Conservatives Hate Thinking

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
There is no need to take it to extremes, and this is a silly example of taking what I’m talking about, and I believe you fully understand, to the extreme.
[/quote]

It is a little method called reductionism, ridicule, and red herrings. You know “reduce” it to it’s actual form or principle, which when left’ers do it, it usually results in straw men 95 out 100x. Then ridicule it for it’s bad principle, then when your bad principle is shown to be a weak argument since that is not the actual principle, the actual principle being more complex and meatier than previously represented by said left’er, throw in some red herring to put more weight to an already bad argument.

82

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Percentage Change in After-Tax Income
Cash Income
(in thousands of 2009 dollars) 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Less than 10 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 5.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%
10-20 1.0% 1.0% 1.1% 1.0% 4.5% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 0.8%
20-30 2.6% 2.6% 2.5% 2.4% 5.4% 2.5% 2.4% 2.4% 2.2%
30-40 2.7% 2.8% 2.7% 2.6% 5.2% 2.8% 2.7% 2.7% 2.4%
40-50 2.6% 2.5% 2.4% 2.5% 4.7% 2.6% 2.5% 2.5% 2.2%
50-75 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 4.6% 2.8% 2.7% 2.7% 2.3%
75-100 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 3.1% 4.8% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 2.8%
100-200 3.8% 3.8% 3.9% 4.0% 5.1% 4.3% 4.2% 4.2% 3.6%
200-500 3.4% 3.4% 3.8% 3.9% 4.0% 4.1% 4.3% 4.3% 3.6%
500-1,000 3.9% 4.0% 4.2% 4.2% 4.3% 4.3% 5.0% 5.0% 3.8%
More than 1,000 6.0% 6.0% 6.3% 6.1% 6.2% 6.0% 7.3% 7.3% 6.3%[/quote]

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

revenues (taxes in the door) are more under Bush than any year under Clinton save one.

In constant dollars there is 3 years in bush’s time that don’t bring in more than Clinton’s best year.

[/quote]

It looks to me that it is an up hill climb until Bush’s recession

83

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Percentage Change in After-Tax Income
Cash Income
(in thousands of 2009 dollars) 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Less than 10 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 5.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%
10-20 1.0% 1.0% 1.1% 1.0% 4.5% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 0.8%
20-30 2.6% 2.6% 2.5% 2.4% 5.4% 2.5% 2.4% 2.4% 2.2%
30-40 2.7% 2.8% 2.7% 2.6% 5.2% 2.8% 2.7% 2.7% 2.4%
40-50 2.6% 2.5% 2.4% 2.5% 4.7% 2.6% 2.5% 2.5% 2.2%
50-75 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 4.6% 2.8% 2.7% 2.7% 2.3%
75-100 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 3.1% 4.8% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 2.8%
100-200 3.8% 3.8% 3.9% 4.0% 5.1% 4.3% 4.2% 4.2% 3.6%
200-500 3.4% 3.4% 3.8% 3.9% 4.0% 4.1% 4.3% 4.3% 3.6%
500-1,000 3.9% 4.0% 4.2% 4.2% 4.3% 4.3% 5.0% 5.0% 3.8%
More than 1,000 6.0% 6.0% 6.3% 6.1% 6.2% 6.0% 7.3% 7.3% 6.3%[/quote]

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

revenues (taxes in the door) are more under Bush than any year under Clinton save one.

In constant dollars there is 3 years in bush’s time that don’t bring in more than Clinton’s best year.

[/quote]

It looks to me that it is an up hill climb until Bush’s recession
[/quote]

Your link is as a % of GDP. So economic ups and downs will effect the graph greatly. Mine is in terms of revenues collected, which should also be effected by economic ups and downs. Just in a different way.

revenues, in dollars were higher under bush.

84

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Percentage Change in After-Tax Income
Cash Income
(in thousands of 2009 dollars) 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Less than 10 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 5.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%
10-20 1.0% 1.0% 1.1% 1.0% 4.5% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 0.8%
20-30 2.6% 2.6% 2.5% 2.4% 5.4% 2.5% 2.4% 2.4% 2.2%
30-40 2.7% 2.8% 2.7% 2.6% 5.2% 2.8% 2.7% 2.7% 2.4%
40-50 2.6% 2.5% 2.4% 2.5% 4.7% 2.6% 2.5% 2.5% 2.2%
50-75 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 4.6% 2.8% 2.7% 2.7% 2.3%
75-100 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 3.1% 4.8% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 2.8%
100-200 3.8% 3.8% 3.9% 4.0% 5.1% 4.3% 4.2% 4.2% 3.6%
200-500 3.4% 3.4% 3.8% 3.9% 4.0% 4.1% 4.3% 4.3% 3.6%
500-1,000 3.9% 4.0% 4.2% 4.2% 4.3% 4.3% 5.0% 5.0% 3.8%
More than 1,000 6.0% 6.0% 6.3% 6.1% 6.2% 6.0% 7.3% 7.3% 6.3%[/quote]

@ Pat I will quit taking mine if every one quits taking theirs . and again it clearly shows a disparity in the value of my dollar compared to Mitt’s or Goerge’s
[/quote]

If you are going to request that taxes be raised and everybody pay more then first you pay more. That is the only way to avoid hypocrisy on this issue. You cannot ask others to pay more if you aren’t willing to pay more yourself first.

