Whoops - Joe the Plumber Hasn't Paid His Taxes!
POSTED BY: Kwicko
UPDATED: Sunday, October 26, 2008 22:57
VIEWED: 12667
PAGE 2 of 3
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"As is Obama's claim to CUT income taxes on 95% of tax payers. Obama keeps on making the same mistake on his claim."
See, and there you are, wrong again. Obama said he would not increase taxes for 95% of people. Can't you get anything right ?
.
He said he'd CUT taxes.
It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:Maybe that's why they do a census every ten years.
No Capitation , or other DIRECT TAX , shall be laid , unless in Proportion to the CENSUS or ENUMERATION hereinbefore directed to be taken
I have no objection to tax , per se , but it must be within the narrow confines of Limited and lawful government...
The Census is a Constitutional Requirement , but enumerating people is not an authorization or legal establishment of the Income Tax...
Show me the legal foundation for the Income Tax , and the 'Tax Code'...
Warning : You're going to be at it for a long , long time...
There isn't any...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"It's sad to see those who claim to be Browncoats cling so blindly to the Alliance-is-Daddy attitude when it comes to the United States Government."
Yes especially when it comes to government lying its way into a war, spying on its own innocent citizens, and torturing people ... all in the name of saving us from all those evil brown people.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
No where have you or anyone shown where the Gov't LIED us into war. Were that truly the case, THEN I'd be concerned. But that's not the way of things, you know it, your partisan position is PURELY based on politics, nothing else.
I got no problem if we tortured 3 terrorist and got good intel out of 'em. That's fine by me.
It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
THOMAS JEFFERSON on TAXESQuote:http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff5.htm
Many of the opposition {to the new Federal Constitution} wish to take from Congress the power of internal taxation. Calculation has convinced me that this would be very mischievous. --Thomas Jefferson to William Carmichael, 1788.
"Taxes should be proportioned to what may be annually spared by the individual." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1784.
"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." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785.
---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.
Not disagreein' on any particular point , SignyM...
Good cites , both...
But , only a beginning in your investigation of what could constitute lawful taxation...
Still , your efforts are laudable...
Question : How does it prove Joe The Plumber is a 'tax cheat' ?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
BEJAMIN FRANKLIN, on BRITISH TAXES
Quote:BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, on AMERICAN TAXES
That it is supposed an undoubted right of Englishmen not to be taxed but by their own consent, given through their representatives. That the colonies have no representatives in Parliament.
Quote:www.swarthmore.edu/SocSci/bdorsey1/41docs/52-fra.html
Friends," said he, "the taxes are indeed very heavy, and, if those laid on by the government were the only ones we had to pay, we might more easily discharge them; but we have many others, and much more grievous to some of us. We are taxed twice as much by our idleness, three times as much by our pride, and four times as much by our folly; and from these taxes the commissioners cannot ease or deliver us, by allowing an abatement....
Away then with your expensive follies, and you will not then have so much cause to complain of bad times, heavy taxes, and chargeable families; for Women and wine, game and deceit,
Make the wealth small and the want great.
---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Anyway, as yu can see O2B, the Founding Fathers were QUITE aware of taxes, and the various forms of taxation. I GET THE DISTINCT IMPRESSION THEY BELIEVED THAT PAYING AMERICAN TAXES WAS PATRIOTIC. I could on with a whole boatload more of quotations, but you can do the same yourself just by goggling (fill in the blank here) + tax
Now, I understand that some ppl have a specific beef against INCOME tax. I think it's a stupid complaint myself and is based on a stretchy interpretation which have been declared legally invalid over and over... and over and over... again... and anyone who portrays otherwise is just setting up the gullible for a big shitload of trouble.
Unlike the colonists you HAVE representation, so use it to push your agenda. And I, of course, will use it to push mine (which seems pretty in-line with Jefferson). But to get all huffy about "un-American taxes" is just silly.
---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Anyway, as yu can see O2B, the Founding Fathers were QUITE aware of taxes, and the various forms of taxation. I GET THE DISTICNT IMPRESSION THEY BELIEVED THAT PAYING AMERICAN TAXES WAS PATRIOTIC. I could on with a whole boatload more of quotations, but you can do the same yourself just by goggling (fill in the blank here) + tax
Now, I understand that some ppl have a specific beef against INCOME tax. I think it's a stupid complaint myself and is based on stretchy interpretations which have been declared legally invalid over and over... and over and over... again... and anyone who portrays otherwise is just setting up the gullible for a big load of trouble.
Unlike the colonists you HAVE representation, so use it to push your agenda. But to be outraged about "un-American taxes" is just silly.
---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.
You're wrong about these issues being declared legally 'invalid'...
They are not...
If you'd do a sufficient amount of 'goggling' , as you call it , you'll find how wrong you are...
I don't take these issues lightly , at all...
What I have to say represents many years of study and investigation , not just by my self , but by many thousands of other qualified people...
The good news is , WE ARE WINNING !
The bad news is , that we are not just fighting in the Courts , we are also having to fight the sort of ignorance that folk like you are continuing to propagate...
Hardly seems fair...
If you'd help us win , there'd be no stopping us...
That would make things better for everyone !
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Been there, done that, got the T-shirt and mug, O2B.
---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
First of all, income tax (tax on wages) was NEVER ruled to be "Unconstitutional". The only taxes in question were taxes on "interest, dividends and rent". So whether or not the 16th Amendment was legally ratified or not, WAGE TAXES WERE ALWAYS CONSIDERED LEGAL.
Secondly, by 1913, 42 of 48 states had ratified the 16ht Amendment- more than necessary for its adoption. So, you got no leg to stand on.
---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by out2theblack:Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Oh, it was just too easy a shot not to take...
Folk forget that Joe The Plumber ain't running
for President...
Oddly hypocritical that there is such a furious attack against HIS 'credentials' , but OprahBamaHussein can't prove himself to be native-born ?
Just a diversion...
Partisan potshots, Outtie?
I had hoped you had the intellect to do better than that...
By the way, who the hell is OprahBamaHussein, anyway? I've never heard of him. Or her. Perhaps you're thinking of Barack Hussein Obama, the junior senator from Illinois and Democratic nominee for the Presidency of the United States.
If so, I had hoped you could spell his name better than that...
Mike
This world is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel.
Trolls Against McCain!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
OTB
You know, I was all set to apologize, and then I remembered this little gem:
Had you figured for a radical...
Now you show what you know about the weather...
Same as you know about anything else...Zip ! Nada ! Zilch !
That bolt going through the sky ? That would be 'Lightning'...You should be so fortunate as to be struck by it...Something like that might do the void
within your cranium some good...
Oh , BTW , that Bill Ayers character was something of a 'chemist' , too...Just not a very good one...You two would get along so WELL !
I noticed you didn't apologize when I pointed out the info came from WIKI. It seems you freely dish it out, and cry like a sissy when it comes back to you.
So guess what - 
you.
***************************************************************
Dickwipe.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The Alliance peeps are laughing, their plan is working- browncoats against browncoats...
McCain or Obama, what is the difference? At least it won't be Bush.
Let's do the impossible; let's be mighty...
Let's not be fighting amongst ourselves.
isall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
The Alliance peeps are laughing, their plan is working- browncoats against browncoats...
McCain or Obama, what is the difference? At least it won't be Bush.
Let's do the impossible; let's be mighty...
Let's not be fighting amongst ourselves.
True words , Chris...
More True than you are even likely to know...
There are Alliance plotters against free-thinking , Independent-minded Folk...
Always have been...This is our Serenity Valley .
It's odd that anyone would accuse me of being partisan...
I'll take it in the most complimentary possible sense...
" Browncoat Partisan : a) member of a body of detached light troops making forays and harassing an enemy b): a member of a guerrilla band operating within enemy lines..."
Neither McShame nor ObammySammy are friends of mine...If you mean to vote , by all means , make it your own personal version of Independent...
I'm just standing up for Truth , Justice , and that Way-thing...American ?
Folk get weak on reliable cites when they come in with opinions blazing...
There are plenty of Facts to go 'round...Put your Facts first , people !
Help share THAT wealth , and Hang On to your wallets...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
...I could on with a whole boatload more of quotations...
...I think it's a stupid complaint myself and is based on a stretchy interpretation which have been declared legally invalid over and over... and over and over... again... and anyone who portrays otherwise is just setting up the gullible for a big shitload of trouble.
Unlike the colonists you HAVE representation, so use it to push your agenda. And I, of course, will use it to push mine (which seems pretty in-line with Jefferson). But to get all huffy about "un-American taxes" is just silly.
Please refrain from going on and on...
Besides , I never said anything about all taxes being "un-American" , or anything even close to that...
Ironically , what you 'think' about our legitimate beefs with Income Tax is purely ridiculous , considering the source...
How is it that Folk are to find you credible in your 'thinking' on the Income Tax , and whether Wages constitute 'Income' (they don't) , when you admittedly don't know the difference between 'DEFICIT' and 'DEBT' , which you , like many , wrongly use interchangeably...
It's a Logical Fallacy for you to 'think' that you have the correct answers to this issue , and opine that Other Folk are 'stretchy', when you can completely overlook Accounting Fundamentals , like those two critically important terms , Deficit and Debt...
The CONgress takes advantage of your Innumeracy , as do the Federal Reserve Banksters and the Robber-Barons of Wall Street...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
First of all, income tax (tax on wages) was NEVER ruled to be "Unconstitutional". The only taxes in question were taxes on "interest, dividends and rent". So whether or not the 16th Amendment was legally ratified or not, WAGE TAXES WERE ALWAYS CONSIDERED LEGAL.
Secondly, by 1913, 42 of 48 states had ratified the 16ht Amendment- more than necessary for its adoption. So, you got no leg to stand on.
