PDA

View Full Version : The wealthy can be described as...



The Night Owl
12-13-2010, 10:39 PM
...the most in need of a tax cut.

...or...

...the least in need of a tax cut.

Rockntractor
12-13-2010, 10:40 PM
...the most in need of a tax cut.

...or...

...the least in need of a tax cut.

Hello turd bird, carrion!:D

The Night Owl
12-13-2010, 10:41 PM
Yes, I know this poll won't go over well on a super conservative board like CU but I just had to try it. Forgive me. :D

PoliCon
12-13-2010, 10:41 PM
How about: No different than the rest of us? HOLY SHIT what a concept!

Rockntractor
12-13-2010, 10:42 PM
Yes, I know this poll won't go over well on a super conservative board like CU but I just had to try it. Forgive me. :D

What difference does it make if an atheist is forgiven or not?:confused:

CueSi
12-13-2010, 10:42 PM
How about: No different than the rest of us? HOLY SHIT what a concept!

Shush... that makes too much sense for TNO.

~QC

The Night Owl
12-13-2010, 10:47 PM
How about: No different than the rest of us? HOLY SHIT what a concept!

So, according to you, a person which makes say $1,000,000 per year is equally in need of a tax cut as a person who makes say $35,000 per year? What can't the person who makes $1,000,000 year buy that he or she needs a tax cut? A submarine?

BadCat
12-13-2010, 10:49 PM
So, according to you, a person which makes say $1,000,000 per year is equally in need of a tax cut as a person who makes say $35,000 per year? What can't the person who makes $1,000,000 year buy that he or she needs a tax cut? A submarine?

How about a flat tax and they both pay the same percentage?

The Night Owl
12-13-2010, 10:49 PM
Shush... that makes too much sense for TNO.

~QC

Actually, it makes no sense whatsoever. To my way of thinking, it seems like a statement an insane person would make. No offense!

Rockntractor
12-13-2010, 10:50 PM
So, according to you, a person which makes say $1,000,000 per year is equally in need of a tax cut as a person who makes say $35,000 per year? What can't the person who makes $1,000,000 year buy that he or she needs a tax cut? A submarine?

Another oil lease for me to build roads on and pump for him!

CueSi
12-13-2010, 10:50 PM
Actually, it makes no sense whatsoever. To my way of thinking, it seems like a statement an insane person would make. No offense!

Actually in light of the Flat Tax concept, it does make sense.

~QC

The Night Owl
12-13-2010, 10:50 PM
How about a flat tax and they both pay the same percentage?

How about answering the question posed? :D

Rockntractor
12-13-2010, 10:51 PM
How about answering the question posed? :D

I did.

BadCat
12-13-2010, 10:52 PM
How about answering the question posed? :D

I did.
The current progressive tax system is unfair and amounts to nothing more than wealth distribution.

Rockntractor
12-13-2010, 10:53 PM
This isn't going well for Nightly Bowel!

The Night Owl
12-13-2010, 10:58 PM
OMG! Someone selected choice #1. You guys are practically begging to be placed in the re-education camps. :D

djones520
12-13-2010, 11:03 PM
So, according to you, a person which makes say $1,000,000 per year is equally in need of a tax cut as a person who makes say $35,000 per year? What can't the person who makes $1,000,000 year buy that he or she needs a tax cut? A submarine?

I made $35k this year (well, I'm in that bracket at least). From the looks of it, I paid -$10,000 in taxes.

Edit: Actually, thats a lie. My taxable income is actually the bracket lower, because I spent half of the year deployed to a Hostile Fire Zone, so I was earning tax free pay. But that just drives my point home even further.

I paid a total of $250 in federal taxes this year. Preliminary results show I'll be getting more then $10,000 back on my return.

So... what taxes are the poor paying? And why do they need a cut?

lacarnut
12-13-2010, 11:03 PM
More millionaires equals more hiring and more taxpayers and more people moving up the ladder. A win, win, win proposition for the millionaire, the $40k employee and more taxes the government collects. The government does not need more taxes; they need to manage with less and quit excessive spending. The average taxpayer (many conservatives) have learned Economics 101. Liberals have not quite caught on.

PoliCon
12-13-2010, 11:04 PM
Actually, it makes no sense whatsoever. To my way of thinking, it seems like a statement an insane person would make. No offense!

Your way of thinking? :rolleyes: you believe in global warming.

Kay
12-13-2010, 11:05 PM
How about: No different than the rest of us? HOLY SHIT what a concept!

That's what I say. I vote neither > or <

Gingersnap
12-13-2010, 11:08 PM
The wealthy can best be described as anybody who makes $50,000 more than you do and by "you", I mean the general, putative "you". Wealth is always relative. :rolleyes:

The Night Owl
12-13-2010, 11:09 PM
Your way of thinking? :rolleyes: you believe in global warming.

Yes, I believe in global warming... as does just about every significant scientific institution on the planet.

BadCat
12-13-2010, 11:10 PM
Well TNO, by Obumbles standards, my wife and I were "rich".

I just had her quit her job after Obumble was elected. Her entire salary went to taxes anyway.

The Night Owl
12-13-2010, 11:10 PM
I made $35k this year (well, I'm in that bracket at least). From the looks of it, I paid -$10,000 in taxes.

Edit: Actually, thats a lie. My taxable income is actually the bracket lower, because I spent half of the year deployed to a Hostile Fire Zone, so I was earning tax free pay. But that just drives my point home even further.

I paid a total of $250 in federal taxes this year. Preliminary results show I'll be getting more then $10,000 back on my return.

So... what taxes are the poor paying? And why do they need a cut?

Who said anything about the poor?

djones520
12-13-2010, 11:11 PM
Who said anything about the poor?

You did, in the post I qouted.

The rich actually pay taxes, the poor don't. So the only ones who need tax cuts, are the ones who pay them. Which would be the rich.

Rockntractor
12-13-2010, 11:12 PM
Yes, I believe in global warming... as does just about every significant scientific institution on the planet.

Not no mo, that was so last year!

BadCat
12-13-2010, 11:13 PM
Not no mo, that was so last year!