85

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]atypical1 wrote:
Taking from the rich is just not a well thought out plan. I mean how sustainable is that [/quote]

It isn’t, and that is the problem. (Plus it leaves a bad taste in the mouth of those of us working 72 hour weeks trying to get promoted and make a better life for our family, only to be punished for working hard… But anyway… ;))

The other problem being, any attempt to “spread the wealth around” focuses on the wrong shit. That gets people in this mindset that the “pie” is a finite size. If we can focus on making the pie larger, adding value to the resources we have, adding resources, it helps everyone.

That is partly why education changes would be second on the “Beans fix America plan”. Throwing money at the problem isn’t working, we spend more and more every year. I’m not saying we don’t still need more dough, but we certainly need to think about a better way of spending it. (I’d prefer private education, market driven, but people would lose their fucking minds, and inner city kids would get hosed.)

If people added value to themselves, finding work would be easier. But adding value to yourself is hard work…[/quote]

The way to raise government revenue is to improve the economy, not raise taxes. When the economy is functioning well, the amount of taxing opportunities increase and therefore, more revenue. Waaaaaay more revenue than just taking a little more from the taxing opportunities that currently exist.
If you want the government to have more inflow and everybody benefit, then you need to increase the amount of times money changes hands on a daily basis. Everytime money changes hands you have a tax opportunity.

Raising taxes on the “rich” won’t do shit. It will be a drop in the ocean. The rich will simply go away if you make it untenable to do business here due to taxation. They will just take it elsewhere.
If you want to pusnish a rich guy, slash his tires, or beat them up in a dark ally or something. Taxing them more won’t do anything for the middle class or government revenue.

86

[quote]pat wrote:

If you are going to request that taxes be raised and everybody pay more then first you pay more. That is the only way to avoid hypocrisy on this issue. You cannot ask others to pay more if you aren’t willing to pay more yourself first.
[/quote]

Kinda brings us back to the freedom issue. Asking others to kick in more, calling it “fair” share brings us back to the fact you can’t have economic equalty and freedom at the same time.

I mean, what is “fair” when it comes to paying taxes?

Who should deside what is fair? The rich? The poor? The Middle?

And in a situation like right now, were is disproportionate amount of the funding comes from the top, and a disproportionate amount of the benefit goes to the bottom, does that affect the above two answers?

And is anyone actually free in this situation?

As an aside, the government taking your money, by what amounts to force, and providing shit services back sounds familiar.

87

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

Who should deside what is fair? The rich? The poor? The Middle?

[/quote]

I can tell you right now the Bush tax cuts were written by and for the wealthy :slight_smile:

88

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

Who should deside what is fair? The rich? The poor? The Middle?

[/quote]

I can tell you right now the Bush tax cuts were written by and for the wealthy :)[/quote]

Everybody got a tax cut, first. Second the dirty little secret about rich people, is while they may be rich, they may not be receiving ‘income’. So you can tax the shit out of them at 100% and it won’t make a damn to them or tax revenue.

89

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

Who should deside what is fair? The rich? The poor? The Middle?

[/quote]

I can tell you right now the Bush tax cuts were written by and for the wealthy :)[/quote]

Everybody got a tax cut, first. Second the dirty little secret about rich people, is while they may be rich, they may not be receiving ‘income’. So you can tax the shit out of them at 100% and it won’t make a damn to them or tax revenue.[/quote]

No one wants to tax the shit out of them , No one thinks they are evil, it is a ploy to avoid serious conversation on the disparity of the value of the wealthy’s dollar $.87 and the working class’s dollar $.70

90

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

No one wants to tax the shit out of them , No one thinks they are evil, it is a ploy to avoid serious conversation on the disparity of the value of the wealthy’s dollar $.87 and the working class’s dollar $.70 [/quote]

I don’t know pitt, it seems there are some demographics, (college age people, people who call themselves liberal (wow @ that favorable rating) and people making under 30k) that seem to be in favor of socialism.

I was called a capitialist pig on facebook the other day for pointing out how awesome NOrth Korea was for letting women ride a bike without fear of detainment or execution.

People are pissed dude.

91

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

Who should deside what is fair? The rich? The poor? The Middle?

[/quote]

The middle as the majority of those who fight and die to protect this nation come from there.

92

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

Who should deside what is fair? The rich? The poor? The Middle?

[/quote]

The middle as the majority of those who fight and die to protect this nation come from there. [/quote]

I think that is interesting.

Should sevice in the armed forces be required to serve the country as a congressman or president?

93

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

Who should deside what is fair? The rich? The poor? The Middle?

[/quote]

The middle as the majority of those who fight and die to protect this nation come from there. [/quote]

I think that is interesting.

Should sevice in the armed forces be required to serve the country as a congressman or president?[/quote]

That is very Roman of you and maybe not a bad idea.

If you have not read it, Starship Troopers and the thoughts on citizenship developed there are along the lines you mentioned.