As seems to be your common practice , you make broad and sweeping , dogmatic and general statements that are demonstrably UNtrue...
" In 1868, Congress again focused its taxation efforts on tobacco and distilled spirits and eliminated the income tax in 1872. It had a short-lived revival in 1894 and 1895. In the latter year, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the income tax was unconstitutional because it was
not apportioned among the states in conformity with the Constitution. "
www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005921.html
Now , look at this one :
http://www.givemeliberty.org/features/taxes/notratified.htm
HOW SOME STATES DID NOT LEGALLY
RATIFY THE 16TH AMENDMENT
Bill Benson's findings, published in "The Law That Never Was," make a convincing case that the 16th amendment was not legally ratified and that Secretary of State Philander Knox was not merely in error, but committed fraud when he declared it ratified in February 1913. What follows is a summary of some of the major findings for many of the states, showing that their ratifications were not legal and should not have been counted.
The 16th amendment had been sent out in 1909 to the state governors for ratification by the state legislatures after having been passed by Congress. There were 48 states at that time, and three-fourths, or 36, of them were required to give their approval in order for it to be ratified. The process took almost the whole term of the Taft administration, from 1909 to 1913.
Knox had received responses from 42 states when he declared the 16th amendment ratified on February 25, 1913, just a few days before leaving office to make way for the administration of Woodrow Wilson. Knox acknowledged that four of those states (Utah, Conn, R.I. and N.H.) had rejected it, and he counted 38 states as having approved it. We will now examine some of the key evidence Bill Benson found regarding the approval of the amendment in many of those states.
In Kentucky, the legislature acted on the amendment without even having received it from the governor (the governor of each state was to transmit the proposed amendment to the state legislature). The version of the amendment that the Kentucky legislature made up and acted upon omitted the words "on income" from the text, so they weren't even voting on an income tax! When they straightened that out (with the help of the governor), the Kentucky senate rejected the amendment. Yet Philander Knox counted Kentucky as approving it!
In Oklahoma, the legislature changed the wording of the amendment so that its meaning was virtually the opposite of what was intended by Congress, and this was the version they sent back to Knox. Yet Knox counted Oklahoma as approving it, despite a memo from his chief legal counsel, Reuben Clark, that states were not allowed to change it in any way.
Attorneys who have studied the subject have agreed that Kentucky and Oklahoma should not have been counted as approvals by Philander Knox, and, moreover, if any state could be shown to have violated its own state constitution or laws in its approval process, then that state's approval would have to be thrown out. That gets us past the "presumptive conclusion" argument, which says that the actions of an executive official cannot be judged by a court, and admits that Knox could be wrong.
If we subtract Kentucky and Oklahoma from the 38 approvals above, the count of valid approvals falls to 36, the exact number needed for ratification. If any more states can be shown to have had invalid approvals, the 16th amendment must be regarded
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Been there, done that, got the T-shirt and mug, O2B.
I think you must mean that you went somewhere , got mugged , and they took your T-shirt...
Wouldn't that be a more honest account of what really happened ?
" The issue of direct v. indirect taxes has been debated in Congress beginning not long after the constitutional ink had dried. From page 1898 of The Annals of Congress (the 4th Congress, 1797) Representative Williams from New York was recorded as reminding Congress of the Roman example of direct v. indirect taxation.
"History, Mr. W. said, informed them of the annihilation of nations by means of direct taxation. He referred gentlemen to the situation of the Roman Empire in its innocence, and asked them whether they had any direct taxes? No. Indirect taxes and taxes upon the luxuries and spices from the Indies were their sources of revenue but, as soon as they changed their system to direct taxation, it operated to their ruin; their children were sold as slaves, and the Roman Empire fell from its splendor. Shall we then follow this system? He trusted not.
"At the time the Constitution was written in 1787, there were only two authorities upon which the framers relied for the terms "direct tax" and "indirect tax." These were Adam Smith, who wrote Wealth of Nations in 1776, and Frenchman Jaques Turgot author of Plan d'un memoire sur les impositions in 1764. Smith's Wealth of Nations states, "Capitation taxes, so far as they are levied upon the lower ranks of people, are direct taxes upon the wages of labour, and are attended with all the inconvenience of such taxes."
The IRS has steadfastly maintained that an income tax on wages is a direct tax exempted from the Constitution's apportionment rule. But when Congress approved the 16th Amendment and sent it out to the states for ratification, four times the Senate rejected the opportunity to create this "apportionment rule exemption for income taxes."
...According to Hart,
"The executive branch of government cannot do something that was not authorized by the legislative branch."
" By the late 1800s and up until the passage of the 16th Amendment in 1913 the people of this country demanded their legislators levy an income tax on accumulated wealth. This was because families such as the Camegies and the Morgans were virtually untaxed and controlling national politics with their vast and ever-increasing fortunes.
By reading the Congressional Record, House and Senate documents, newspapers, magazines, law journal articles of the time and the writings of the people who were intimately involved in the development of the 16th Amendment, we will find that the intent was to tax the annual profit from unincorporated businesses and the net annual income from personal property. Wages and salaries from labor were not considered income within the original meaning and intent of the 16th Amendment.
http://www.constitutionalincome.com/sup_ct_pet.php
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
In 1986, the Seventh Circuit observed:
Quote:
Some people believe with great fervor preposterous things that just happen to coincide with their self-interest. “Tax protesters” have convinced themselves that wages are not income, that only gold is money, that the Sixteenth Amendment is unconstitutional, and so on. These beliefs all lead — so tax protesters think — to the elimination of their obligation to pay taxes.
---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Why do you so fervently believe in empowering Big Government to unlawfully take what is rightfully yours ?
Oh , yeah , isn't it because you're counting on them for your paycheck ?
It is just as Jefferson predicted : The 'Money Power' is in control of your life...
Seems they control your thoughts , too...
The Circuit court opinion pales in the face of the January 1991 ruling of the US SUPREME COURT :
"...The Supreme Court ruled today that taxpayers who sincerely believe the Federal income tax laws do not apply to them cannot be convicted of criminal tax violations, even if there is no rational basis for their belief. "
Like I said , we're winning !
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
CRAPO
Quote:Crapo, do you even listen? He said he'd cut taxes for ppl who make less than 200,000, and not increase taxes for peeps between 200,000-250,000.
He said he'd CUT taxes.
Now, you claim he "lied" when he said that. Seems a little early to make that claim! How do YOU know whether Obama is "lying" or not?
---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
OUT2BLACK... I've looked into the issue of income tax. The Supreme Court ruling which you claim ruled income tax illegal did nothing of the kind. What you're doing is trying to put a new interpretation on an old ruling, which in LEGAL terms is a no-no. (In that sense you're like Rapo, trying to re-interpret UN Resolutions to meet the ideological need of the moment.)
Yes, I work for government. (And BTW- No, we are not funded by taxes. So all taxes could disappear tomorrow and we'd still be chugging along.) But as even HERO will tell you, when a law is written or a ruling is made, there are a lot of background documents that are retained in order to indicate the reasoning behind the decision. That is supposed to prevent accidental RE-interpretation of the ruling or law, if the actual wording is unclear. Peeps who like to reinterpret after the fact like to drill down on a single word or phrase, remove it from context, blow it up out of proportion, and then say See, it COULD mean this Well, it "could"- except it doesn't, when all taken into consideration.
My point being that in the ruling that you point to, the whole concept of "wage" taxes was never in doubt. Which is sad, but true.
Personally, I think the whole tax system should be re-done. Every April, it drives me bat-shit crazy, and I've posted several threads on the topic. But that's just my opinion, not the Supreme Court's.
---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
WULF
Quote:If Obama is a Socialist, so was Thomas Jefferson.
Obama IS a socialist. Socialism = BAD for America = Obama is likewise bad for America.
Quote:
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." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785.
http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff5.htm
Now, if the mere fact that Obama thinks we should be paying taxes makes him a "socialist:" in your view, then MANY of the Founding Fathers were socialists! I quoted Jefferson, Washington, and Ben Franklin on txes and guess what??
They all said you should pay 'em as it is your patriotic duty.
I guess Obama got that idea from them, since he's a Constitutional lawyer.
---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
CRAPOQuote:Crapo, do you even listen? He said he'd cut taxes for ppl who make less than 200,000, and not increase taxes for peeps between 200,000-250,000.
He said he'd CUT taxes.
Now, you claim he "lied" when he said that. Seems a little early to make that claim! How do YOU know whether Obama is "lying" or not?
---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.
It seems so easy for CRappy to see the "lies" others spread, and so hard for her to see the lies that she spreads.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
OUT2BLACK... I've looked into the issue of income tax. The Supreme Court ruling which you claim ruled income tax illegal did nothing of the kind. What you're doing is trying to put a new interpretation on an old ruling, which in LEGAL terms is a no-no. (In that sense you're like Rapo, trying to re-interpret UN Resolutions to meet the ideological need of the moment.)
Yes, I work for government. (And BTW- No, we are not funded by taxes. So all taxes could disappear tomorrow and we'd still be chugging along.) But as even HERO will tell you, when a law is written or a ruling is made, there are a lot of background documents that are retained in order to indicate the reasoning behind the decision. That is supposed to prevent accidental RE-interpretation of the ruling or law, if the actual wording is unclear. Peeps who like to reinterpret after the fact like to drill down on a single word or phrase, remove it from context, blow it up out of proportion, and then say See, it COULD mean this Well, it "could"- except it doesn't, when all taken into consideration.
My point being that in the ruling that you point to, the whole concept of "wage" taxes was never in doubt. Which is sad, but true.
