answer.

it contains loaded language that makes a false presupposition designed to concede one of ginwilly's points before it can even be established or contended.

what a shitty way to attempt to start an honest debate. you'd have to be stupid or dishonest to think that's the way to start an honest debate.

"consumption subsidy" is just a fancier way of saying prebate, and the prebate is pure nonsense.

 

[ginwilly]

The question is stupid, but not loaded nor false. Your next talking point is, "the poorest would still need a consumption subsidy to enable a savings function greater than zero." Ok Ginwilly, let's pretend that's UB's answer.

Thanks for the attempt Canna, I think this debate might even be threadworthy but I'm not up for it tonight.

Buck thinks our present tax code that allows businesses to write off million dollar vegas conventions favors the poor because it shows a progressive rate on the face. He doesn't seem to understand that a consumption tax would not only prevent this write off (not needed), the activity can be taxed. The libs can even make the consumption tax a progressive rate based on cost, exempt food, utilities (first 100 per month, whatever) or anything they deem worthy. I don't get his head in the sand attitude that he won't even consider an alternative to the fucked up social engineering code we have now.

I think he even has issues with me saying our tax code has efforts to control and manipulate the masses.

 

[ginwilly]

it contains loaded language that makes a false presupposition designed to concede one of ginwilly's points before it can even be established or contended.

what a shitty way to attempt to start an honest debate. you'd have to be stupid or dishonest to think that's the way to start an honest debate.

"consumption subsidy" is just a fancier way of saying prebate, and the prebate is pure nonsense.

Do you really have a problem with me saying our tax code shows attempts at social engineering? Why do single people pay taxes at a higher rate? Why do businesses get subsidies for offering insurance? Why is a 401K plan pre-tax? We can do this all night too naming tax policy designed to manipulate behavior. Why does the term social engineering bother you?

Hell, maybe that's why you favor the present tax system, you are the type that is for telling people how to live.

 

[UncleBuck]

Thanks for the attempt Canna, I think this debate might even be threadworthy but I'm not up for it tonight.

Buck thinks our present tax code that allows businesses to write off million dollar vegas conventions favors the poor because it shows a progressive rate on the face. He doesn't seem to understand that a consumption tax would not only prevent this write off (not needed), the activity can be taxed. The libs can even make the consumption tax a progressive rate based on cost, exempt food, utilities (first 100 per month, whatever) or anything they deem worthy. I don't get his head in the sand attitude that he won't even consider an alternative to the fucked up social engineering code we have now.

I think he even has issues with me saying our tax code has efforts to control and manipulate the masses.

let's haver an abortion debate, i'll start us off: are you for or against murdering innocent, defenseless little babies?

 

[UncleBuck]

Why does the term social engineering bother you?

it's loaded language. it compares the progressive tax system we have in place to nazi germany through connotation.

don't be such a baby, you made a glaringly stupid attempt at starting an "honest debate" and i called you out on it.

that kind of shit may work on the inbred, three tooth hicks in ifuckmysisterville, alabama, but it won't work here.

 

[ginwilly]

let's haver an abortion debate, i'll start us off: are you for or against murdering innocent, defenseless little babies?

I'm torn on the abortion issue, part of me says it's her body, she should have the right to make her own decision, part of me just don't trust women making decisions.
J/K but you are not pulling me into THAT one.

I do get your analogy but I don't think you understand what you have been doing in these debates to have used it correctly. You have said a consumption tax is retarded and have said the same thing about a flat tax. I have yet to see you bash the present system or offer an alternative, so the conclusion to be drawn is you are for killing babies.

You've also not offered even one logistic about a consumption tax you don't like.

Is it because you can't evade taxes unless we stay status quo?

 

[Canna Sylvan]

it contains loaded language that makes a false presupposition designed to concede one of ginwilly's points before it can even be established or contended.

what a shitty way to attempt to start an honest debate. you'd have to be stupid or dishonest to think that's the way to start an honest debate.

"consumption subsidy" is just a fancier way of saying prebate, and the prebate is pure nonsense.

Did you fail economics before dropping out? I was helping you out. This has nothing to do with the fair tax. Our current system uses a savings subsidy in the form of social security. What Ginwilly proposes would not solve a zero savings function. It would require a consumption subsidy and force people to buy savings for a reduction in their consumption. Like what the rich get for buying a Tesla Model S and get a environmental subsidy of $10,000. I'm much better at being liberal than the pinko commie. Look up Marinal Propensity to Consume and Marginal Propensity to Save so you know what I'm talking about.

 

[UncleBuck]

I'm torn on the abortion issue, part of me says it's her body, she should have the right to make her own decision, part of me just don't trust women making decisions.
J/K but you are not pulling me into THAT one.