Not that we need it, this was also true for a lot of Greek city states.

If you are not willing to lay you life on the line for the polis, shut the fuck up.

94

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

Who should deside what is fair? The rich? The poor? The Middle?

[/quote]

The middle as the majority of those who fight and die to protect this nation come from there. [/quote]

I think that is interesting.

Should sevice in the armed forces be required to serve the country as a congressman or president?[/quote]

No , I believe it would be unconstitutional

95

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

Who should deside what is fair? The rich? The poor? The Middle?

[/quote]

The middle as the majority of those who fight and die to protect this nation come from there. [/quote]

Problem with your statement is no one has defended America since probably the 2nd World War

96

[quote]blake2616 wrote:
I post a study about how dumb conservatives are and you turn it into a meaningful discussion with civility? WTF is wrong with you people?[/quote]

LOL! It is ironic because it’s the opposite so frequently…

97

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

Who should deside what is fair? The rich? The poor? The Middle?

[/quote]

I can tell you right now the Bush tax cuts were written by and for the wealthy :)[/quote]

Everybody got a tax cut, first. Second the dirty little secret about rich people, is while they may be rich, they may not be receiving ‘income’. So you can tax the shit out of them at 100% and it won’t make a damn to them or tax revenue.[/quote]

No one wants to tax the shit out of them , No one thinks they are evil, it is a ploy to avoid serious conversation on the disparity of the value of the wealthy’s dollar $.87 and the working class’s dollar $.70 [/quote]

You are looking only at one avenue of taxation, income. Rich folks tend to have many more avenues of taxation due to having more shit: property, sales, capitol gains, etc. Now while us lowly have some of that too, they tend to have those things at a much higher level. They own big houses, perhaps several of them. They own more and more expensive cars, have many investments, boats, planes, people and if the own a business, they pay tons of taxes on it too. So in reality they pay a lot of taxes, just not income. They perhaps get a break on income, but the get hosed some where down the line.

98

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

Who should deside what is fair? The rich? The poor? The Middle?

[/quote]

The middle as the majority of those who fight and die to protect this nation come from there. [/quote]

I think that is interesting.

Should sevice in the armed forces be required to serve the country as a congressman or president?[/quote]

I actually would answer yes to this question, particularly president. If you are going to send young men to war, you should have some real world experience in the military.

99

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

Who should deside what is fair? The rich? The poor? The Middle?

[/quote]

The middle as the majority of those who fight and die to protect this nation come from there. [/quote]

I think that is interesting.

Should sevice in the armed forces be required to serve the country as a congressman or president?[/quote]

I actually would answer yes to this question, particularly president. If you are going to send young men to war, you should have some real world experience in the military.[/quote]
Is it really the president who sends the soldiers to war or is it the public (at least the majority of it) that supports it?

I’m in the military and I used to think that politicians should have military experience but then again, I realize that it isn’t for everyone and to be honest you don’t want “everyone.” Besides, there are other ways to serve your country. Also, Obama supported (before becoming president)the positive changes to the GI Bill and other college incentives for soldiers whereas McCain was against them so it doesn’t necessarily follow that a conservative, former member of the armed services, is for the troops.

It’s interesting that the two Dems who ran against GWB were both Vietnam vets while GWB’s military service was less than stellar (and Cheney was a draft dodger) and McCain was beaten by Obama so Americans don’t put too much stock in military service. Had Powell run it would have been interesting. He is definitely someone who cares about the troops.

The point I’m making is that the middle class makes up the majority of the military. It’s a myth that the average soldier is from an impoverished background. A lot of these young (and not so young) men and women choose to serve out of a sense of duty (like me). If these people start to feel like this isn’t their country, that they are not protecting their families, friends, neighbors, etc. but are serving the interests of the elite then maybe fewer will be willing to put their lives on the line. Are we then going to start hiring illegals or something to do the job that Americans don’t want to do?

100

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

Who should deside what is fair? The rich? The poor? The Middle?

[/quote]

I can tell you right now the Bush tax cuts were written by and for the wealthy :)[/quote]

Everybody got a tax cut, first. Second the dirty little secret about rich people, is while they may be rich, they may not be receiving ‘income’. So you can tax the shit out of them at 100% and it won’t make a damn to them or tax revenue.[/quote]

No one wants to tax the shit out of them , No one thinks they are evil, it is a ploy to avoid serious conversation on the disparity of the value of the wealthy’s dollar $.87 and the working class’s dollar $.70 [/quote]

You are looking only at one avenue of taxation, income. Rich folks tend to have many more avenues of taxation due to having more shit: property, sales, capitol gains, etc. Now while us lowly have some of that too, they tend to have those things at a much higher level. They own big houses, perhaps several of them. They own more and more expensive cars, have many investments, boats, planes, people and if the own a business, they pay tons of taxes on it too. So in reality they pay a lot of taxes, just not income. They perhaps get a break on income, but the get hosed some where down the line.[/quote]

Their planes port at municipal airports , their boats dock at public docks , Their trucks roll on public streets . The use more man hours of the police and fire because they have more assets to protect.

We all pay more taxes other than income . I am just pointing to a sizable disparity of worth in the dollar