Personally, I think the whole tax system should be re-done. Every April, it drives me bat-shit crazy, and I've posted several threads on the topic. But that's just my opinion, not the Supreme Court's.
What you mean to say , rather than " I've looked into Income Tax " , is that you've taken a cursory glance into yet another subject about which you are massively uninformed , made yet another snap judgment , and formed yet another unfounded opinion...
Then you put your false 'spin' on what you perceive to be my 'interpretation'...
It's no wonder that you are chronically confused...
With the kind of pattern that you employ , you can't hope to apprehend and then apply accurate information...Don't worry , though , you have several others like you , in your little posse'...
You folk imagining yourselves to be 'patriotic' make life more difficult for those of us who actually are .
The Supreme Court ruling from January 1991 could hardly be considered 'old' , considering how infrequently such issues actually get to make it to the Court .
The recent ruling known as 'Heller' , concerning the District of Columbia's long-standing , illicit 'ban' of handguns , was the first major 2nd Amendment-related ruling in about 70 Years .
Which illustrates how long it can take to eradicate BAD LAW...
Like I've said before , you have no difficulty uncovering several facts in a row , but you do have much trouble with applying them accurately or illustrating their relevance...
Your 'hero' might not do a lot better....I would hope that he could inform a discussion about this issue with some applicable cites...He's been oddly silent about standing up to the attacks made against Joe The Plumber...
" ...when a law is written or a ruling is made, there are a lot of background documents that are retained in order to indicate the reasoning behind the decision. That is supposed to prevent accidental RE-interpretation of the ruling or law, if the actual wording is unclear. Peeps who like to reinterpret after the fact like to drill down on a single word or phrase, remove it from context, blow it up out of proportion..."
Oddly for you , you're not even good at it when you apply your own assertion...
Otherwise , you could never pile on when folk claim that some Average Joe is " a tax cheat " .
How 'Patriotic' is that ?
You still haven't informed us about how Title 26 has been enacted into positive Law...
You don't because You can't...Better still , it hasn't .
You could inform Folk about how the intent of the 16th Amendment was never to impose a tax on anyone's labor or their compensation...But you didn't , because you didn't manage to expose that fact...
But , I did...
You misapplied the quote from Jefferson , as is your practice...
Jefferson
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Kinda like your assumption that my job depends on taxes?
Then you put your false 'spin' on what you perceive to be my 'interpretation'...
---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:Kinda like your assumption that my job depends on taxes?
Then you put your false 'spin' on what you perceive to be my 'interpretation'...
I didn't assume that , nor did I state such a thing...
What I said is that you believe in allowing Big Government to take what is rightfully yours...
And you DO depend upon them for your paycheck...
Never mentioned 'taxes' at all , in that comment...
Like others among the ruefully-retarded , the best you can manage , knowing that you've been so badly beaten , is to attempt to put words in my mouth...
You folk only fool yourselves...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Look, I'm kinda busy today. I'll go thru the rulings in detail tomorrow, maybe.
---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Now, if the mere fact that Obama thinks we should be paying taxes makes him a "socialist:" in your view, then MANY of the Founding Fathers were socialists! I quoted Jefferson, Washington, and Ben Franklin on txes and guess what??
They all said you should pay 'em as it is your patriotic duty.
I guess Obama got that idea from them, since he's a Constitutional lawyer.
No , the Founders did not say such a thing at all...
You misapply what they said...Hoping to make it prop up your position...While you slander our dead heroes who are no longer able to respond or to defend against your spoutings of lunacy...
They were never in favor of the Taxation Without Representation such as exists today...
We cannot get a hearing , or even the courtesy of a response , from a vast majority of the members of CONgress...
The 'Money Power' is firmly in CONtrol of our 'government'...
That is what the Founders defined as 'Tyranny' !
Obama is no 'Constitutional' lawyer...
Can you name a single case where he ever successfully argued on Constitutional issues and was ruled to be correct ?
Of course you can't...
Turns out , in your rampant favoring of Socialism , you are wrong once again...
A much better case can be made that Obama is a Socialist , than that he is a Constitutional 'lawyer'...
But , you don't even wanna go there...
'Cause that would be fighting a war that you've already lost...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Look, I'm kinda busy today. I'll go thru the rulings in detail tomorrow, maybe.
Yeah , I guess you figure that it's your 'ball' .
You Socialists are always like that...
Never mind that you stole the ball from the kid who bought it with his own hard-earned coin...
Take it on home...
You kids run along now...If the game isn't played the way you want it to be played , that's the best you can manage...
Take it and go home...You'll never play with the Big Kids...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Funny how nobody mentioned the Shay's or Whiskey Rebellion, and exactly what started them.
And just how right the Anti-Federalists were about Hamilton and the rest of those fucking Federalist scum, which haunt us even today in the personage of the GOP.
The worst of it is that those two incidents proved beyond a doubt that the Federalists lied through their teeth about that whole "consent of the governed" thing and only our arms would protect us from their inevitable abuses, coming to a head in 1851 when it could be tolerated no more, and America as expressed in the Constitution was prettymuch assassinated by that meglomaniacal tyrant monster Lincoln shortly thereafter.
It disgusts me that we built a monument of such a monster.
Let's just quit pretending this country rules by "consent of the governed" ok, cause the truth is that when we the people withdraw that consent, the Gov takes up arms and forces compliance, which is, no bones about it, rule of the gun.
And a pretty powerful incentive to not meekly hand ours over, thank you verra much.
Those pricks up on Capitol Hill do NOT respresent us, and it's laughable to suggest that they do in the face of plain realities, so as such, would it not in fact be taxation without representation ?
Let's cut the bullshit, Mather Byles did have a point when he said "which is better—to be ruled by one tyrant three thousand miles away, or by three thousand tyrants not a mile away?"
In spite of what those fancy pieces of paper say, the "arm of our discontent" as Pat Henry and Madison expressed it, is force of arms, and since there is no longer a parity of that between us citizens and the forces of Government, we've been reduced to essentially chattel begging the master for favors, is what it is.
All the pretending in the world isn't gonna change that, not unless and until folks are willing to bleed to make it untrue, and for a fact, they ain't.
So let's not hear any more tales of Government benevolence, when it's so painfully clear to anyone who knows our history at all what lies behind that paper thin facade.
They want, they outgun us, and so they take, and all else is just fucking excuses.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Funny how nobody mentioned the Shay's or Whiskey Rebellion, and exactly what started them.
"...And just how right the Anti-Federalists were about Hamilton and the rest of those fucking Federalist scum, which haunt us even today in the personage of the GOP.
The worst of it is that those two incidents proved beyond a doubt that the Federalists lied through their teeth about that whole "consent of the governed" thing and only our arms would protect us from their inevitable abuses, coming to a head in 1851 when it could be tolerated no more, and America as expressed in the Constitution was prettymuch assassinated by that meglomaniacal tyrant monster Lincoln shortly thereafter.
It disgusts me that we built a monument of such a monster. "
All good points , Frem...
It's always all manner of pleasin' to see you in top form .
The reason not to bring up matters of historical inconvenience like Shay's or the Whiskey Rebellion , is that if folk still don't get the
'Basic basics' , they probably won't get the finer points (!) of history , either...
I don't like feeding the monster , or its progeny...
" Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."
--Mao Tse-Tung
What those leaning toward Socialism fail to take into account is that Karl Marx considered socialism only an intermediate step into Communism...
Considering how weak we've become due to 'domestic' enemies , we're more than half the way there...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"In the case of Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. the Supreme Court declared certain income taxes — taxes on income from property under the 1894 Act — to be unconstitutionally unapportioned direct taxes. The Court reasoned that a tax on income from property should be treated as a tax on "property by reason of its ownership," and should therefore be required to be apportioned. The reasoning was that taxes on the rents from land, the dividends from stocks and so on burdened the property generating the income in the same way that a tax on "property by reason of its ownership" burdened that property.
This meant that, after Pollock, while income taxes on wages (as indirect taxes) were still not required to be apportioned by population, taxes on interest, dividends and rent income were required to be apportioned by population. "
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0157_0429_ZO.h
tml
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Taxes are the lifeblood of any government.
OF COURSE THEY WANT TAXES. Helps to control the population just that much more.
Socialists here, like Rue, want that. They want the government in control of their lives. But they want the Government THEY LIKE to have that power.
I, on the other hand, think government should get the fuck out of my way.
Sure, its a necessary evil.
We need roads, and to curtail corporations from getting too powerfull or ruining peoples lives or the environment.
We need a standing army, and we need Education.
We need to protect the environment, and to secure our borders.
Not to mention cops.
However, this can all be done with no income tax.
Rue and her ilk, just don't want to put in the effort of protecting/doing for themselves. Its always "someone elses job"
Which is basically the Lib mantra. Its always some form of passing the buck.
Don't wnat to protect yourself? MORE COPS!
Don't want to lose weight? BAN TRANSFATS!
Want to drive less than a block to Whole Foods without feeling guilty? GET A PRIUS!
Feeling guilty for your stupidity? ZOLOFT!
Can't raise your kids right? RITALIN!
Want to make an easy buck? SUE OVER HOT COFFEE or CLAIM RACISM!
Guns make you feel icky? GUN LAWS!
So fat you can't fit in the seat of an airplane? FAT DISCRIMINATION!
PASS THE BUCK! And ALWAYS pay for it with MY MONEY.
Screw that. let the chips fall where they may, and get rid of any income tax.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Chris, Is All
I haven't had a chance to go back through all the posts, but I think your question got lost in the shuffle.
Here is my take on it:
I believe a higher tax on luxuries vs necessities probably wouldn't work.
