2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vacante

[FreshFish]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

One of the biggest disappointments that happens over and over again occurs when there is already a long-standing consensus that "Thing A" be done, yet people continue to argue whether it "should be" done anyway...meanwhile, the essential debate is not "whether" but "how much."

One glaring example of this mismatch between situation and debate is over redistribution of wealth. There's been a wealth tax in the US off and on since 1797, and a permanent wealth tax since 1916. One component of this wealth tax is explicity about redistribution, and it has worked spectacularly well. As a matter of fact, even when this tax was not in existence, wealthy people voluntarily embraced its re-distributionist spirit anyway.

Despite having an explicitly redistributionist tax that has been extremely successful in application, we are still having a debate about whether the "rich" pay their "fair share" absent any grounding in a broader context or examining those claims in the light of sensible economic policy.

The biggest error in thinking is equating a high annual income with wealth. Income is merely one year's cash flow; while wealth is accumulated on one's balance sheet over time.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

One of the biggest disappointments that happens over and over again occurs when there is already a long-standing consensus that "Thing A" be done, yet people continue to argue whether it "should be" done anyway...meanwhile, the essential debate is not "whether" but "how much."

One glaring example of this mismatch between situation and debate is over redistribution of wealth. There's been a wealth tax in the US off and on since 1797, and a permanent wealth tax since 1916. One component of this wealth tax is explicity about redistribution, and it has worked spectacularly well. As a matter of fact, even when this tax was not in existence, wealthy people voluntarily embraced its re-distributionist spirit anyway.

Despite having an explicitly redistributionist tax that has been extremely successful in application, we are still having a debate about whether the "rich" pay their "fair share" absent any grounding in a broader context or examining those claims in the light of sensible economic policy.

The biggest error in thinking is equating a high annual income with wealth. Income is merely one year's cash flow; while wealth is accumulated on one's balance sheet over time.

Mitt Romney only paid 13% and you guys are still going ape over us calling him out on it? Really?

When Mitt's percentage is lower than mine, then and only then will I believe all this drivel you keep posting.

 

[Kepler]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

Heard a pollster on POTUS this morning talking about how Ryan being introduced to the public via his attack dog role may hurt him "when he runs for president in 2016."

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

Heard a pollster on POTUS this morning talking about how Ryan being introduced to the public via his attack dog role may hurt him "when he runs for president in 2016."

He's done running for President and winning if loses this year. The history on the subject is clear.

 

[Kepler]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

He's done running for President and winning if loses this year. The history on the subject is clear.

If you're scoring at home, it does look pretty bleak if you're the losing VP nominee.

Losing VPs who went on to be president:

1920 FDR
1836 Tyler

Period. Full stop.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

Yup Flagg, totally believe you. Every conservative is an "independent" as soon as Romney's poll numbers go down.

Especially considering I've been saying I won't vote for Romney even months before he become the Republican nominee. Let your religion tell you all "sinners" are Republicans, though.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

Mitt Romney only paid 13% and you guys are still going ape over us calling him out on it? Really?

When Mitt's percentage is lower than mine, then and only then will I believe all this drivel you keep posting.

And now for FlagDUDE08's "Lessons on How to Confuse a Democrat"

Lesson #101: Democrats only understand percentages. Whether it's 1%, 13%, 35%, whatever it may be. So, when you're in conversation with them, throw in the number "101". They won't understand, because you can't possibly have 101%.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

And now for FlagDUDE08's "Lessons on How to Confuse a Democrat"

Lesson #101: Democrats only understand percentages. Whether it's 1%, 13%, 35%, whatever it may be. So, when you're in conversation with them, throw in the number "101". They won't understand, because you can't possibly have 101%.

Sure you can. Just like you can divide by zero. I understand the difference just fine. Also the argument works the other way. Basically your argument is if someone making 50,000 a year pays 5,000 in taxes and Mitt makes 26 million dollars a year and pays 10,000 in taxes Mitt has met his tax obligation.