Yeah, it's 15 degrees here in NC, and it's supposed to get down to 23 in Florida tonight, I wish that global warming would hurry up and get here.

PoliCon
12-13-2010, 11:15 PM
Yes, I believe in global warming... as does just about every significant scientific institution on the planet.

Right. All the ones lined up at the government troughs. :rolleyes:

Rockntractor
12-13-2010, 11:18 PM
Yeah, it's 15 degrees here in NC, and it's supposed to get down to 23 in Florida tonight, I wish that global warming would hurry up and get here.

Turd bird will now say that temperature has nothing to do with warming.

Rockntractor
12-13-2010, 11:19 PM
I wonder if you could make a jacket out of owl feathers?:confused:

m00
12-13-2010, 11:20 PM
...the most in need of a tax cut.

...or...

...the least in need of a tax cut.

See here is where you and I differ. You believe that taxation is the natural state of being, and that we as citizens should only receive the boon and favor of a tax cut when government determines we are deserving. I believe that a private and an unmolested life is the natural state of being, and that taxes are a necessary evil for society to function; and given this they should be levied as lightly and infrequently as possible.

The idea that citizens should get a tax cut because they "deserve" it is foreign to me. I believe that we should only be required to pay taxes when the government deserves it - by demonstrating that it is capable of spending the money wisely, on strictly the most necessary of measures.

The Night Owl
12-13-2010, 11:33 PM
More millionaires equals more hiring and more taxpayers and more people moving up the ladder. A win, win, win proposition for the millionaire, the $40k employee and more taxes the government collects. The government does not need more taxes; they need to manage with less and quit excessive spending. The average taxpayer (many conservatives) have learned Economics 101. Liberals have not quite caught on.

If tax cuts are about jobs then why not provide tax incentives for employers who sign people on for a year or two? Answer: Because tax cuts are not about jobs... at least not the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.

If there is money to be made (i.e., demand) then why would anyone's decision to increase or not increase the workforce be contingent on tax breaks? It makes no sense whatsoever. The rich don't need more disposable income. They already have it. It's the middle class which needs disposable income.

The Night Owl
12-13-2010, 11:34 PM
See here is where you and I differ. You believe that taxation is the natural state of being, and that we as citizens should only receive the boon and favor of a tax cut when government determines we are deserving. I believe that a private and an unmolested life is the natural state of being, and that taxes are a necessary evil for society to function; and given this they should be levied as lightly and infrequently as possible.

The idea that citizens should get a tax cut because they "deserve" it is foreign to me. I believe that we should only be required to pay taxes when the government deserves it - by demonstrating that it is capable of spending the money wisely, on strictly the most necessary of measures.

Needing and deserving aren't the same thing.

The Night Owl
12-13-2010, 11:36 PM
You did, in the post I qouted.

The rich actually pay taxes, the poor don't. So the only ones who need tax cuts, are the ones who pay them. Which would be the rich.

I wouldn't describe a person who makes $35,000 per year as poor but I can see why a right winger would.

Rockntractor
12-13-2010, 11:36 PM
If tax cuts are about jobs then why not provide tax incentives for employers who sign people on for a year or two? Answer: Because tax cuts are not about jobs... at least not the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.

If there is money to be made (i.e., demand) then why would anyone's decision to increase or not increase the workforce be contingent on tax breaks? It makes no sense whatsoever. The rich don't need more disposable income. They already have it. It's the middle class which needs disposable income.
Curious, if these were tax cuts for the wealthy, why did obama say every families taxes would go up an average of 3000.00 if the cuts were not continued? You better check in for the latest version of the talking points, you're two years behind!

The Night Owl
12-13-2010, 11:38 PM
Curious, if these were tax cuts for the wealthy, why did obama say every families taxes would go up an average of 3000.00 if the cuts were not continued? You better check in for the latest version of the talking points, you're two years behind!

Because the Republicans are holding middle class tax cuts hostage so they can get tax cuts for their wealthy friends and benefactors.

m00
12-13-2010, 11:40 PM
Needing and deserving aren't the same thing.

This is a valid response to my post. If you will concede they are equally deserving I'll move on to "need" since I agree it is an interesting question.

Rockntractor
12-13-2010, 11:40 PM
Because the Republicans are holding middle class tax cuts hostage so they can get tax cuts for their wealthy friends and benefactors.

That makes no sense in answer to the question i asked you. Have they not taught you the proper response yet?:confused:

NJCardFan
12-13-2010, 11:42 PM
I voted that they are the least in need of a tax cut, however, when it comes to taxes, need shouldn't play into it. It's a question of fairness and being punitive. Hitting certain wage earners with a higher rate is punitive. The left is so big on fairness, how is it fair that I pay a higher rate at $64K a year than someone making $35K? One of the stupidest things I saw in the DU thread was a DUmmie crying that someone making $100K got a $2,000 tax cut while someone making $20K only got $400. I mean wow. They both got the same cut(2%). Also, and this where idiots like Night Owl, wee wee, and wilbur and the rest of the leftists on these boards don't get, 50% of the wage earners in this country pay 96% of the taxes while the other 50% only pay 4%. To break it down further, the top 10% of wage earners pay 70% of the taxes. When is enough enough?And the upper 50% doesn't exactly start at $200K.

And one final thing douchebag, what is being argued over aren't a tax cut, it's a tax increase. allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire is a tax increase, knucklehead.

The Night Owl
12-13-2010, 11:42 PM
This is a valid response to my post. If you will concede they are equally deserving I'd like to move on to "need" since I agree it is an interesting question.

Sure. Okay. Everyone deserves a tax cut. I can concede that because I don't think it means much.

Rockntractor
12-13-2010, 11:43 PM
I can concede that because I don't think it means much.

As do your words.

The Night Owl
12-13-2010, 11:45 PM
I voted that they are the least in need of a tax cut, however, when it comes to taxes, need shouldn't play into it. It's a question of fairness and being punitive.

This is the problem. Rich guys would barely miss the money if they were made to give up tax cuts and you guys describe this as punishment. It's not punishment if it doesn't hurt. With or without a tax cut, the wealthy can still buy whatever they want, so what is the problem?

m00
12-13-2010, 11:45 PM
Sure. Okay. Everyone deserves a tax cut. I can concede that because I don't think it means much.