To get to the details first:
How do you define a luxury ? Let's say I'm a billionaire and I buy an estate for $250M. Is that a luxury, or is that just my 'housing, which is a necessity ? Since $250M seems excessive for mere 'housing' perhaps price could be used as a cutoff. But one thing we know is that housing (whether purchase or rental) is much, much higher in some places (NYC) than in others places (Watertown). So maybe the housing 'necessity' baseline should be apportioned based on median prices. But what happens when a farmer in Montana who's been struggling with a marginal dairy farm for generations decides to sell her acreage to a developer for multi-million dollar amount, and that developer then creates multiple multi-million dollar estates ? (This is some thing that is an actual issue in Montana.) Suddenly the median housing prices goes waaaayyy up - from the cost of the one original farmhouse to the multiple multi-million dollar estates. But even if you somehow figure that into the scheme, you still have to adjust local prices for hotter and more expensive moves in the housing market year by year, or for declines in the housing market - like now.
The same could be said for cars, food, and clothing, and other necessity / luxury purchases. You need to draw a reasonable line somewhere, and then you need to keep redrawing that line every year. And then of course people will find ways around it (off the books sales, barter). In terms of administration, it's far from the simple automatic system it may first appear to be.
The second question is whether or not such a tax could actually fund government. The only way to get a really good idea would be to model the effect of the tax policy. (There did used to be such a system, but Bush had the computer shut down and the people who did the work disbanded before his first income tax cuts - so he wouldn't have to say what the effect on government income would be. It was a good predictor - I just mention it b/c I want to point out that that kind of prediction is complicated.) But my feeling is that such a tax wouldn't be enough. If luxury spending and investment ('tinkle-on' economics) aren't enough to drive an economy, I suspect luxury taxes wouldn't be enough to fund a government either.
This isn't to say I like the way income taxes are currently structured. I think it's ridiculous that people below the poverty line pay any taxes at all, which they do. I think if businesses get to deduct their expenses and get taxed only on the 'excess' income (profit), then people should be allowed to do the same ----- or the other way around. In other words, I don't believe in two sets of rules, one that favors businesses and hammers individuals. And so on and so forth.
But I think progressive taxes are an important tool to maintain a democracy by preventing the rise of a wealthy kleptocracy. Which then, as we see in practice, runs the government for its own economic benefit. BTW, Adam Smith (father of capitalism - or at least capitalism theory) believed the wealthy should pay a HIGHER percentage of tax on their income as an ECONOMIC means of redistributing wealth and keeping the pumps of capitalism primed (the terminology comes from Keynes, the idea comes from Smith). I'll try to get the quote later.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Rue and her ilk, just don't want to put in the effort of protecting/doing for themselves. Its always "someone elses job"
Which is basically the Lib mantra. Its always some form of passing the buck.
Don't wnat to protect yourself? MORE COPS!
I thought it was always the Republicans who claimed the "law and order" plank, and wanted more, more, and always MORE cops.
You say "Libs" can't or won't protect or do for themselves. How does that square with your "standing army", your defense budget, your homeland security department, and all other manner of your "protect us from terrorists!" governmental bullshit?
Fact is, you're as guilty as those you try to paint as "socialists". You want to keep a huge standing army (a socialist form of defense), which takes up sixty cents of every single tax dollar collected in income taxes. How is that any different from what you accuse Rue of? Rue wants better schools, better healthcare, better education, and a better system of paying workers. You basically say "Fuck that - give it all to the army and they'll figure it out." And you act as if that's a better plan!
What you don't get is that we're screwed either way. You're not going to do away with taxes. You're not even going to LESSEN taxes by any appreciable amount; if you do, look for them to be immediately replaced with "fees" and other "hidden taxes" invented to keep YOUR money flowing to the government, always and forever, amen.
IF we're going to have to give up a chunk of our money (and we are), all Rue, Signy, and others are asking is that we at least get value for money on it. Instead of pissing away three to six TRILLION dollars bombing the fuck out of people we don't have a legitimate gripe with, why can't we take that money and invest it in our future? That kind of money would buy health insurance and a college education for nearly every man, woman, and child in this great nation of ours.
Which do you think would make us a stronger nation? One with a well-educated, healthy populace ready and eager to face the challenges of a 21st-century economy, or one with a lot of planes, a lot of bombs, and a lot of ditchdiggers?
EC
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I had back taxes of nearly $1500 a year ago? So what? A lot of people have back taxes. It doesn't mean you aren't paying your taxes - unless of course you question the Left, then you're a fraud and a tax evader.
What’s really sad about this is all the Liberals who scream and yell about abuse of power when it comes to the Right, but now that we have an innocent man being investigated for the criminal act of questioning the righteous Obama – there’s no concern whatsoever.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
What a load - like usual.
The question isn't whether or not 'Joe the Plumber' lied - it's how MANY lies he told.
BTW - before McCain decided to spotlight 'Joe the Plumber' and his non-existent tax problem he should have vetted him. But once McCain put the spotlight on 'Joe', it was 'the media' who camped out on his front lawn, dug into his records, and exposed the lies. And once those come to the attention of the authorities (no plumber's license, driving on a revoked Texas driver's license) they have no choice but to investigate. 'The Democrats' haven't and aren't investigating anyone.
***************************************************************
'Joe the Plumber' - just another McCain-crafted fraud.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yes, rue, I understand that you’re, to at least some extent, unconcerned with the way people are treated if they don’t push a certain line. You don’t have to make that point any further.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Hey, I happen to kow Rue. Rue lived in some pretty rough neighborhoods, and used to work in County Hospital just down the hallway from emergency psychiatric. It was pretty common for strung-out addicts and crazies to wander in the stat-lab looking for drugs. Rue has talked, walked, blustered and threatened her way out of more tight spots that you can imagine. So
Rue and her ilk, just don't want to put in the effort of protecting/doing for themselves. Its always "someone elses job"
you! OTOH, when it comes to terrists, you can't WAIT to have someone "do it for you" even if it means rounding up innocent people, spying on nearly everyone, and pretty much giving up habeas corpus. You'll call in the military, the police, the spies... someone, anyone, to protect you from the bogeyman!
Quote:Joe the Plumber put himself before the media. If he didn't want media scrutiny he shouldn't have invited media attention. One comes with the other, and if HE didn't understand that then his handlers should have. Gawd, you right-wingers are a bunch of pansies! (I'm talking about the flower.)
Yes, rue, I understand that you’re, to at least some extent, unconcerned with the way people are treated if they don’t push a certain line. You don’t have to make that point any further.
---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"... now that we have an innocent man being investigated for the criminal act ..."
Of driving without a valid license. Of working as a plumber without a valid license. Of not paying last year's income taxes.
But hey, if he's innocent then he really has nothing to fear, right ? You said the same thing about the US PATRIOT Act, Americans being spied-on and eavesdropped-on. So, what's YOUR problem ?
***************************************************************
What goes around, comes around.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
HA!
Sigy you never fail to amuse me.
I NEVER said that what the government is doing is right when it comes to terrorists....
But lets list what you said and answer each in turn, shall we?
1. Spying. Fuck that shit. If I could get away with it, and not hurt anyone, I would burn down all the databases and files on everyones. Then I would destroy all the goddamned cameras.
2. Rounding up innoncent people. I have never thought, now would I ever believe, that being Muslim was a crime. Do I think they should lock Farra-fucka-khan up? Maybe torture him a bit? Sure. But NOT because hes Muslim.
3. Habeus Corpus. If you are a citizen of this country, that is a right that should never be taken away.
4 As to Rue. Hell, most of us here have seen a lot of shit. Delt with the scum and came out alive, in the very least. Im not taking that away.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
WULF- Then why the trash-talk? If you're going to diss someone at least do it on something real, not on your notion of what they think.
You make a lot of assumptions about "liberals", and prolly most of them are wrong.
---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sig, I think Wulfie means well, he's just tellin it like he's been told - factually I think there's more common ground there than either of ya might admit, you could try seekin it.
Me, now - the idea of a standing army is offensive cause it's unconstitutional and a danger to liberty, especially now that the powers that be intend to deploy it against us...
But the real, and more dangerous "standing army" that our founders feared was in fact what amounts to our federalised, militarised police force which acts more like an invading army than voluntary protectors.
And Knox did flake us on that, but Gov isn't gonna admit that and choke that golden goose, oh hell no they won't.
It's not taxes that bother me, although I'd be a liar if I said they didn't - it's what we DO with em, roads, schools, hospitals, education, sure...
Foreign aid, corporate welfare, feeding the Military Industrial complexes ravenous appetite, oh hell no.
Instead of a 1040, we should adapt a new form where each person gets to decide for themselves exactly where every penny of their taxes go - if the people are unwilling to fund it, it doesn't get done, simple.
We'd see a lot of this bullshit stop pretty quick, wouldn't we ?
But nope, that's the whole consent of the governed thing, which we threw out the window in 1851 - if you don't pay, they use force and violence against you, whether or not you want, use or benefit from the stuff they're paying for.
Rule of the gun, in all honest truth, plain theft, institutionalised and codified.
How you think I feel about my money going to "faith based initiatives" that skim a good chunk of it to finance preaching hate against folk like me ?
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well yanno Frem, I really sick and tired of ppl trashing anyone who isn't an evangelical, small-town, Attila-the-Hun ultra-right-wing. This, just from CNN
'Liberals hate real Americans'
Fuck that shit, and 'em all.
Quote:http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com
(CNN) — A North Carolina congressman locked in a tight re-election race admitted Tuesday to recently telling a crowd of John McCain supporters that "liberals hate real Americans," the latest in a string of comments from Republicans that appear to question Democrats' patriotism. Rep. Robin Hayes, a five-term Republican who has been heavily targeted by Democrats this election cycle, first denied making the remarks, but conceded Monday afternoon that he was accurately quoted.