I do get your analogy but I don't think you understand what you have been doing in these debates to have used it correctly. You have said a consumption tax is retarded and have said the same thing about a flat tax. I have yet to see you bash the present system or offer an alternative, so the conclusion to be drawn is you are for killing babies.

the current tax code was put into place pretty carefully and there will almost assuredly never be the political will to change it, nor will it ever be possible to fight the monied interests who put it there in the first place.

it's as futile as trying to get corruption out of politics.

i'm still waiting on that trickle down reagan promised. so much for that rising tide to lift all boats.

 

[UncleBuck]

Fuck you PC pusses. You can't even call it what it is because it brings up nazi germany in your pathetic little mind, how weak.

you can call it whatever you want, but don't try to make subtle, loaded references to goebbels in what you are claiming to be an "honest debate" and then get all pissy when i call you out on it.

 

[ginwilly]

the current tax code was put into place pretty carefully and there will almost assuredly never be the political will to change it, nor will it ever be possible to fight the monied interests who put it there in the first place.

it's as futile as trying to get corruption out of politics.

i'm still waiting on that trickle down reagan promised. so much for that rising tide to lift all boats.

I would take Reagan's recovery over Obama's any day.

Reagan drastically changed the tax code, I guess he's got superpowers in your feeble little head. Not the kind of change I want that you still have not given a reason why you are against it, but drastic change.

We can limit the amount of corruption in politics by limiting the power we cede to these fucks. Agreed that we can't get rid of it, but your goverlove is the worst outcome to prevent or limit corruption.

 

[urban1026835]

wonder why politics in general get people so worked up when the truth is it is all engineered to pull the wool over our eyes while the select few pull strings on both ends to further there own agendas...eugenic nwo bilderberg illuminati hahaha i know i am crazy doesn't mean it isn't true.

 

[UncleBuck]

I would take Reagan's recovery over Obama's any day.

reagan spent like a drunken sailor, ran up the deficit, and massively grew the size of government.

obama's recovery is slow because he is reducing the size of government, shrinking the deficit quite rapidly, and is being hamstrung by austerity.

i dare you to challenge these basic, mundane facts.

Reagan drastically changed the tax code, I guess he's got superpowers in your feeble little head.

yeah, he changed it down. it only really ratchets one way that drastically.

and now we have massive debt to show for it that started under his command. the correlation is undeniable.

 

[UncleBuck]

I'm not being pissy, I've asked you 3 times, make it 4 now, how in world can you possibly say that our tax code isn't heavily littered with attempts at social engineering, it boggles the mind.

the only thing the tax code is littered heavily with is special giveaways and tax breaks to the monied interests who can lobby them into law.

it is lightly sprinkled with what you may call "social engineering", reagan and the republicans called it incentivizing work when they put the EITC in there.

and now you guys bitch about the EITC as welfare.

it never ends.

 

[Canna Sylvan]

Buck, did what I say go over your head? I was agreeing with you that Ginwilly's plan won't work. If you're still reading MPC and MPS, I'm sorry and will wait.

 

[ginwilly]

reagan spent like a drunken sailor, ran up the deficit, and massively grew the size of government.

obama's recovery is slow because he is reducing the size of government, shrinking the deficit quite rapidly, and is being hamstrung by austerity.

i dare you to challenge these basic, mundane facts.



yeah, he changed it down. it only really ratchets one way that drastically.

and now we have massive debt to show for it that started under his command. the correlation is undeniable.

Reagan had a hard on for star wars, it was his mission to the moon. Like our highway system it was a huge up front cost.

Obama is reducing from what? Bush? While better than nothing, how bout reducing it to the size Reagan "exploded" it to. Obama has spent more in 5 years than Bush did in 8, but he's reducing government? Hamstrung by austerity, you really are a Keynesian aren't you. You realize Maynard Keyes was against deficit spending when already deep in debt? He considered long term debt to be detrimental to economic growth, you guys always leave that part out.

He's cutting, but he would cut more if there weren't those pesky cuts. WTF man.. Do you even think?

 

[Canna Sylvan]

Ginwilly, do you want to know why a consumption tax will fail, or is what Buck says true?

 

[UncleBuck]

Hamstrung by austerity, you really are a Keynesian aren't you...He's cutting, but he would cut more if there weren't those pesky cuts. WTF man.. Do you even think?

stimulus to spur economic activity would take more off the deficit than austerity does.

and yes, hamstrung by austerity. numbers don't lie, republicans do.

 

[Canna Sylvan]

you can call it whatever you want, but don't try to make subtle, loaded references to goebbels in what you are claiming to be an "honest debate" and then get all pissy when i call you out on it.

You're a monkey who flings poo and won't humble yourself to help the zookeeper clean up. Here's some advice: Ahh ho ho ug. Rah! Woh.

 

[twostrokenut]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Canna Sylvan again.