Thank you tea party patriots!

beenthere said:
Not true at all, if you are a registered independent like me and vote most of the time for republicans, it just means you can stomach republicans more than democrats!
Click to expand...

For all practical purposes, you're just another republican weather you choose to admit it or not.
 
beenthere said:
The left with their love for taxes and regulating anything they can get their hands on are responsible for jobs leaving the US my friend, take a look at the lovely liberal state of California if you don't believe me!
Click to expand...

Regulation isn't a dirty word. Lack of regulation just collapsed the economy and you're still pretending regulation is a dirty word. Keep up the good work. You're fooling no one, only marginalizing your own view point.

And for the record, your generation (the entitled) is running up more debt than any other generation in history, btw how are you contributing, are tax dollars helping, that is if you're paying any.
Click to expand...

No no. YOUR generation voted for a president who put two wars on a credit card and collapsed the economy. That's on you.
 
FreedomWorks said:
If liberal republicans in the senate want to sabotage conservative efforts, then that's fine. Mitch McConnell will soon lose his seat in Kentucky, and then John McCain will follow.
Click to expand...

Thinking McCain is a liberal just shows how ridiculous you are. Keep up the good work. Your insanity is the reason liberalism will dominate for a generation.
 
Dan Kone said:
Depends on what your income is and where you got it. The historical norm for a top tax rate is ~55%. When it was that high our economy was a lot stronger.
Click to expand...

I wonder if perhaps it was the other way around. When the economy was a lot stronger, the tax rates were that high ...
 
Dan Kone said:
Depends on what your income is and where you got it. The historical norm for a top tax rate is ~55%. When it was that high our economy was a lot stronger.
Click to expand...

There's a lot more to it than the high marginal rate, in fact, very few people paid that rate, write offs were much more liberal back then.

Our economy was stronger then because a higher percentage of working Americans actually paid federal income taxes, today only half of us do!
 
beenthere said:
There's a lot more to it than the high marginal rate, in fact, very few people paid that rate, write offs were much more liberal back then.

Our economy was stronger then because a higher percentage of working Americans actually paid federal income taxes, today only half of us do!
Click to expand...

Soon there won't be enough taxpayers.

What exactly are 'write offs' for business?
 
beenthere said:
There's a lot more to it than the high marginal rate, in fact, very few people paid that rate, write offs were much more liberal back then.

Our economy was stronger then because a higher percentage of working Americans actually paid federal income taxes, today only half of us do!
Click to expand...

I just busted Buck for making this same claim about tax rates. Marginal tax rates are irrelevant. If you look at effective tax rates, they haven't changed very much, even with huge changes to the marginal rates.

Basically, when the top marginal rate was 90%, rich people hired accountants and lawyers to find loopholes in the tax code that would allow them to avoid paying the taxes. They were exceedingly successful, to the point that you could be in the top 1%, have a huge income, and pay zero tax. The IRS inevitably plugs the holes, but the vast majority of people get away with using them, and the revenue is lost. The IRS plugs, accountants/lawyers find new strategies, the IRS plugs, repeat step 2, and so on, until time ends. That's the way it will always be, and the higher the tax rate is--the more money potentially involved--the more rich people will be willing to spend to avoid paying the statutory rates.
 
Nutes and Nugs said:
Soon there won't be enough taxpayers.

What exactly are 'write offs' for business?
Click to expand...

theres already not enough taxpayers.

and the write offs for business are expenses (including payroll, facilities, fuel, etc, which we mere mortals cannot deduct) and losses due to bad investments (which we mere mortals cannot deduct either) and of course the deliberate tax shelters and depreciation of assets (even if the asset has not depreciated in any way except on paper)
 
tokeprep said:
I just busted Buck for making this same claim about tax rates. Marginal tax rates are irrelevant. If you look at effective tax rates, they haven't changed very much, even with huge changes to the marginal rates.

Basically, when the top marginal rate was 90%, rich people hired accountants and lawyers to find loopholes in the tax code that would allow them to avoid paying the taxes. They were exceedingly successful, to the point that you could be in the top 1%, have a huge income, and pay zero tax. The IRS inevitably plugs the holes, but the vast majority of people get away with using them, and the revenue is lost. The IRS plugs, accountants/lawyers find new strategies, the IRS plugs, repeat step 2, and so on, until time ends. That's the way it will always be, and the higher the tax rate is--the more money potentially involved--the more rich people will be willing to spend to avoid paying the statutory rates.
Click to expand...

wait! are you suggesting rich people are unwilling to "Do Their Fair Share" and meekly shuffle off to the poor house because Barrack The Unready wants them to pay confiscatory taxes?