Palin apologizes for 'real America' comment
And
her too. www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/21/palin.sitroom/index.html
Why should I put up with that small-minded, vicious crap?
---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
HA!
2. Rounding up innoncent people. I have never thought, now would I ever believe, that being Muslim was a crime. Do I think they should lock Farra-fucka-khan up? Maybe torture him a bit? Sure. But NOT because hes Muslim.
3. Habeus Corpus. If you are a citizen of this country, that is a right that should never be taken away.
So you're all for full rights for "citizens", but not so much for Farrakhan. Last time I checked, wasn't he a U.S. citizen? But I guess it's okay if you just torture him a little bit, eh?
You're not in favor of rounding up innocent people, and you don't think being Muslim is a crime - so what crime is it that you think Farrakhan has committed?
Or do you just think it's okay to round up and torture those whose views don't match yours?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Then why the trash-talk?"
Because I don't agree the country should be on the gold standard and because I don't think income tax is illegal.
Other than that, we pretty much agree on most things.
***************************************************************
ETA - Oh wait - that was OTB. NEVER mind !
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, sure, it can be annoying and offensive - but I do not take Wulf for a dyed in the wool koolaid chugger, just someone who's been drinking it unknowing a long time, and has recently started to realize it tastes kinda funny...
I might be sharp with him, but I have a lot of respect for the fact that he honestly seems to be trying to challenge even his own preconceptions about the way things are.
Like I told Out2B in another thread, you could try a reasoned, dispassionate approach to educate before you haul out the flamethrowers sometimes.
And it's not like he's the only blisteringly insulting needlehead around here to deal with - given that we tend to go rounds so often as well.
And yet even we have common ground.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Well, sure, it can be annoying and offensive - but I do not take Wulf for a dyed in the wool koolaid chugged, just someone who's been drinking it unknowing a long time, and has recently started to realize it tastes kinda funny...
I might be sharp with him, but I have a lot of respect for the fact that he honestly seems to be trying to challenge even his own preconceptions about the way things are.
Like I told Out2B in another thread, you could try a reasoned, dispassionate approach to educate before you haul out the flamethrowers sometimes.
And it's not like he's the only blisteringly insulting needlehead around here to deal with - given that we tend to go rounds so often as well.
And yet even we have common ground.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
Needlehead?
lol
Frem, the truth AS ALWAYS is somewhere in the middle.
It is not your anarchistic world view, any more than it is Rue's socialistic one. Nor Citizens bowing to the crown, or anyone else bowing to whomever is in charge.
The solution is ALWAYS to let people do as they will, and let the culture and society they come from guide them.
Yes, it may cause wars, as 2 cultures can clash. But you know what? GOOD. We overpopulate as a matter of course. So a little thinning of the herd is not such a bad thing.
I'm reminded of the Matrix....humans can be just like the flu.
Lets be honest. War is a good thing, from an overpopulation standpoint. We cut down on our numbers while keeping a viable genetic pool going.
Thats why there won't ever be a cure for cancer. Even if we found one, it would never reach the gen pop. We need cancer, and A.I.D.S, and heart disease too.... as a way to keep our numbers down.
I know I sound like PN in this, but prove me wrong.
Ok, now I've really gone off on a tangent and my head hurts....I'll see you guys in a bit.
And Frem? Wtf is with the Kool-Aid thing? Is this a Jim Jones reference or am I way off?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
'Liberals hate real Americans'
Quote:http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com
(CNN) — A North Carolina congressman locked in a tight re-election race admitted Tuesday to recently telling a crowd of John McCain supporters that "liberals hate real Americans," the latest in a string of comments from Republicans that appear to question Democrats' patriotism. Rep. Robin Hayes, a five-term Republican who has been heavily targeted by Democrats this election cycle, first denied making the remarks, but conceded Monday afternoon that he was accurately quoted.
Palin apologizes for 'real America' comment
www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/21/palin.sitroom/index.html
Why should I put up with that small-minded, vicious crap?
Because you're small-minded and vicious ?
And , calling you that's an insult to the small-minded and vicious community...
Your crap has an odor about it , too...
To be fair , you might've included a bit of what the article actually said :
'...Palin also apologized Tuesday for any misunderstanding caused when she referred last week to the patriotic values of "the real America" and "pro-America areas of this great nation."
Democrats and others criticized Palin for seeming to imply that some parts of the country are more patriotic than others.
Palin denied that was her intention in an interview with CNN on Tuesday.
"I don't want that misunderstood," Palin said. "If that's the way it came across, I apologize." '
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
'Liberals hate real Americans'
F*#k that sh!+, and
Upon further reflection , seems we do have common ground...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:O2B, for the most part I've discussed your ideas on their merits. I don't think I've called you names. I've actually looked up the rulings and so forth in question, and have promised that I would try to get back with you point by point when I have the time. But in our discussions, the minute I deviate from your brain-track you start name-calling, just like you're doing now.
Because you're small-minded and vicious ?
And yanno what? Sarah Palin can apologize all she wants. But she should take responsibility for what she said (After all, her party stands for "accountability" right?), which was
Quote:So somehow people who live in big cities aren't "real", "everyday" Americans? That pretty much goes along with Bill O'Reilly's "You can bomb the Coit Tower" moment, and all those other little goodies brought to you by the intolerant right.
We believe that the best of America is in these small towns that we get to visit, and in these wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America, being here with all of you hard working very patriotic, um, very, um, pro-America areas of this great nation. This is where we find the kindness and the goodness and the courage of everyday Americans.
---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
(Kool-Aid) Is this a Jim Jones reference ...
Yes - and you'll set it a lot of places. It means exactly that.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
...Hey, I happen to kow Rue. Rue lived in some pretty rough neighborhoods, and used to work in County Hospital just down the hallway from emergency psychiatric.
OTOH, when it comes to terrists,
I still wonder , SignyM , do you just type faster than you think , or are you a crappy speller , too ?
When you say that you 'kow' Rue , is that something like when you'd 'pork' 'em ?
Hard to keep up with the fancy talk of all you young 'uns...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:O2B, for the most part I've discussed your ideas on their merits. I've actually looked up the rulings and so forth in question, and have promised that I would try to get back with you point by point when I have the time. But in our discussions, you've taken the short-cut of name-calling fairly frequently, just like you're doing now.
Because you're small-minded and vicious ?
And yanno what? Sarah Palin can apologize all she wants. But she should take responsibility for what she said (After all, her party stands for "accountability" right?), which wasQuote:
We believe that the best of America is in these small towns that we get to visit, and in these wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America, being here with all of you hard working very patriotic, um, very, um, pro-America areas of this great nation. This is where we find the kindness and the goodness and the courage of everyday Americans.
There's a lot to be said for small-town folk...
I understand her meaning...
Just don't understand all the hate and vitriol against the Governor particularly...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"When you say that you 'kow' (sic) Rue , is that something like when you'd 'pork' 'em ?
Hard to keep up with the fancy talk of all you young 'uns..."
AAhhh - in your very clumsy way you want to say 'know' as in 'had knowledge of', or 'and he knew her'.
Actually, it's a very old style meaning, not new at all. If you were more literate, you'd already 'know' that.
But thanks for your interest in 'knowing' about SignyM, and 'knowing' about me.
BTW - I take it as a real badge of honor that you (aka 'off track'), Kirkules, Jong (AKA Erica), Saint Rap, self-appointed martyr for the 'truth', hypocrisy practitioner and racist bigot, and whoZIT dislike me so much. It's a great accomplishment and one of which I am very proud.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Her meaning was VERY clear. The vitriol is because of her demonstrable lies and divisiveness. If she can't take it, maybe she shouldn't spread it around. Like manure.
There's a lot to be said for small-town folk...
BTW- I come from a small town. I now live in a big city. I am as "real" an American now as I was then. And "back then" I was anti-(Vietnam) war, along with most of my high-school class. Although they've moved on to big cities too, they're ALSO "real" Americans.
Palin. ETA: I just caught this:
Quote:So, speaking of intolerance, hate and vitriol, I think I'm fully justified in saying
still wonder , SignyM , do you just type faster than you think , or are you a crappy speller , too ? When you say that you 'kow' Rue , is that something like when you'd 'pork' 'em
you too, O2B.I was prepared to discuss your viewpoint on its merits. You, apparently, are not.
---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
More like cannot.
I've noticed whenever he gets short on facts he gets long on vitriol.
I'm so pleased that gold had gone down substantially. Yep, just goes to show that gold has intrinsic value all right, just like argon (or maybe silver), because they’re ELEMENTS ! on the periodic TABLE ! that have PROPERTIES ! that CAN'T be changed ! Which makes them VALUABLE ! because they have PROPERTIES !
***************************************************************
His argument is a perfect circle.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
The solution is ALWAYS to let people do as they will, and let the culture and society they come from guide them.
*snicker*
Ummm... point of fact - that IS the anarchistic world view, actually.
As for the kool-aid thing, most folk use it as a jim jones reference insinuating that the folk it's tossed at don't think for themselves, but that isn't what I mean when I reference the term.
When I say "drinkin the koolaid" I mean adherence to a particular line of political philosophy or thought, over and above ones own personal principles, which doesn't mean they can not think for themselves, only that they've chosen that adherence for a reason - and I always wonder what it is.
The reason I used it in this instance is because I honestly think you only half-believe, barely believe, or maybe want to believe but kinda don't, some of the facets of the poltical lines of thought you've expressed - like someone who was raised catholic instictively crossing themselves in spite of having turned agnostic.
I can see the conflict as the light of reality reveals this stuff to you not in black and white, but rather shades of grey.