That's BS, and you know it.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

Amazing how you look at Obama's taxes and he gives very little charity, a much lower percentage than Romney, but we never hear a word about it. But, that would infringe upon the media's carefully crafted re-elect Obama narrative, so it's DOA.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

Sure you can. Just like you can divide by zero. I understand the difference just fine. Also the argument works the other way. Basically your argument is if someone making 50,000 a year pays 5,000 in taxes and Mitt makes 26 million dollars a year and pays 10,000 in taxes Mitt has met his tax obligation.

That's BS, and you know it.

It's the same argument, because you are still making a percentage comparison. You just aren't putting in a percentage sign. Nice try.

 

[joecct]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

Sure you can. Just like you can divide by zero. I understand the difference just fine. Also the argument works the other way. Basically your argument is if someone making 50,000 a year pays 5,000 in taxes and Mitt makes 26 million dollars a year and pays 10,000 in taxes Mitt has met his tax obligation.

That's BS, and you know it.

If that's what the tax code allows, then yes, he has. As a few of us have said to you and others, if you don't like the taxes being paid by the 60% (appx), then petition your elected representatives to change the tax code.

Why do you think the flat tax and fair tax have a lot of proponents? Because those that make (or spend) a lot would pay a lot. Works for me.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

Amazing how you look at Obama's taxes and he gives very little charity, a much lower percentage than Romney, but we never hear a word about it. But, that would infringe upon the media's carefully crafted re-elect Obama narrative, so it's DOA.

That's because the left are stingy tippers. They know that, come April, they must tithe. Or whatever the equivalent is for whatever wacky percentage they have in their mind today.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

If that's what the tax code allows, then yes, he has. As a few of us have said to you and others, if you don't like the taxes being paid by the 60% (appx), then petition your elected representatives to change the tax code.

Why do you think the flat tax and fair tax have a lot of proponents? Because those that make (or spend) a lot would pay a lot. Works for me.

As the old saying goes, "Don't hate the play-ah, hate the game."

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

That's because the left are stingy tippers. They know that, come April, they must tithe. Or whatever the equivalent is for whatever wacky percentage they have in their mind today.

True. I recall seeing a study came out, what, a few months ago, and found that most of the states where residents on average gave the highest percentage of their income to charity tended Republican, while most that gave the least tended Democrat.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

True. I recall seeing a study came out, what, a few months ago, and found that most of the states where residents on average gave the highest percentage of their income to charity tended Republican, while most that gave the least tended Democrat.

Apparently, if you are a Democrat today, "anything not mandatory is forbidden."

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

True. I recall seeing a study came out, what, a few months ago, and found that most of the states where residents on average gave the highest percentage of their income to charity tended Republican, while most that gave the least tended Democrat.

That's because Democrats like being told what to do.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

...[total non-sequiter].....

Hmm...I mention a re-distributionist tax provision supported by the rich that's been around for 150 years or more and has been very successful, worth trillions, and you are still arguing about small change?

You remind me very much of a character from The Last Battle

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

True. I recall seeing a study came out, what, a few months ago, and found that most of the states where residents on average gave the highest percentage of their income to charity tended Republican, while most that gave the least tended Democrat.

And I saw a study that came out that Blue States receive less Federal Tax Money back from the Government than Red States. What's your point?

 

[Handyman]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

So Republicans give the most in charity, and receive the most from the government. Congrats on that I guess...

Get back up on your cross Bob...there are White, Male, Rich Christians being persecuted and they need your martyrdom!

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

Hmm...I mention a re-distributionist tax provision supported by the rich that's been around for 150 years or more and has been very successful, worth trillions, and you are still arguing about small change?

You remind me very much of a character from The Last Battle

I think your missing the libstain point. Their argument is not about how much is being donated, but rather who it's going to. It has to go to them. It has to go to their church. It'd be like living in Ithaca and making a large donation to Harvard University. Sure, you're being charitable, but because you're not being charitable to the local Ivy League college, something is wrong with you.