THOSE BASTARDS!!!

attachment.php
 
Dan Kone said:
I don't call the middle crazy, I call them indecisive and for the most part ignorant. In your case I call you insane because you seem to subscribe to conspiracy theories claiming I don't have the "security clearance" to understand the financial crisis. The financial crisis can easily be explained by the laws that passed and looking at their effects. It doesn't require security clearance.

You come here pretending to be more evolved than everyone however I have yet to see an original thought in any of your posts besides a conspiracy theory and lots of babbling about parts and wholes.

I get that you see your self as automatically wiser than everyone else because you've proclaimed yourself a moderate. Well guess what? That's a load of horseshit and it's just as partisan as anything anyone else has claimed. Also, a moderate in comparison of what? A moderate in America is a right wing extremist when it comes to global politics. When it comes to global politics, I'm the moderate here. I don't agree with the far left views of Mao or Stalin, nor the far right views of the tea party. I'm about half way in between.

Does that make me wiser or more free thinking than everyone else? Fuck no. Being on the right, middle, or center isn't what makes someone a free thinker. It's their ideas that do that. I've yet to see you come forth with any well thought out ideas. You might want to quit deluding yourself.

The problem with self proclaimed moderates is they seem to think simply cutting the baby in half is the solution to every problem and that solution lies half way between what both sides want. Well that simply isn't true. It's not possible to have less imaginative views and be less free thinking than what you subscribe too. Life is more complicated than taking both sides of the argument and going half way between the two. Sometimes one side is simply right and the other is wrong. I personally believe the republicans are wrong on the economy, wrong on personal liberties, wrong on science, wrong on religion, wrong on the environment, and wrong on civil rights. And I think history proves them wrong on all these issues. I have well thought out explanations for all these opinions that extend far past moderates unimaginative catch all solution to every problem of "cutting the baby in half".

Look who made this country economically stronger than any other president in our history. FDR. A liberal. Look who history always proves correct in the end when it comes to civl rights. Liberals. The reason for that is not that liberalism is always correct. The reason is that this countries right wing tenancies usually take it too far to the right and liberalism is the balance that corrects that. As I said, America's version of a moderate is what the rest of the world considers far right.
Click to expand...


Still arguing over "left" and right" eh?
Your view is limited to your ability to comprehend. Thus you are blind.
 
Doer said:
Oh, all he is doing is pushing the Tryranny of Opinion, when the middle road is wide open and does not have any moderacy to the stance.

The middle of the argument is not moderate. It simply acknowledges that both sides can't be right. Ero Sum, both sides are fouled in the Tyranny of Press Opinion.

TPO is all anyone really has. You can see if you want to have a simple discussion, it turns very small. An aderversy is always expect, and yes, required.

If someone will not play TPO, they are crazy and discounted. And the Pride is the main part. The Pride says most people are immersed in TPO and the entire nation is polarized.

Ever hear of the Majority? The facts will show that in in this country, most people do not give a single shit about Press opinions.

And that is not crazy. The small number of PARTS make a lot of noise. The rest us want to know facts, but the most of us don't want know any of the bullshit. And perhaps 50% are not informed, at all, by their choice.

S0, the worse part is the PARTS think everyone thinks like them, FOR or Against, else, then Crazy. Look in the mirror for crazy.

And lastly it is hardly conspiracy theory to admit we don't know it all. We are not in the private meetings. We don't know what votes were traded for what other votes. We just know what we are told.

How small can you get, to believe what you PMO said? You blame Graham, Graham blames Clinton, Clinton Blames Bush, Bush blames Frank.....

STUPID if you fall for the lies you like but say the lies against the other guy are true.

Just a stupid thrall basketball in the Opinion Tyranny game.

I opted out. I Re-registered as Independent and have plenty of, not moderate, scorn for all of it.

And since I don't read the scum I am forced into original thinking.
Click to expand...

Almost. You didn't opt out. You are still "in", because you are still assuming the present paradigm is the ONLY option there will ever be. You assume there will always be a totalitarian form of governance and by being an "independent voter" you are just a different vegetable in the primordial stew. Jump out of the stew pot, get onto the plate and be a piece of meat.
 