But you know, being Conservative - that ain't a bad thing, or a wrong thing, and it most certainly does not require one to toe the line of a party or line of thinking that's abandoned those principles.
Nor is being Liberal, whether dimitted folk stupidly proud of their own ignorance choose to use it as a slur or not.
The glorious thing about being an Anarchist is... there is no party line.
Ask 100 Anarchists a question, and you'll get at least 125 answers.
So anyhows, when I say kool-aid, it prettymuch translates to a partyline, and is a gentle mock against folk who take up a pre-existing position rather than express and explore their own, something you seem to be doing, cause as noted, it appears to me you weren't too impressed with the flavor you were initially offered.
And that's fine too, better that folk make their own decisions, yes ?
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I’ve stated my problem quite clearly, which you’ve back up very well. You don’t have any problem with a man being attacked because he chose to question a politician. Not just any politician though. If he had questioned a Republican then you’d be praising his name as if he were the second coming of Christ, but because he questioned a Democrat, you’re not only okay with him being ridiculed and attacked by the media, you participate.
Originally posted by rue:
"... now that we have an innocent man being investigated for the criminal act ..."
Of driving without a valid license. Of working as a plumber without a valid license. Of not paying last year's income taxes.
But hey, if he's innocent then he really has nothing to fear, right ? You said the same thing about the US PATRIOT Act, Americans being spied-on and eavesdropped-on. So, what's YOUR problem ?
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Wulfenstar wrote:
Thats why there won't ever be a cure for cancer. Even if we found one, it would never reach the gen pop. We need cancer, and A.I.D.S, and heart disease too.... as a way to keep our numbers down.
I know I sound like PN in this, but prove me wrong.
We disagree on a great many things, but like Frem said, you're trying. And on this, you're not exactly RIGHT, but I think you've got the seed of something in that statement.
The horrible truth of it is, there's far more money in TREATING things like cancer and AIDS than in outright curing them. Cure them, and big pharma only gets one bite at the apple; come up with a treatment, and you've got a lifelong supply of paying customers.
Pretty fucked up, huh?
Mike
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I don't have a problem with a man being questioned because he lied about virtually everything relevant to his situation
You don’t have any problem with a man being attacked because he chose to question a politician.
Not a plumber
Makes only $40,000 a year,
Has NO PLANS to buy the plumbing business
Couldn't, even if he wanted to
And the business itself makes only $100,000 a year.
Is not an Independent, but a registered Republican.
And a relative of Charles Keating (Recall that McCain was one of the Keating Five.)
His mission was to "put a human face" on Obama's tax plan, one that peeps could identify with. (Identity politics)
But it turns out that "human face" was a hypothetical construct: IF he were a plumber, and IF he wanted to buy the business and IF he was in a position to do so and IF the business made more than $250,000 a year... And of course, his question isn't politically-motivated 'cause he's just an honest, everyday hard-working Joe, who is a fair-minded Independent unconnected with the Party machine
So if we're going to "put a human face" on Obama's tax plan, let's put a REAL human face on it.
Yanno, my SO and I, we got education, we've worked hard and saved all of our lives. We've done OK. We're net worth millions. EVEN THEN, we're not negatively impacted by Obama's tax plan. OTOH, we have a mentally disabled daughter and several pre-existing conditions in the family. I saw what my MIL had to go thru to get insurance after she divorced; hell, I was the one who called a dozen insurance companies begging for a health plan to cover HER pre-existing conditions. I practically had to have phone sex with an insurance agent to convince him to sell her a plan for a huge sum of money every month.
Does Obama's tax plan bother us? Not so much. OTOH, McCain's "health plan" scares the crap out of us.
---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:So maybe you should point this out to the media so that you can be investigated, ridiculed and attacked, since you and rue seem to believe that this is the appropriate way to address citizens who question politicians.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Does Obama's tax plan bother us? Not so much. OTOH, McCain's "health plan" scares the crap out of us.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn, did "Joe the Plumber" misrepresent himself?
Yes or no?
Quote:First of all, I wouldn't want to subject our daughter to widespread attention. She's naive and doesn't know when people are lying, and unlike Palin I don't want to use our child as a political prop. Without that consideration I'd say: Bring it on. They can investigate all they want since all I'm doing is telling the truth. Unlike "Joe" the "plumber", an "Independent" who "wants" to purchase a business that "makes over $250,000 per year".
So maybe you should point this out to the media so that you can be investigated, ridiculed and attacked
---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No. I haven’t seen anything to suggest to me that he was misrepresenting anything. This is a desperate attempt to discredit a man you don’t agree with. He was questioning a politician with a legitimate scenario. A scenario which effectively revealed a truth this politician probably would have preferred you not know. And that’s the real reason you have a problem with “Joe the Plumber.” And your argument is hypocritical. In two ways, first you aren’t willing to put yourself in the same spotlight as Joe, but you’ll certainly help ridicule him. And secondly, you’re hiding behind your daughter, even as you criticize others for that same thing.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Finn, did "Joe the Plumber" misrepresent himself?
Yes or no?
I sympathize with your situation concerning your daughter, but we have two very different points of view here. I don’t think that the media has any reason to investigate and ridicule this man, nor would I think they should have any reason to do the same with you and your daughter. Examining the ISSUE is one thing, but what the media is doing, and what you are advocating, is ad hominem – attacking the person because you don’t like what they stand for. You can’t advocate one world for Joe the plumber and another for your daughter.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Frem, et all.
I have never blindly followed any particular path, or party. (Except when I was 6 and still believed in Santa Claus)
But the truth, as I see it, is always in the middle of 2 (or more) political ideologies.
Yes, much of the world IS a shade of gray. Its rare when you can find something that is either right or wrong with no in-between.
My problem is that I see so many who believe that their hot button issue is black and white, when its really a shade oa gray.
And vice versa. They see things that are clear cut, but chooses to view them in shades.
So no, I can't ever come around to one political (or religious) viewpoint simply because of where it leads.
ANYTHING, taken to extreme and excess, will be wrong. Conservatism, Socialism, Anarchism, Liberalism, Fundementalism (of any religion), Environmentalism, and any/all other isms you can think of.
I mean, really. Name me one hot button issue where the answer is NOT in the middle.
The answer is, of course to navigate between all of the ideologies for what is best for the people. Not best for you belief structure or party. But, FOR THE PEOPLE. AS A WHOLE, AS A COUNTRY, AS A NATION.
Then, when the culture is able to take care of itself, when the people no longer rely on government as a means to give order to their lives, when in fact, the culture has grown to the point where it can ONCE AGIN be self-governed, then you get rid of most of the government.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"If he had questioned a Republican then you’d be praising his name as if he were the second coming of Christ ..."
Now here you're making a lot of assumptions, something you do quite frequently.
I have issues with lies and liars - of any kind (and yes, even you).
Speaking of lies, this appears to be a good place to post this:
GOP Rep. Robin Hayes, Saturday:
Liberals hate real Americans that work and achieve and believe in God.
Rep. Hayes' spokeswoman, Monday:
Hayes spokeswoman, Amanda Little, says that Hayes absolutely denies making the comments that appear in the Observer article. She noted that other national reporters were at the event and didn’t pick up on what the Observer reported.
Hayes spokeswoman Little is still denying it and accuses The Crypt of “irresponsible journalism.”
Rep. Hayes, yesterday, after an audio recording of his comments surfaced:
I genuinely did not recall making the statement and, after reading it, there is no doubt that it came out completely the wrong way. I actually was trying to work to keep the crowd as respectful as possible, so this is definitely not what I intended.
Gov. Sarah Palin, last Wednesday:
We believe that the best of America is in these small towns that we get to visit, and in these wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America, being here with all of you hard working very patriotic, um, very, um, pro-America areas of this great nation.
Gov. Palin, last night on CNN:
I certainly don’t want that interpreted as one area being more patriotic or more American than another. If that’s the way it has come across, I apologize.
GOP Rep. Michelle Bachmann, last Wednesday:
MATTHEWS: So you believe that Barack Obama may have anti- American views.
REP. BACHMANN: Absolutely. I'm very concerned that he (Obama) may have anti-American views. That's what the American people are concerned about. . . .
GOP Rep. Michelle Bachmann, Sunday:
HOST: You do feel his [Obama’s] views are anti-American?
BACHMANN: I feel his views are concerning. I’m calling on the media to investigate them. I’m not saying that his views are anti-American. That was a misreading of what I said. And so I don’t believe that’s my position.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:FINN, speaking of willful ignorance, all you had to do was google Joe + plumber + transcript to get this (edited for brevity)
No. I haven’t seen anything to suggest to me that he was misrepresenting anything
Quote:
Obama: What's your name?
Joe: My name's Joe Wurzelbacher.
Obama: Good to see you, Joe.
Joe: I'm getting ready to buy a company that makes about $250,000 … $270-$280,000 a year.
Obama: All right.
Joe: Your new tax plan's gonna tax me more, isn't it?
Obama: Well, here's what's gonna happen. If you're a small business which you would qualify as, first of all, you'd get a 50 percent tax credit, so you get a cut on taxes for your health care costs. So you would actually get a tax cut on that front. If your revenue is above $250,000...
Joe: Well, the reason why I ask you about the American Dream I mean, I work hard. I'm a plumber, I work 10-12 hours a day …
Obama: Absolutely.
Joe: … and I'm, you know, buying this company and I'm gonna continue to work that way. Now, if I buy another truck and adding something else to it and...
Obama: I'd have to look at your particular business but you might end up paying lower taxes under my plan and my approach than under John McCain's plan. I can't guarantee that 'cause I'd have to take a look at your business.
Joe: Okay, I understand that.