Well really it's that nobody deserves to pay as many taxes as Americans are forced to pay... just due to pure waste and mismanagement alone from the Federal Government. Will you give me this point as well? :p

The Night Owl
12-13-2010, 11:48 PM
Well really it's that nobody deserves to pay as many taxes as Americans are forced to pay... just due to pure waste and mismanagement alone from the Federal Government. Will you give me this point as well? :p

I agree! Let's cut military spending down to Canadian levels. Gut the military!

Rockntractor
12-13-2010, 11:49 PM
I agree! Let's cut military spending down to Canadian levels. Gut the military!

One of the few things provided for in the constitution.

The Night Owl
12-13-2010, 11:52 PM
One of the few things provided for in the constitution.

More like one of the many...

m00
12-13-2010, 11:57 PM
I agree! Let's cut military spending down to Canadian levels. Gut the military!

You're not going to find any arguments from me on this. Do we really need an army... with what... 10x more hardware than the next largest army? No, that's absurd. Now there are things we do need (A10 Warthogs), and things we should invest in (missile defense shield) and I think we need to absolutely continue to innovate technologically. But in some ways I think the dollars are getting spent as if we were still in a "cold war world" and we're not. Yes, we need to make sure our planes are 50 years ahead of everyone else's planes (please, can we stop selling them to fair-weather allies then?) But do we really need 10 carrier strike groups, for example? Under what possible scenario would we ever use that? All out war with every other major military power on earth?

Oh wait, we need to to involve ourselves in every foreign entanglement going on at any given time. And then police the world. No thanks, not on my dime.

Rockntractor
12-13-2010, 11:58 PM
More like one of the many...

List them.

Jfor
12-14-2010, 12:11 AM
More like one of the many...

Name more that the Constitution says the Federal government is responsible for.

m00
12-14-2010, 12:11 AM
Night Owl - By the way, the fact Iran's Air Force uses F-14 Tomcats is not lost on me.

Jfor
12-14-2010, 12:13 AM
You're not going to find any arguments from me on this. Do we really need an army... with what... 10x more hardware than the next largest army? No, that's absurd. Now there are things we do need (A10 Warthogs), and things we should invest in (missile defense shield) and I think we need to absolutely continue to innovate technologically. But in some ways I think the dollars are getting spent as if we were still in a "cold war world" and we're not. Yes, we need to make sure our planes are 50 years ahead of everyone else's planes (please, can we stop selling them to fair-weather allies then?) But do we really need 10 carrier strike groups, for example? Under what possible scenario would we ever use that? All out war with every other major military power on earth?

Oh wait, we need to to involve ourselves in every foreign entanglement going on at any given time. And then police the world. No thanks, not on my dime.

Yes we do need 10 carrier groups. Without control of the seas we cannot protect Americas interests.

Rockntractor
12-14-2010, 12:14 AM
Name more that the Constitution says the Federal government is responsible for.

Oddly enough after making this claim he is avoiding our question.

m00
12-14-2010, 12:17 AM
Yes we do need 10 carrier groups. Without control of the seas we cannot protect Americas interests.

Do you honestly believe this? That we need 10 carrier groups to fight the likely wars facing us in the 21st century?

Jfor
12-14-2010, 12:26 AM
Do you honestly believe this? That we need 10 carrier groups to fight the likely wars facing us in the 21st century?

I believe that yes. Without the US Navy, our shipping would be in peril.

Jfor
12-14-2010, 12:26 AM
Oddly enough after making this claim he is avoiding our question.

He is probably asking over on DU or whatever other libtard forum he is a member of.

m00
12-14-2010, 12:37 AM
I believe that yes. Without the US Navy, our shipping would be in peril.

I think there is a massive difference between "10x larger than the next biggest military" (or whatever the figure is) and "not having a US Navy"

How do other nations manage shipping without 10 carrier groups? :p At $6 billion a carrier, not to mention all the support vessels and the maintenance costs.

My point is just that I think the Federal Government is very good at creating problems to which the only solution is more Federal Government. And here we are arguing over a couple thousand dollars in tax cuts, which is really peanuts when you think about it. This is true for welfare and social security, and it's also true for the massive size of our military 20 years after the end of the cold war.

When you talk about protecting our interests abroad... you know, China has us by the balls and the size of our military doesnt have anything to do with that. We're floundering in 2 wars with a 3rd one on the horizon, and throwing defense spending at the problem isn't going to solve those either. Maybe the problem is we are involved militarily all over the globe and the solution in my mind isn't "add more military." Just my 2c.

wilbur
12-14-2010, 12:45 AM
You did, in the post I qouted.

The rich actually pay taxes, the poor don't. So the only ones who need tax cuts, are the ones who pay them. Which would be the rich.

The other alternative is that nobody *needs* tax cuts. Some might *want* them... but that's a different story.

m00
12-14-2010, 12:46 AM
The other alternative is that nobody *needs* tax cuts. Some might *want* them... but that's a different story.

Again, see my first response to TNO

wilbur
12-14-2010, 12:58 AM
Again, see my first response to TNO

Taxing the rich, to me anyway, isn't some putative class warfare thing - they shouldn't be taxed because they "deserve it".... they should be taxed because they are the ones who can afford it, with little or no effect on their quality of life - they simply can be taxed more and will feel it less. Its not unjust to tax them more, because its simply of less consequence to them.

In any case though, one doesn't want the tax rate to be too high, or too low.

The common conservative canard is "lower taxes, increase revenues for the gov't". But that's only partially correct.


Lower taxes too much and you will lower gov't revenue. Increase taxes too much and you will lower gov't revenue. But within those upper and lower bounds is a sweet spot, where taxes don't unnecessarily hurt the taxee, and where government receives the optimum amount of tax revenue.

That's where we should strive to keep taxes.... and I believe it differs by the amount of income one earns.

m00
12-14-2010, 01:07 AM
Taxing the rich, to me anyway, isn't some putative class warfare thing - they shouldn't be taxed because they "deserve it".... they should be taxed because they are the ones who can afford it, with little or no effect on their quality of life - they simply can be taxed more and will feel it less. Its not unjust to tax them more, because its simply of less consequence to them.

Who makes this estimation exactly? Government? So the government that levies taxes and fills its coffers also gets to decide who can afford it and who cannot; whose quality of life it affects and whose it doesn't? This doesn't seem like a calculation I want government making, because the result will be that everyone can afford it to 1% less than the magic number which has people rioting in the streets. Except for those categories of people who lobby hard enough, pay off the right people, or are otherwise protected. We talk about class warfare, but tax creates a class of protected individuals (those whose wealth is subsidized).

And then, once that number is reached (the tipping point for social unrest is about 40% taxation) because we have a fiat currency system we just print more money and "tax" the populace through inflation. It's completely out of control. Which is why I think this poll is asking the wrong question. It's not about who can afford to be taxed, rather it's what administrative duties can we not afford government to claim authority over.

malloc
12-14-2010, 01:43 AM
This is the problem. Rich guys would barely miss the money if they were made to give up tax cuts and you guys describe this as punishment. It's not punishment if it doesn't hurt. With or without a tax cut, the wealthy can still buy whatever they want, so what is the problem?

Sure, the "rich" guy might not "miss" the money, but the poor will sure as hell miss the absence of the "rich" guys money. If the "rich" guy makes $1,000,000 a year, and he get's a 10% tax cut, that's $100,000 or the equivalent of one decent salary with decent benefits, or two lower-income salaries.

Even if the "rich" guy doesn't directly hire these new employees it still effects the poor guy who is out of work. Unless this "rich" guy is tossing stacks of cash into his mattress, his money is invested, and that investment capital will create jobs once we get an executive who will put the regulatory agencies back into their cages for a while.

So, a "poor" guy, who is out of work due to the 10% unemployment rate gets a tax cut....what's 10% of 0? A working poor guy get's a 10% tax cut from his $20,000 a year salary. That's a good thing, because he can some bills, or do some Christmas shopping or whatever other stimulatory effects from the $2,000 of spent cash. The rich guy get's a tax cut, and he just might be able to make sure those who 10% of 0, get 10% of a little more next year.

I know, you think the benevolent, competent government should take this "rich" guys money, and re-allocate it to the two poor guys who's salary this money would have paid. You would mistaken there, for a couple of reasons. First, the government is incompetent and it's more likely that a lobbyist will get this money for his industry rathan the actual poor. Second, the "rich" guy didn't invest this money out of the kindness of his heart. The "rich" guy got rich by investing smart, presumably. Therefore when this smarter investment matures, there might a third and fourth salary provided by the rich guy's ROI instead of the government feeding and clothing just the two.



Taxing the rich, to me anyway, isn't some putative class warfare thing - they shouldn't be taxed because they "deserve it".... they should be taxed because they are the ones who can afford it, with little or no effect on their quality of life - they simply can be taxed more and will feel it less. Its not unjust to tax them more, because its simply of less consequence to them.


When the "rich" get taxed more, everyone but them feels it. Sure, they might feel it less when their taxes increase, but as demonstrated above, the two guys who could have gotten a salary out of the deal would beg to differ. The same goes with corporate taxes. When corporate tax rates increase, what happens to prices? That's right, they go up. When commodities like gasoline go up in price, who feels it the most? That's right, the poor. Gas going from $2.65/gal to $3.00/gal may not effect Donald Trump in the slightest, but that guy making $20,000 is going to have his recreational funds cut in half over it!


I don't get you guys who post from the left wing here. You claim to believe in science, and you claim to want to help the poor. However, as soon as economic issues come up, you all of the sudden don't believe in science, and all your economic wishful thinking will accomplish is hurt the poor you claim to want to help. If you want to help the poor, a lasseiz faire economy which rewards success has been the only instrument in the history of mankind that has been able to generate the lifestyle American's enjoy today. The important thing to remember is that success is to be rewarded, not punished.

The Night Owl
12-14-2010, 02:28 AM
Sure, the "rich" guy might not "miss" the money, but the poor will sure as hell miss the absence of the "rich" guys money. If the "rich" guy makes $1,000,000 a year, and he get's a 10% tax cut, that's $100,000 or the equivalent of one decent salary with decent benefits, or two lower-income salaries.

Even if the "rich" guy doesn't directly hire these new employees it still effects the poor guy who is out of work. Unless this "rich" guy is tossing stacks of cash into his mattress, his money is invested, and that investment capital will create jobs once we get an executive who will put the regulatory agencies back into their cages for a while.

Why would you assume that an employer who needs to hire more people won't do so unless he gets a tax cut? If there's money to be made then there's money to be made... with or without the tax cut.

The Night Owl
12-14-2010, 02:31 AM
Name more that the Constitution says the Federal government is responsible for.

From another thread...

http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showpost.php?p=343797&postcount=179

malloc
12-14-2010, 03:27 AM
Why would you assume that an employer who needs to hire more people won't do so unless he gets a tax cut? If there's money to be made then there's money to be made... with or without the tax cut.

Nowhere did I assume any such thing. If the employer can build the capital, but cannot see a profit avenue, the hire won't be made. If the employer can build the capital, and can determine a profit avenue, the hire will be made. If the employer can't build the capital to make the hire, regardless of potential profits, the hire won't be made. So, while the extra capital doesn't guarantee a new hire, it is a prerequisite.

Besides violating the most basic of American tenets, "Equality under the law.", the progressive income tax system shifts current production away from capital investments and onto the government's balance sheet. Basically, the more money a person earns, the less likely they are to use that money for personal consumption. Diminishing returns dictates that they will consume less and less value for each dollar spent as they accumulate the "things" that make up their standard of living. Therefore, each dollar over this consumption, if there were no taxes at all, would go into capital investments, which would create future production. Therefore, every dollar that is paid in taxes is one taken away from future capital structure, and thus future growth. Given that the "rich" pay a vast majority of the taxes, and are also the biggest investors in capital investors, which can be viewed as the future wealth of the Nation, an increase in taxes on the rich makes fewer rich people, and reduces the amount of capital investments, thus slowing down future growth.


Here's a paper on the subject by Bartlett

http://www.mmisi.org/ma/22_03/bartlett.pdf



Here's an article which briefly describes some of the social problems of the Progressive Tax System rather than just the economic problems it creates:

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6297

Finally, the real nuts and bolts of the progressive tax system, from Hayek himself.


7. One of the chief reasons why progressive taxation has come to be so widely accepted is that the great majority of people have come to think of an appropriate income as the only legitimate and socially desirable form of reward. They think of income not as related to the value of the services rendered but as conferring what is regarded as an appropriate status in society. This is shown very clearly in the argument, frequently used in support of progressive taxation, that "no man is worth 10,000 pounds a year, and, in our present state of poverty, with the great majority of people earning less than 6 pounds a week, only a few very exceptional men deserve to exceed 2,000 pounds a year. That this contention lacks all foundation and appeals only to emotion and prejudice will be at once obvious when we see that what it means is that no act that any individual can perform in a year or., for that matter., in an hour can be worth more to society than 10,000 pounds ($28,000). Of course, it can and sometimes will have many times that value. There is no necessary relation between the time an action takes and the benefit that society will derive from it

http://lamar.colostate.edu/~grjan/hayektaxation.html

Sonnabend
12-14-2010, 05:09 AM
So, according to you, a person which makes say $1,000,000 per year is equally in need of a tax cut as a person who makes say $35,000 per year?

What they earned is theirs, not the government's. It's theirs, they earned it, they worked for it.


What can't the person who makes $1,000,000 year buy that he or she needs a tax cut? A submarine

In case you didn't know, moron, even a second flight 688 class costs close to half a billion, the Ohio class over one billion dollars, not to mention the crew, fuel, supplies etc....

What can that person buy? Anything he or she wants.

Those who make wealth and those who have it should keep it, and the government should leave them the hell alone. No one has a "right" to another person's money.

Constitutionally Speaking
12-14-2010, 06:04 AM
...the most in need of a tax cut.

...or...

...the least in need of a tax cut.



The whole premise of the question is faulty.

The truly wealthy themselves could care less. It does not affect their lifestyle at all. BUT taxing them DOES affect the rest of the people.

A better question is this:

Are the people of this country better off if this money is in the hands of the wealthy or in the hands of the the government.

Roughly 2/3 of the money sent to the government is chewed up by the bureaucracy and is effectively wasted - or is used to actually surpress job creation & liberty.

Just about every penny of money in the hands of most wealthy people is spent or invested in either charitable causes or invested in job creating enterprises.

Constitutionally Speaking
12-14-2010, 06:39 AM
From another thread...

http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showpost.php?p=343797&postcount=179

ABSOLUTELY ridiculous.


Go read Federalist #41 - James Madison (the main author of the Constitution) was OUTRAGED that anyone would interpret this in the way you proclaim.



Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,’’ amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare.

Pretty much what the left and you are arguing today.


No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.

He proclaimed such things as dispicable and anyone STOOPING so low proved just how desperate those who argue against the Constitution by implying the "general welfare" wording in such a way were.

James Madison continues:


A power to de- stroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms “to raise money for the general welfare. ‘’But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon?


He is stating that ALL of the powers of congress are specifically listed, and to include General welfare as such a power would be the power to destroy the press, trial by jury etc., would literally give the government any power it desired - all they had to do was to couch it in the terms "for the general welfare".

But because of the way it is written, Madison argued, no well meaning person would argue that the Constitution could be interpreted that way
He said: (picking up part of the earlier quote for clarity)


But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon?If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions
be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.


The author of the Constitution itself would beg to differ.


Here is Federalist #41 in it's entirety. The parts I excerpted begin on page 185 (left column)

https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B1c1ALWOidQHZGYyMjM2NzEtOTFhNi00MGJkL Tg2ZjAtMTE1YzRmNWJlODBl&hl=en&pli=1

Jfor
12-14-2010, 08:09 AM
From another thread...

http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showpost.php?p=343797&postcount=179

You did NOT answer the question.

Sonnabend
12-14-2010, 08:40 AM
es, I believe in global warming... as does just about every significant scientific institution on the planet.

No they don't, and you are lying.

Molon Labe
12-14-2010, 08:42 AM
...the most in need of a tax cut.

...or...

...the least in need of a tax cut.


Idiot polls of this complexity with the arguments couched in either or bullshat choices don't deserve answers.
Pretend just a little bit that there are other answers to taxing the rich or giving them a cut.

Progressive thinking is comedy gold....so trapped in it's own dialectic little prison.

Lager
12-14-2010, 09:51 AM
So, according to you, a person which makes say $1,000,000 per year is equally in need of a tax cut as a person who makes say $35,000 per year? What can't the person who makes $1,000,000 year buy that he or she needs a tax cut? A submarine?

What's the point of who "needs" a tax cut? As if the governmet is some benefactor that decides who's worthy of keeping more of their own money?

Madisonian
12-14-2010, 09:58 AM
anyone that has more of anything than I do. - Bobbolink, who is homeless by the way.

Lager
12-14-2010, 10:01 AM
It's not punishment if it doesn't hurt.

Wow, very profound. You should have that printed on a t-shirt or something.

The Night Owl
12-14-2010, 10:28 AM
No they don't, and you are lying.

A list of scientific institutiuons which have taken a position on climate change...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Feel free to list scientific institutions which don't support the claim that human activities are causing climate change.

NJCardFan
12-14-2010, 10:55 AM
A list of scientific institutiuons which have taken a position on climate change...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Feel free to list scientific institutions which don't support the claim that human activities are causing climate change.

:rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scienti fic_assessment_of_global_warming

Jfor
12-14-2010, 11:10 AM
A list of scientific institutiuons which have taken a position on climate change...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Feel free to list scientific institutions which don't support the claim that human activities are causing climate change.

Hey bub... a question was asked of you just a bit earlier. Why don't you answer it. Just posting a link is not an answer DUmmie.

Apache
12-14-2010, 11:16 AM
A list of scientific institutiuons which have taken a position on climate change...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Feel free to list scientific institutions which don't support the claim that human activities are causing climate change.

PATHETIC

The Night Owl
12-14-2010, 11:26 AM
:rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scienti fic_assessment_of_global_warming

I asked for a list of scientific institutions. Individual scientists are not scientific institutions. Try again.

Molon Labe
12-14-2010, 11:42 AM
I asked for a list of scientific institutions. Individual scientists are not scientific institutions. Try again.

lol. A collective institution is spoken for by a handful of individuals. You act like a collective opinion represents a myriad of persons.

PoliCon
12-14-2010, 11:57 AM
A list of scientific institutiuons which have taken a position on climate change...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Feel free to list scientific institutions which don't support the claim that human activities are causing climate change.

every one of them bellying up to government troughs. :rolleyes: SO OF COURSE they're going to support climate change. It's a CASH COW! lol

lacarnut
12-14-2010, 12:22 PM
I asked for a list of scientific institutions. Individual scientists are not scientific institutions. Try again.

Try removing your head from your asshole.

Wei Wu Wei
12-14-2010, 12:52 PM
Nowhere did I assume any such thing. If the employer can build the capital, but cannot see a profit avenue, the hire won't be made. If the employer can build the capital, and can determine a profit avenue, the hire will be made. If the employer can't build the capital to make the hire, regardless of potential profits, the hire won't be made. So, while the extra capital doesn't guarantee a new hire, it is a prerequisite.


Right, so an employer doesn't just need the extra capital to grow his business, there needs to be a reasonable expectation for profits. You point out that it's not enough for the employer to simply have more money because it's counter productive to create more jobs if they will not result in higher profits.

What's necessary is both extra capital AND a reasonable expectation of profit. So what drives profits? Mostly, it's demand. The employer may try to streamline his company and cut expenses but it's demand that keeps his production line moving, and what leads to profits.

So who creates the most demand?



Besides violating the most basic of American tenets, "Equality under the law.", the progressive income tax system shifts current production away from capital investments and onto the government's balance sheet. Basically, the more money a person earns, the less likely they are to use that money for personal consumption. Diminishing returns dictates that they will consume less and less value for each dollar spent as they accumulate the "things" that make up their standard of living.

Exactly. The more money you have, the less you use for personal consumption. Therefore people with less money, the poor and the middle class, are more likely to spend extra money they have, which always and directly drives demand. While capital investment is one way to potentially increase profits (but not demand), lower-middle-class stimulus DOES increase demand because these people go out and buy commodities.


Therefore, each dollar over this consumption, if there were no taxes at all, would go into capital investments, which would create future production.

Not necessarily. Lots of this money goes out to pay internal costs for high-level executives or personal bonuses. Even with this money sitting in the banks, without demand there is no smart reason for business people across the country to take on risk in the form of a loan to grow their business if the demand is low.




Therefore, every dollar that is paid in taxes is one taken away from future capital structure, and thus future growth.

Money goes to a lot of places besides direct consumption of consumer goods or capital investment.



Given that the "rich" pay a vast majority of the taxes, and are also the biggest investors in capital investors, which can be viewed as the future wealth of the Nation, an increase in taxes on the rich makes fewer rich people, and reduces the amount of capital investments, thus slowing down future growth.

Check your presuppositions.




Here's a paper on the subject by Bartlett

http://www.mmisi.org/ma/22_03/bartlett.pdf

This paper is 40 years old and there are many problems with it. Primarily, this one:


But today taxes often absorb the
greater part of the newcomer’s “exces-
sive” profits. He cannot accumulate
capital; he cannot expand his own busi-
ness; he will never become big business
and a match for the vested interests.


Here he is arguing against high progressive tax rates like those in the 40's and 50's. He specifically outlines these when he talks about tax rates of 75%.

This is not applicable today. His argument was that the majority of profits is taxed, leading to a disincentive to grow your business. However, this argument doesn't hold up in 2010 when the highest tax rates in the country are around 35%.

In fact, Bruce Bartlett, one of the most vocal champions of Reaganomics has seen the light and has come out with this book:

http://i.imgur.com/agS8Z.jpg

He is a perfect example of someone championing this argument for so many decades and finally coming around to break it down.




Here's an article which briefly describes some of the social problems of the Progressive Tax System rather than just the economic problems it creates:

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6297

Finally, the real nuts and bolts of the progressive tax system, from Hayek himself.

I'll read and respond to this a little later

Constitutionally Speaking
12-14-2010, 01:16 PM
I asked for a list of scientific institutions. Individual scientists are not scientific institutions. Try again.

Are you seriously listing groups utterly dependent on the cash this scam provides???

Oh, and why don't you go check out the wiki leaks stuff regarding the global warming scam. - there are some pretty damning mentions in there.

Articulate_Ape
12-14-2010, 01:33 PM
I've said it before and I'll say it again; if Liberals (esp. the rich ones) want to convince us about raising taxes on the wealthy, then they should lead by example. There is a treasury fund for collecting donations to pay down the national debt: HERE (https://www.pay.gov/paygov/forms/formInstance.html?nc=1271991815942&agencyFormId=23779454). No tax policy is keeping any Liberal who genuinely believes that they are not taxed enough from cutting a check and sending it in.

If John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, et al, send in a check to pay what they would at the higher rate, then they might have a hope of convincing other wealthy Americans of their sincerity rather than their hypocritical desire to spend other people's money.

I wouldn't hold your breath.

Wei Wu Wei
12-14-2010, 01:55 PM
umm... aren't rich legislators who vote for a tax increase for rich people therefore voting to increase their own taxes?

Rockntractor
12-14-2010, 02:01 PM
umm... aren't rich legislators who vote for a tax increase for rich people therefore voting to increase their own taxes?

No.

Articulate_Ape
12-14-2010, 02:02 PM
umm... aren't rich legislators who vote for a tax increase for rich people therefore voting to increase their own taxes?

Yes, but empirical evidence indicates that they are probably the least likely to actually pay them. Again, why not lead by example?

Apache
12-14-2010, 02:16 PM
umm... aren't rich legislators who vote for a tax increase for rich people therefore voting to increase their own taxes?

You believe that, I got a couple of bridges you might be interested in buying, on the East AND West coasts...

Wei Wu Wei
12-14-2010, 02:26 PM
So we, the people who put these greedy politicians in office, should call and DEMAND that they raise taxes on themselves first and prove that they are paying it.

I am all for that.

Apache
12-14-2010, 03:04 PM
So we, the people who put these greedy politicians in office, should call and DEMAND that they raise taxes on themselves first and prove that they are paying it.

I am all for that.

You go ahead and do just that, let me know how well it works for you....:rolleyes:

Wei Wu Wei
12-14-2010, 03:11 PM
You go ahead and do just that, let me know how well it works for you....:rolleyes:

this is the problem. the people in a democratic-based system, like our republic, only retain their power if they actively demand action from their representatives.

it only works if the american people do it together, you can't just say "well you do it" and then when it doesn't work from the actions of a single person claim that the plan is flawed.

what's flawed is the people who are perfectly willing to bitch and whine and cry about our problems but theres no way they'll get off their couch to actually participate in our political system. these are the people who will bring down our Republic. the ones who just dont care and give up the little power they have.

Wei Wu Wei
12-14-2010, 03:12 PM
If enough people called and wrote in, and made these representatives realize that their cushy jobs and positions of power are at risk, they might be willing to actually listen to us.

but that's just me maybe i'm entirely wrong about this

Molon Labe
12-14-2010, 03:16 PM
Yes, but empirical evidence indicates that they are probably the least likely to actually pay them. Again, why not lead by example?

The truly rich don't pay taxes. Something the left is still clueless about.

Articulate_Ape
12-14-2010, 04:06 PM
If enough people called and wrote in, and made these representatives realize that their cushy jobs and positions of power are at risk, they might be willing to actually listen to us.

but that's just me maybe i'm entirely wrong about this

Who's "us"? Your "us" just got handed their asses by our "us" on November 2nd as I recall.

Apache
12-14-2010, 04:46 PM
If enough people called and wrote in, and made these representatives realize that their cushy jobs and positions of power are at risk, they might be willing to actually listen to us.

but that's just me maybe i'm entirely wrong about this

Until there is a REAL shake-upin the beltway nothing will change. Career politicians are after nothing more than power...

I wanna see what the newbies will do come January. We'll see where the wind is coming from then.

Apache
12-14-2010, 04:47 PM
Who's "us"? Your "us" just got handed their asses by our "us" on November 2nd as I recall.

We shall see. We shall see...

lacarnut
12-14-2010, 04:50 PM
So we, the people who put these greedy politicians in office, should call and DEMAND that they raise taxes on themselves first and prove that they are paying it.

I am all for that.

Don't be surprised when they carry you off in a paddy wagon.

malloc
12-14-2010, 05:04 PM
Oh bother. Why do you still speak when the discussion turns to business and economics? Isn't it better for you to remain silent and be thought a fool, then to open your mouth and remove all doubt?


Right, so an employer doesn't just need the extra capital to grow his business, there needs to be a reasonable expectation for profits. You point out that it's not enough for the employer to simply have more money because it's counter productive to create more jobs if they will not result in higher profits. What's necessary is both extra capital AND a reasonable expectation of profit.

Well, duh? Who has been saying otherwise? You've been tilting at this non-argument windmill for quite some time in a few threads, and guess what? No one has been disagreeing with you! That still hasn't changed your argumentative tone though.



So what drives profits? Mostly, it's demand. The employer may try to streamline his company and cut expenses but it's demand that keeps his production line moving, and what leads to profits.


Now the other shoe falls and you show yourself for the simple minded idiot you really are. Demand doesn't create profits. Meeting demand with supply at an acceptable price point does. If the demand for Widget X is high, and you produce Widget Y, does that turn a profit for you? What do you mean it doesn't? There's demand isn't there? What if you are selling food in Zimbambwe? There's demand for food there isn't there? It doesn't matter that no one can actually pay for it! There's demand, so you must turn a profit right? Your kiddie table mentality which dictates that demand equals profit is absurd to say the least. A profit is net income, the excess of revenues over outlays in a given period of time including depreciation and other non-cash expenses. Demand does not "provide" that. The businessman has to meet demand with a supply at a price point that generates net revenue over expenses. The more regulation and tax burdens you place on the businessman, the higher this price point is pushed. The higher you push the price point, the more you hurt the poor as a casualty of your crusade to hurt the rich.



So who creates the most demand?


The scenario you are driving at is that the government should take a whole bunch of money from the rich, and give it to poor people, so that those poor people can consume, and pay the money back to the rich in exchange for more material goods. There's only a few big problems with this. First, demand is only created when consumers decide that parting with liquidity is worth the consumption. Most consumers right now would save most of the money, or pay off debt with it. Secondly, you will see supply shortfalls as the "rich" won't have the capital to produce until after the consumers have eaten up current stock and funneled the money back to the rich, this will lead to increased prices, which makes each dollar redistributed worth less.



Exactly. The more money you have, the less you use for personal consumption. Therefore people with less money, the poor and the middle class, are more likely to spend extra money they have, which always and directly drives demand. While capital investment is one way to potentially increase profits (but not demand), lower-middle-class stimulus DOES increase demand because these people go out and buy commodities.


Wow you are an idiot. You should probably go learn what "capital investment" provides for in an economy before you write it off as a way to potentially increase profits. Here's a hint, without capital investment, there are no new jobs.



Not necessarily. Lots of this money goes out to pay internal costs for high-level executives or personal bonuses.


And I suppose the people who receive the money as payouts for costs or bonuses just shove these stacks of cash into their mattresses then?



Even with this money sitting in the banks, without demand there is no smart reason for business people across the country to take on risk in the form of a loan to grow their business if the demand is low.


Without consumer confidence in their future financial outlook, there will be no rise in demand. When a wage earner is worried about getting laid off or a cut in hours, he's not real keen on the idea of springing for a vacation or a new T.V. He's more interested in paying off debt and squirreling away money. Lack of demand isn't fixed by simply dropping money, financed by the rich, into a mob of poor people you dolt.



Money goes to a lot of places besides direct consumption of consumer goods or capital investment.


Wow, really? You don't say. :rolleyes: Nowhere did I say that every dollar left in the private sector once government is done feeding at the trough of the producers goes into private investment. I said every dollar that our gluttonous government devours is one less dollar in a future capital structure.




Check your presuppositions.


Obviously I did (http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html). In 2009 The top 1% in income earners paid approximately 38% of all tax revenues, the top 50% which includes that top 1% paid 97% of IRS revenues, according to the IRS. You have no legs to stand on here, because you didn't do your homework.



This paper is 40 years old and there are many problems with it. Primarily, this one:



Here he is arguing against high progressive tax rates like those in the 40's and 50's. He specifically outlines these when he talks about tax rates of 75%.

This is not applicable today. His argument was that the majority of profits is taxed, leading to a disincentive to grow your business. However, this argument doesn't hold up in 2010 when the highest tax rates in the country are around 35%.

In fact, Bruce Bartlett, one of the most vocal champions of Reaganomics has seen the light and has come out with this book:


He is a perfect example of someone championing this argument for so many decades and finally coming around to break it down.



Just because Bartlett went a little crazy in his old age doesn't make his previous works any less impactful. He was right before he was wrong, and his dissolution with G. W. Bush, who didn't follow conservative economic principles, was the catalyst that lead to Bartlett jumping the shark.

If a 75% top rate is too excessive in a booming economy how do you arrive at the conclusion that a 35% top rate isn't too excessive in a depressed economy? What math did you follow to arrive at this conclusion? Furthermore, what math and theory do you offer that pits the progressive income tax system as superior against a flat tax or proportional tax system? Yeah, good luck with that.

lacarnut
12-14-2010, 05:07 PM
If tax cuts are about jobs then why not provide tax incentives for employers who sign people on for a year or two? Answer: Because tax cuts are not about jobs... at least not the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.

If there is money to be made (i.e., demand) then why would anyone's decision to increase or not increase the workforce be contingent on tax breaks? It makes no sense whatsoever. The rich don't need more disposable income. They already have it. It's the middle class which needs disposable income.

How about the government cut spending; then everyone could get a tax cut. The government thirst for more of our money is well known. Liberals think that taking more from the rich and giving it to the poor will create jobs. Got new for you. The way to create job is to get the government off our backs and create certainty. Bush and Obama have screwed the pooch on this one. Rising health care costs, a threat of tax hikes, new regulations, idiotic shit like a 1099 for every $600 sales made by a retailer, increased rates on unemployment insurance, etc. etc. etc. create UNCERTAINTY. If you are too stupid to follow that, I can not help you.

malloc
12-14-2010, 05:16 PM
How about the government cut spending; then everyone could get a tax cut. The government thirst for more of our money is well known. Liberals think that taking more from the rich and giving it to the poor will create jobs. Got new for you. The way to create job is to get the government off our backs and create certainty. Bush and Obama have screwed the pooch on this one. Rising health care costs, a threat of tax hikes, new regulations, idiotic shit like a 1099 for every $600 sales made by a retailer, increased rates on unemployment insurance, etc. etc. etc. create UNCERTAINTY. If you are too stupid to follow that, I can not help you.

Well put, and this position is exactly what these lefty stoogies won't ever agree to. Raising taxes on the rich won't create jobs, and will only serve to remove a perquisite for job creation. Maintaining lower taxes on the rich won't create jobs, but it will leave the capital pre-requisite in place. Creating economic certainty through a halt in new regulations, taxes, and expansion of public debt will create a situation where business are comfortable hiring again, and consumers are comfortable spending again. Until you idiot DUmmies get that through your head you are going to be on the losing side of every economic argument on this board.

AmPat
12-14-2010, 05:20 PM
So, according to you, a person which makes say $1,000,000 per year is equally in need of a tax cut as a person who makes say $35,000 per year? What can't the person who makes $1,000,000 year buy that he or she needs a tax cut? A submarine?

Why is this question formulated to acheive a false or limited response? I agree that on the surface it would seem that the lower incomes "need" a tax break more than the rich. The rich however are the captains of industry and would make better use of tax breaks toward spurring economic recovery.

The rich are just as entitled to their money as the poor. Enough of this class warfare BS.:cool:

BadCat
12-14-2010, 05:46 PM
Let's sum this up.

The liberal shitstains who post here think the government is ENTITLED to our money.

They don't have a clue as to why, but that's what they think.

lacarnut
12-14-2010, 05:50 PM
Well put, and this position is exactly what these lefty stoogies won't ever agree to. Raising taxes on the rich won't create jobs, and will only serve to remove a perquisite for job creation. Maintaining lower taxes on the rich won't create jobs, but it will leave the capital pre-requisite in place. Creating economic certainty through a halt in new regulations, taxes, and expansion of public debt will create a situation where business are comfortable hiring again, and consumers are comfortable spending again. Until you idiot DUmmies get that through your head you are going to be on the losing side of every economic argument on this board.

I propose an enrichment tax on all Federal politicians that have been elected or appointed (unclassified). It would work like this... the difference between beginning assets and asset at retirement would be taxed at the 39% rate. Heaven knows politicians like Obama and others can buy real estate low and sell high plus other privileged investments that the general public does not have access to. That would be fair because of the underhanded dealings (although legal) would benefit a politician because of their influence. So an enrichment tax on all Congress critters would seem like a deal everyone could get behind with the exception of them.

Constitutionally Speaking
12-14-2010, 06:22 PM
Let's sum this up.

The liberal shitstains who post here think the government is ENTITLED to our money.

They don't have a clue as to why, but that's what they think.



You've got that wrong Bad Cat, they don't think it is our money in the first place. They think it is the governments.

Wei Wu Wei
12-14-2010, 07:39 PM
Who's "us"? Your "us" just got handed their asses by our "us" on November 2nd as I recall.

This isn't high school football this is about citizens participating in the ongoing creation of a better society, or the destruction of it if we continue to act like children and bicker over things that do not matter.

BadCat
12-14-2010, 07:42 PM
This isn't high school football this is about citizens participating in the ongoing creation of a better society, or the destruction of it if we continue to act like children and bicker over things that do not matter.

I'm all for the destruction of your part of society. You know, folks who hate America, folks who are filled with class envy, people who think North Korea is just a dandy fine country...people like you....liberals.