Rob Roy said:
Almost. You didn't opt out. You are still "in", because you are still assuming the present paradigm is the ONLY option there will ever be. You assume there will always be a totalitarian form of governance and by being an "independent voter" you are just a different vegetable in the primordial stew. Jump out of the stew pot, get onto the plate and be a piece of meat.
Click to expand...



Believe me; BET and MTV
Are gonna grieve when we leave dog, fo' sheezy
Can't leave rap alone, the game needs me
'til we grow beards, get weird and disappear
Into the mountains - nothin but clowns down here
But we, ain't fuckin around round here
Yo Dre (whattup?) Can I get a "hell yeah"? (HELL YEAH!)

~Mathers, Dre Et Al (2002)
 
Dan Kone said:
I don't call the middle crazy, I call them indecisive and for the most part ignorant. In your case I call you insane because you seem to subscribe to conspiracy theories claiming I don't have the "security clearance" to understand the financial crisis. The financial crisis can easily be explained by the laws that passed and looking at their effects. It doesn't require security clearance.
Click to expand...

You're substantially oversimplifying if you think the repeal of Glass-Stegall was the cause of the financial crisis. AIG, Fannie Mac, Freddie Mae, Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, and dozens of other players weren't commercial banks, so the repeal of the law was irrelevant to them--it had no impact whatsoever on their ability to take the actions they did. The banks that were impacted weren't just securitizing mortgages and shoving them off their balance sheets. Washington Mutual and Wachovia were brought down by their subprime losses because they had huge mortgage portfolios; and Citigroup and Bank of America nearly went under for exactly the same reason (Bank of America had purchased Countrywide, responsible for 20% of the mortgage underwriting in the United States at the time).

How would Glass-Stegall have prevented the financial crisis? The investment bankers wouldn't have been impacted; same for AIG; same for the GSEs; and the banks would have been free to amass their huge mortgage portfolios as well.

For the record, I blame everyone. The financial crisis was the result of national greed: greedy bankers, greedy politicians, greedy Americans making bad decisions. Everyone was guilty.

You come here pretending to be more evolved than everyone however I have yet to see an original thought in any of your posts besides a conspiracy theory and lots of babbling about parts and wholes.

I get that you see your self as automatically wiser than everyone else because you've proclaimed yourself a moderate. Well guess what? That's a load of horseshit and it's just as partisan as anything anyone else has claimed. Also, a moderate in comparison of what? A moderate in America is a right wing extremist when it comes to global politics. When it comes to global politics, I'm the moderate here. I don't agree with the far left views of Mao or Stalin, nor the far right views of the tea party. I'm about half way in between.

Does that make me wiser or more free thinking than everyone else? Fuck no. Being on the right, middle, or center isn't what makes someone a free thinker. It's their ideas that do that. I've yet to see you come forth with any well thought out ideas. You might want to quit deluding yourself.

The problem with self proclaimed moderates is they seem to think simply cutting the baby in half is the solution to every problem and that solution lies half way between what both sides want. Well that simply isn't true. It's not possible to have less imaginative views and be less free thinking than what you subscribe too. Life is more complicated than taking both sides of the argument and going half way between the two. Sometimes one side is simply right and the other is wrong. I personally believe the republicans are wrong on the economy, wrong on personal liberties, wrong on science, wrong on religion, wrong on the environment, and wrong on civil rights. And I think history proves them wrong on all these issues. I have well thought out explanations for all these opinions that extend far past moderates unimaginative catch all solution to every problem of "cutting the baby in half".
Click to expand...

A moderate recognizes that there is no universal political or economic philosophy that humans can agree to follow. The extremes, such as Marxism and libertarianism, reflect the preferences of relatively small groups, and that's why they are objectionable and impractical.

The political groups rewrite history to meet their own narrative needs. They intentionally misspeak in order to mislead people sympathetic with their ideologies. Politicians play party politics to obtain power because pandering to political extremes is a much easier route to office than creating political coalitions.

Look who made this country economically stronger than any other president in our history. FDR. A liberal. Look who history always proves correct in the end when it comes to civl rights. Liberals. The reason for that is not that liberalism is always correct. The reason is that this countries right wing tenancies usually take it too far to the right and liberalism is the balance that corrects that. As I said, America's version of a moderate is what the rest of the world considers far right.
Click to expand...

You're giving FDR the credit when you should be giving it to World War II. Likewise, the prosperity the United States experienced in the postwar period had a lot more to do with the destruction of most of the world's industrial capacity than it did with policy prescriptions: if all the competition has been destroyed there is no choice except to buy your goods.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top