Obama: All right. Thanks for the question, though. I appreciate it. Okay, guys, I gotta get out here. I've gotta go prepare for this debate. But that was pretty good timing. Thanks.
www.tampabay.com/news/perspective/article858299.ece
It might help if you took the blinders off your eyes and unplugged your ears. Oh, and unstoppered your brain.
---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
It might help if you took the blinders off your eyes and unplugged your ears. Oh, and unstoppered your brain.
Maybe Joe the Plumber could run a drain-snake through his ears? Couldn't hurt...
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Don't you need a license to do that sort of thing?
---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hey, in his case it's not like it's brain surgery or anything.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!
Originally posted by SignyM:
Don't you need a license to do that sort of thing?
LOLisall!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I mean, really. Name me one hot button issue where the answer is NOT in the middle.
Compliance with the US Constitution.
Admittedly though, clear cut answers like that are damn rare, true enough.
I generally don't take a lot of politics seriously, but this past administration, both state (that bein Engler) and federal, have committed the sin of doin crap that affects me directly and personally, and I don't take that real lightly.
I mean, ya had Engler screwing the cab industry, and on top of that my local gas station owner, a decent stand up guy who was trying like hell to comply with all the stupid red tape and become an american, gets black-bagged by INS and DepHomeSec right on freakin main street and sent god knows where over a minor technical vio he woulda fixed had anyone told him about it...
And now the station has weeds growin up through it, and the only other one nearby is a bunch of nasty crooks who've been repeatedly fined for watering down their gas, monkeying with their meters and all that crap - who were more than happy to see their competition gone, grrr.
And of course, the fact that taxes eat more than a third of my income, which is barely enough to survive on, and I get reamed both on income, and every damned penny I spend to bail out a bunch of shitheads on wall street ?
These fuckers made it personal, yanno ?
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Thanks for proving my point.
Originally posted by SignyM:
FINN, speaking of willful ignorance, all you had to do was google Joe + plumber + transcript to get this (edited for brevity) ....
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hey Finn, I'm sorry for all the snark. Sorry, sorry, sorry.
---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn, I see we x-posted. But how does my post prove your point? You said you "didn't see" how Joe misrepresented himself, but all you had to do was find a transcript of the event. Joe didn't say "What if I was a plumber who wanted to buy a business making more than $250,00 a year?" So he lied.
---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Finn, I see we x-posted. But how does my post prove your point? You said you "didn't see" how Joe misrepresented himself, but all you had to do was find a transcript of the event. Joe didn't say "What if I was a plumber who wanted to buy a business making more than $250,00 a year?" So he lied.
---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.
But in "RepublicanWorld", he DIDN'T lie if he didn't know that he doesn't make that much money. See, in their world (according to AuCraptor), if you go about spewing utter and complete bullshit, but believe it to be true (in the face of logic or even overwhelming evidence to the contrary), then you aren't spreading lies.
Mike
What, no catchy sig-line?
Trolls Against McCain!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I have not seen any evidence that he lied, but the truth is that what he was doing was putting forth a scenario to test a politician. Your problem is that he successfully challenged the candidate for president you agree with, and in your mind that’s a sin. He dared to question a politician you agree with, so he must be destroyed. You want to discredit him. Just like the media. This is ad homenim being used against a voter who isn't towing the line you and the certain people in the media expect people to tow.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Finn, I see we x-posted. But how does my post prove your point? You said you "didn't see" how Joe misrepresented himself, but all you had to do was find a transcript of the event. Joe didn't say "What if I was a plumber who wanted to buy a business making more than $250,00 a year?" So he lied.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ummmm, Finn? Weren't you just trying to discredit Joe Biden because you don't agree with him as a VP choice? You've been blathering on about him somehow implying that Obama is weak because Biden said that someone, somewhere in the world will try to test a new president - as they've done since the nation was founded.
Let me guess: that's different, right? Isn't it always, when you do what you accuse others of doing?
Mike
What, no catchy sig-line?
Trolls Against McCain!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I have not seen any evidence that he lied...
Of course you haven't...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No. I was agreeing him. You should pay a little closer attention.
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Ummmm, Finn? Weren't you just trying to discredit Joe Biden because you don't agree with him as a VP choice?!
But here we have it again. Neither of you can seem to grasp the obvious notion that Obama and Biden should be challenged, they should be questioned. They are running for president – Joe the Plumber is not. Joe is among several million people who are voting Obama/Biden or McCain/Palin into office. As much as you and Signym wish your choice candidate were unquestionable and infallible – they are not. I should question Biden. And Joe the plumber should question Obama. And we as voters shouldn’t be attacked and ridiculed for questioning politicians.
And the ONLY reason I have to spell this out with third grade logic is because it is Obama and Biden that are being questioned. Neither you nor Signym have ever raised an eyebrow when McCain or Palin is questioned or even unfairly attacked. Such as you making asinine comments about McCain's time as POW.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
And the ONLY reason I have to spell this out with third grade logic is because it is Obama and Biden that are being questioned. Neither you nor Signym have ever raised an eyebrow when McCain or Palin is questioned or even unfairly attacked. Such as you making asinine comments about McCain's time as POW.
OK, wait - so it's NOT okay to question McCain about his POW time? But it IS okay to question Obama about Ayers? It's okay to question Biden's remarks, but not Joe the Plumber's?
And does McCain think Palin is a weak choice? After all, he said "I wasn't a mayor for a short period of time; I wasn't a governor for a short period of time." Clearly that means that he thinks Palin is a weak choice for VP, wouldn't you agree?
And the ONLY reason you have to use third-grade logic is because that's all you're capable of.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Even though everything Joe said was a deliberate falsehood?
I have not seen any evidence that he lied
Is that not a "lie" in your book?
Quote:But I think "Joe" was unsuccessful. I agree with what Obama said, so getting him to say it again isn't a problem for me. Is it for you?
Your problem is that he successfully challenged the candidate for president you agree with
I agree with you: I think everyone should be questioned substantively. I think you should be questioning yourself too, as I should be questioning myself. But curiously, you can't stand questions. Maybe that's why you feel so defensive of Joe.
---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Let me know when you get on the same page as the rest of us.
Originally posted by Kwicko:
OK, wait - so it's NOT okay to question McCain about his POW time? But it IS okay to question Obama about Ayers? It's okay to question Biden's remarks, but not Joe the Plumber's?
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You only claim it’s a falsehood because this person was successful in exposing Obama’s controversial politics.
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:Even though everything Joe said was a deliberate falsehood?
I have not seen any evidence that he lied
Quote:It’s a problem for a lot of people – that’s the reason why we’re talking about this. If Obama's response hadn't have been a problem for a lot of people the media, nor you, would care what "Joe the Plumber" thought.
Originally posted by SignyM:
But I think "Joe" was unsuccessful. I agree with what Obama said, so getting him to say it again isn't a problem for me. Is it for you?
Quote:Says the person ridiculing a voter for questioning Obama.
Originally posted by SignyM:
I agree with you: I think everyone should be questioned substantively. I think you should be questioning yourself too, as I should be questioning myself. But curiously, you can't stand questions. Maybe that's why you feel so defensive of Joe.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The answer to Joe's question, assuming that he were the real person that he is not, who actually made 250,000 dollars a year and was in a position to buy the company he worked at,
is that he will pay a little more money in taxes so taht he can make a lot more money with his small business. How many jobs do you think Joe is going to get out of all that money being consolidated in the hands of 1 percent of our populace. How many shots at those office buildings is he going to have? Which big company already has those contracts?
The answer to joe is that money works its way back up the chain, and that if all goes to plan, more will work its way into his hands before it moves on up it again. That if middle class americans have a little more dough, maybe they'll pay to have the plumber come over rather than to wait for their brother-in-law to show up at some point in the week when he has time, to come and fix the problem.
The answer is that if he gives a little now, it should make everything work better, all industries...and it will make the people at the top invest in the economy and in America in a way that doesn't give them an opportunity to just pilfer at the top, but forces them to continue to make a product that gets bought...luckily for them the product will be more likely to get bought, because more people will have money that is stimulating the economy.
Tell me where I'm wrong here, and how models of our current system have been so succesful, anyone?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:Quote:Let me know when you get on the same page as the rest of us.
Originally posted by Kwicko:
OK, wait - so it's NOT okay to question McCain about his POW time? But it IS okay to question Obama about Ayers? It's okay to question Biden's remarks, but not Joe the Plumber's?
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
Sorry, Cicero - I was reading ahead again. Do I need to slow down so you can catch up? Are your lips tired from all the reading?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Higher taxes result in a slower economy; cutting taxes results a growing economy – this is a fact that has been reproduced many times. So while in theory what you’re saying may seem sound, in practice it doesn’t work. And the reason it doesn’t work is because of the unfair way taxes are leveled to punish productivity and wealth. So what actually ends up happening is raising taxes results in fewer jobs, so there are fewer people making money to pay the plumber.
Originally posted by Righteous9:
Tell me where I'm wrong here, and how models of our current system have been so succesful, anyone?
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Always? Didn't we pay a bit more tax under Clinton? I seem to remember that economy was okay...(?)
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Higher taxes result in a slower economy
Quizzical Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:In an economic boom that started with Reagan cutting taxes. Clintons raising taxes did not improve the economy.
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:Always? Didn't we pay a bit more tax under Clinton? I seem to remember that economy was okay...(?)
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Higher taxes result in a slower economy
It’s really quite simple. Do you believe that a person is going to pay taxes on his company out of his pocket? The answer is probably not, if he can get around it, so who do you think ends up paying those taxes?
Let’s say that I have a company that brings in a million dollars annually. Out of that million/year I pay myself quarter of a million salary and the salary of 10 other people at $50000/year. You come along and raise my taxes by 10%. Do you really think I’m going to pay that 10% out of my pocket? Probably not. Instead I’ll balance the books so that I continue to make a $250,000/year, but I’ll fire an employee and raise prices by ~6%. So I’ve passed that tax off onto the consumer. Now there is one extra person without work and everyone must pay a higher cost for my product or service. And If I can’t afford to raise prices, I’ll just fire two people. This is the reason why demand side doesn’t work. You’ll never get the supply side to go along with it in a free world.
So raising taxes really just hurts the little guy. Now eventually, when prices rise enough and enough people are out of work because of higher taxes, the economy will slow enough that I'll probably have to take a personal hit, but by then everyone below me in the economic scale has been screwed many times over.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:If you had any honour, you would, seeing as you have enough to live well on already...
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
You come along and raise my taxes by 10%. Do you really think I’m going to pay that 10% out of my pocket?
*back to reality*
Yeah, makes sense, thanks.
Notaneconomicsmajorisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I think what you mean to say is that I only care that it's a falsehood because his "story" resonated with voters. I claim he lied because... well, he DID! You OTOH can't admit to seeing a lie when it's plainly in front of you.
Even though everything Joe said was a deliberate falsehood?-Signy
You only claim it’s a falsehood because this person was successful in exposing Obama’s controversial politics.-Fimnn
Quote:True.
But I think "Joe" was unsuccessful. I agree with what Obama said, so getting him to say it again isn't a problem for me. Is it for you?- Signy
It’s a problem for a lot of people – that’s the reason why we’re talking about this. If Obama's response hadn't have been a problem for a lot of people the media, nor you, would care what "Joe the Plumber" thought.-Finn
Quote:No, I'm not ridiculing a person for questioning Obama, I'm ridiculing someone for lying.
I agree with you: I think everyone should be questioned substantively. I think you should be questioning yourself too, as I should be questioning myself. But curiously, you can't stand questions. Maybe that's why you feel so defensive of Joe.- Signy
Says the person ridiculing a voter for questioning Obama.
The typical small business, the average plumber, does NOT make $250,000 a year. Not even close! To represent yourself as the "average Joe" being negatively impacted by Obama's tax plan is a lie.
---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Let's take your logic to an extreme: If it really doesn't matter WHO pays the taxes (since it all comes back to the consumer anyway, right?)let's just tax businesses and the rich 50% on any income over a half-million dollars, let's get rid of the ability to write off expenses for corporations, let's get rid of depreciation, lets get rid of the many business tax credits, and lets get rid of any other tax! What goes around comes around, right? You can't have that argument both ways, Finn! You can't claim that cutting taxes for the wealthy makes us prosperous, while adding taxes to the wealthy doesn't change anything.
Do you believe that a person is going to pay taxes on his company out of his pocket? The answer is probably not, if he can get around it, so who do you think ends up paying those taxes?
AFA the boom being started with Reagan's tax cuts: So CLEARLY, since the Bush tax cuts we're in an episode of unparalleled prosperity, right? Isn't that how it worked??
You REALLY should learn some (macro) economics!
---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I don't think so Finn,
besides, remember that you're talking about higher taxes across the board, and the plan we're talking about is less taxes for middle class working families. I would argue that there are less taxes where they matter, and the very base ofthis country, the significant population will have more money, SOOOO
they will not be spending less, and it won't be hurting or punishing small businesses, because there will be a lot more people requesting their services.
Remember that for something like 90 percent of working families, this plan is a tax cut. The way I see it, that's lowering taxes, at least where it matters, at least where it will actually stimulate the economy and make small businesses viable(do you really think they're viable now?)
So I'll take your point as truth, even though I'm not so certain it is, and then say...SEE, the perfect plan....we're lowering taxes.
Again, just to reiterate, this will help busineses selling a product or a service. How could it not?
...........
and on edit, lets just continue with this logic a little longer...all of a sudden there are more people in the world with a little vernture capital, with a little money to try to push out and try something new, to start their own businesses. And now we get something that is sorely missed in our country...competition.
You can argue that taxes will raise prices but I say competition will keep them low, wherass competition for good labor will make wages higher. A win on up to, but exlucing the richest .1 percent of Americans.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Actually that’s not what I’m claiming at all. I said cutting taxes or avoiding tax increases will grows the economy but increasing taxes will causes the economy to shrink.
Originally posted by SignyM:
You can't claim that cutting taxes for the wealthy helps, while adding taxes to the wealthy doesn't do anything.
Quote:Up until the problems with credit, yes. The Bush tax cuts grew the economy and continued the economic boom started by the Reagan tax cuts. In fact, they grew the economy very fast and very strong.
Originally posted by SignyM:
AFA the boom being started with Reagan's tax cuts: So CLEARLY, since Bush cut taxes we're in an episode of unparalleled prosperity, right? Isn't that how it worked??
Quote:Trans: You REALLY should just accept Signym righteousness since she has no real response otherwise.
Originally posted by SignyM:
You REALLY should learn some economics!
Quote:No, you claim he lied because you have no real response to his comments.
Originally posted by SignyM:
I think what you mean to say is that I only care that it's a falsehood because his "story" resonated with voters. I claim he lied because... well, he DID! You OTOH can't admit to seeing a lie when it's plainly in front of you.
Quote:For that to be true, you’d have to show that he lied. You just wanting it to be a lie is not sufficient.
Originally posted by SignyM:
No, I'm not ridiculing a person for questioning Obama, I'm ridiculing someone for lying.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Competition does not keep prices low. It keeps them competitive. In order to keep prices low, you have to make it cheaper to supply the product, which reducing taxes helps.
Originally posted by Righteous9:
You can argue that taxes will raise prices but I say competition will keep them low, wherass competition for good labor will make wages higher. A win on up to, but exlucing the richest .1 percent of Americans.
And while not taxing the middle class is a good start, it’s not the only thing. Obama’s plan relies on redistribution of wealth, which might boost some consumption and create some demand for new employment, but it will not boost investment. And Obama’s plan will probably not produce half as many jobs as McCain’s plan for the simple fact that there is no incentive for business' to increase employment.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn,
can you explain to me why you think my lamens economics is wrong?
You have some nebulous truth about raising taxes historically slowing down the economy(which for the hell of it i've conceded),
but why would raising taxes on the riches 5 percent of Americans while lowering them for the rest of us hurt the economy? How many ipods do that 5 percent need to buy? how many pairs of shoes, how many groceries...etc.
You argue that we need them to stimulate the economy, to venture into new opporunities...I counter argue that more people will have that opportunity if the wealth is more appropriately taxed. More entrepreneurship will be possible, not less, because more people across the board should be doing better.
We have no evidence really that giving these companies tax cuts just to outsource their workers somewhere else, or else to follow tried and true business models that are centralized and require less skilled workers, less saavy local management, and generally take money out of the communities they operate in, does anything good for our economy. The last 8 years and maybe even before, seems to suggest just the opposite.
......................
on edit,
I see you responded.
really? competition doesn't have an effect on prices? That seems counter intuitive to me, but I grant it's possible, if competition in turn creates competiton for the same resources required for a product...but then I'd assume there would be more providers of said product, competing for your business as well...etc.
Why doesn't it work on the supply and demand theory? if more people are supplying something, and they want to be supplying it to more of the population, aren't prices often a way in which they make their business more attractive?
either way, taht would have just been icing on the cake, because if prices stay the same for everything, at least there are still more people who can afford them.
Why wont it boost investment? Isn't it possible that it boost small investors who have some money to toy with?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn
I highlighted the parts of the conversation where "Joe" lied:
My name's Joe Wurzelbacher.
I'm getting ready to buy a company that makes about $250,000 … $270-$280,000 a year.
I'm a plumber
I'm, you know, buying this company
But I'll even give you the first line - his FIRST name isn't Joe like he said, but it's in there.
How do you excuse the rest of his BS ?
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
R9
It's not money per se that drives an economy, it's money in circulation.
If you tax the wealthy it circulates back down to the rest of us to spend, thereby driving the economy. That's true even if by us spending it, it only goes back where it came from. It's the trip that counts.
If the rich get richer, and richer, and richer, the money gets stuck in a place where the only use for it is for the very rich to speculate.
That's simply not enough to drive an economy.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
okay,
that was my thought too, so I'm not the only one that sees it that way. I'm just trying to figure out how exactly Finn sees it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:First of all, that's a false idea. But let's say that you're right. Assuming that total taxes stay the same, why not just redistribute taxes to the corporations and the ultra-wealthy? By your logic, the economy would stay the same.
Actually that’s not what I’m claiming at all. I said cutting taxes or avoiding tax increases will grows the economy but increasing taxes will causes the economy to shrink.
Quote:That's not what historical economic data shows. The economy grew faster and stronger under Clinton.
Up until the problems with credit, yes. The Bush tax cuts grew the economy and continued the economic boom started by the Reagan tax cuts. In fact, they grew the economy very fast and very strong.
Quote:I claim that he lied because he said many things about himself that were not true. He claimed he was a plumber. He claimed he was going to buy a business. He claimed the business made more than $250,000 a year. I even underlined all of that in the transcript. And all of that is false. So he lied.
No, you claim he lied because you have no real response to his comments.
Quote:Do you really want a tutorial from me on macro-economics right here? I'll be happy to provide one.
Trans: You REALLY should just accept Signym righteousness since she has no real response otherwise.
Quote:He said it. It's in the transcript. It's patently false, and since it's a subject he knows well about (himself) it's not a "mistake". What more do you think is necessary?
For that to be true, you’d have to show that he lied. You just wanting it to be a lie is not sufficient.
---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"I'm just trying to figure out how exactly Finn sees it."
If you can figure it out, I think it'll be interesting to a lot of us.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME