Republican Judgement

[Alien Allen]

What is wrong with a 401K Johnny?

And your comment about defined benefit pensions seems to ignore the fact that those pensions likely were almost all replaced by 401K's or something else.

 

[Johnfromokc]

Brings to mind a neat paraprosdokian sentence


Never argue with an *****
He'll drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.


actually there is a different word used but that would probably get me an infraction and Johnnyboy you just aint worth it I am afraid

More name calling? You have yet to add anything meaningful to this thread.

What is wrong with a 401K Johnny?

And your comment about defined benefit pensions seems to ignore the fact that those pensions likely were almost all replaced by 401K's or something else.

While this post is approaching adding something other than name calling to the thread, it is clear you picked a portion of my post that you think you know something about. However, 401K's were not the topic. The topic is how supply side economics has been largely responsible for the economic situation we are facing today.

BTW, I think 401K's are a delightful product. I fully fund mine to the IRS maximum, along with my SEP, traditional and others. You know who else thinks they are great products? The fund management companies who get paid annual fees to manage them and get paid a commission every time you swap mutual funds regardless of fund performance or whether the fund manager has a vested interest in the fund. But I digress...Another topic for another day.

 

[retro]

I'm not even going to bother at this point... you took what I said, and twisted it to make your own "points". It's honestly a worthless exercise in trying to convince someone so obviously biased of anything other than their own opinion. Doesn't particularly matter to me. I could go through and refute basically everything that you've said... but it's honestly not even worth my time anymore.

 

[Johnfromokc]

I'm not even going to bother at this point... you took what I said, and twisted it to make your own "points".

Wrong. I took your points and applied the fact and logic test.

It's honestly a worthless exercise in trying to convince someone so obviously biased of anything other than their own opinion.

No, my friend, it is you who is biased. I know your own points better than you do. If you would simply apply your own conservative libertarian philosophy to the truth, fact and logic test, you would see the flaws. You are just as blind as the religious "believer".

Doesn't particularly matter to me. I could go through and refute basically everything that you've said... but it's honestly not even worth my time anymore.

No, I do not believe you can. As a matter of fact, I challenge you to "refute" my points. I dare you. Know why? Because you cannot. The statistics do not support your claims. I used to be a "believer" just like you until I challenged my own beliefs. I actually took Boortz up on his advice to not believe anything he said until I verified it. Well, those positions you champion did not stand up to challenge.

I completely understand why you are quitting the discussion. I remember when I got the first inklings that my own beliefs in the virtues of conservatism and libertarianism were false. It was a little disconcerting. But I forged ahead and embraced the truth. Like your radio pal Boortz says: Welcome to the "Church of the Painful Truth". Only Boortz is NOT the high priest as he is wont to suggest - we are - we are responsible to seek the truth and challenge our beliefs and embrace the truth.

Stop allowing the corpratocracy media outlets to shape your beliefs and begin thinking for yourself.

 

[retro]

:24: :24: :24:

Oh man, keep going dude... you're making my night. I really needed a fucking laugh after the weekend from hell that I had.

I'm just seeing the same shit from you that I've seen from plenty of crazed whacked out liberals around here.

Hey, do me a favor... click on the link I have in my sig and join up over there. Tim could use someone else that sees things the way that you do... plus there are people over there waiting for someone else to tear apart.

 

[Minor Axis]

I was going to say before, and now I will... I don't quite get the name calling...I try never to do that in religious and political debates....it really gets nowhere and makes people look far less credible than they might be otherwise.

I agree 100% although some people are frustrating enough to tempt you.

Popular Science Magazine: The Lost Satellite, an expensive satellite designed to monitor the Earth. Guess what happened to it after "W" found himself in the White House?

But in 2001, just a few months after the inauguration of George W. Bush, Triana’s launch plan was quietly put on hold. “We were preparing to transport it to the launch site when we heard,” Rosanova says. Instead, they wheeled the $100-million satellite into storage.

In my opinion this more than amply illustrates the evil nature of the GOPpers, much worse than sticking their heads in the sand over Global Warming, this is "we don't want to know, we don't want to put any notions in your heads even if it's true" BS. If it is true, eventually it's going to cost us more, a lot more as time goes by to try to overcome the damage. And if they are so sure such a thing is not happening, this would have been the perfect opportunity to disprove it. Politicians like this have no business leading any country.

 

[Joe the meek]

I'm just seeing the same shit from you that I've seen from plenty of crazed whacked out liberals around here.

In almost 30 years of being able to vote, I've been a registered Republican (as my parents), and I never once voted for a Democratic president (I'd like to think that I'm not dumb enough to vote a straight ticket however LOL). I believe most would consider my household to be upper middle class, and actually looking online, it seems we've done better for ourselves nationally than I would of thought rank wise. The most I've ever paid for a car is my truck at 14k, we have one small TV, and pretty much the only debt we have is our house and property. The other week was the first time in 5 years that I took a week off straight for vacation, and some may consider me a workaholic. Heck, the last presidential election I wasted a vote because I couldn't vote for Obama, but I couldn't vote for Mccain (which I had plans on to) because he had to go and get that numbnutz from Alaska and I couldn't bear to see her one step away from the presidency with perhaps an "older" elected president (if Mccain got in).

I mention all of this because I'd like to think most would consider me a conservative.

However, only an observation, it seems as of late, there are more crazed whacked out conservatives running around than I've ever seen before. Crap, I even took my Gadsden Flag bumper sticker off my truck because I didn't want people associating me with some of those idiots who think just because people are pissed off, you're going to vote for them if they label themselves the Tea Party. That said, I'm becoming to believe the no matter who you elect to run things, it won't be people elected into office running the country, but major business interests including the healthcare industry.

I will add that I would like to think that no matter what you political affiliation is and how you vote, you're doing so with what you think your countries best interests are. I'm getting to the point where I'm thinking that big business (including the health care industry) is doing nothing but playing both Democrats and Republican voters (AKA the "people") for fools. The more complex you make things, the easier it becomes.

 

[Alien Allen]

I agree 100% although some people are frustrating enough to tempt you.

I'd like all of you to chime in on this link. It's from Popular Science and concerns The Lost Satellite, an expensive satellite designed to monitor the Earth. Guess what happened to it after "W" found himself in the White House?

In my opinion this more than amply illustrates the evil nature of the GOPpers, much worse than sticking their heads in the sand over Global Warming, this is "we don't want to know, we don't want to put any notions in your heads even if it's true" BS. Even if it's true and eventually it's going to cost us more a lot more as time goes by to try to overcome the damage. And if they are so sure such a thing is not happening, this would be the perfect opportunity to disprove it. Politicians like this have no business leading any country.

Ok so Bush shelved it

Looks like Obama is in no hurry to get it up and running either

 

[Johnfromokc]

:24: :24: :24:

Oh man, keep going dude... you're making my night. I really needed a fucking laugh after the weekend from hell that I had.

That's a pretty sad response dude. You have nothing, just admit it. If you had any facts whatsoever, you would put them on the table for discussion.

I'm just seeing the same shit from you that I've seen from plenty of crazed whacked out liberals around here.

What you are seeing is fact and logic that your flawed conservative libertarian religion cannot refute and you are frustrated and have descended into name calling. I remember what that felt like when it happened to me when I was a Boortz believer like you. The difference between you and me is after learning the truth, I eventually embraced it, while you cling to it, knowing your philosophy is wrong.

Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm not a liberal. I disagree with many positions of the left and agree with some positions on the right. I'm aspiring to be a Freethinker by consistently challenging my own beliefs. If my own beliefs to do not stand up to fact, logic and truth, out they go. It's called intellectual honesty - you should try it - it is a freeing experience.

And, I challenge you, yet again, to address the points of this discussion and refrain from the childish name calling.

Hey, do me a favor... click on the link I have in my sig and join up over there. Tim could use someone else that sees things the way that you do... plus there are people over there waiting for someone else to tear apart.

By "tear apart, you mean "name call and belittle. No thanks. I'll remain here where there are at least some intelligent posters of varied beliefs who enjoy a reasonable, civil discussion.

 

[retro]

Oh there are plenty of intelligent posters over there that are reasonable and even civil... it's just more suited towards this type of debate.

Honestly, I've just gotten tired of having to spoon feed things to people such as yourself. You claim to be a freethinker, and yet you dismiss very legit theories completely out of hand simply because you don't agree with them... such as the concept of moving away from fiat currency and that of a FairTax system.

Please explain to me how a FairTax system would not work in the United States? It would remove loopholes in the system and require the poor and rich to pay the same percentages on items.

Additionally, you never addressed the issues I brought up with double taxation of businesses, businesses raising prices on products in order to maintain their profit margins (thus indirectly raising taxes on the population as a result), and how sole proprietorships are singularly unfair to the small business owner because the business income counts as their own, even if the business operates at a loss. If you want me to answer your questions, please do answer the issues that I've raised already and you've ignored other than telling me that I'm wrong.

 

[Minor Axis]

I don't mind having some limits on discussions. OTZ does not let you go crazy but you can still get your point across in a civil way.

 

[Alien Allen]

piss on civility

it is way over rated

 

[Minor Axis]

Forget civility, forget discussion, just arrange to meet at a spot and beat the crap out of each other until one submits or dies...

 

[Panacea]

That sounds much less painful

 

[Alien Allen]

Forget civility, forget discussion, just arrange to meet at a spot and beat the crap out of each other until one submits or dies...

sounds like a plan ---------------------------------> :thumbup

 

[Tim]

Forget civility, forget discussion, just arrange to meet at a spot and beat the crap out of each other until one submits or dies...

Pfft, you only do that to the "gays"

 

[Tim]

Pfft, you only do that to the "gays"

sounds like a plan ---------------------------------> :thumbup

:24: I see we have our very first contender...

 

[Johnfromokc]

Honestly, I've just gotten tired of having to spoon feed things to people such as yourself. You claim to be a freethinker, and yet you dismiss very legit theories completely out of hand simply because you don't agree with them... such as the concept of moving away from fiat currency and that of a FairTax system.

"Spoon feed people such as yourself"? That's condescending, yet comical.

First off, you NEVER addressed what you would replace a fiat system with and exactly how whatever that system would be might work. I told you I'd listen, but all I have heard so far is crickets.

Please explain to me how a FairTax system would not work in the United States? It would remove loopholes in the system and require the poor and rich to pay the same percentages on items.

The first thing that requires attention is the myth that the poor don't pay taxes. You know retro, I very seriously doubt you are in the top 1% of income earners. That makes it all the more baffling why you support tax systems that harm the middle class, yet help the top 1%. I've already addressed this issue in another thread, but for your benefit, I'll address it yet again here. This is a post I replied to Alien Allen when he stated: "Currently 50% pay no federal taxes which is what is obscene."

My reply:

I've heard this statement repeated so many times in the past that I actually looked up IRS tax statistics and have them memorized - but feel free to investigate for yourself. Here goes:

Based upon published 2008 IRS data, updated in October 2010, the bottom 50% earn less than $33,048, which represents 12.75% of all income earned. In dollars that represents:

$1,074,514,000,000

Let that fact soak in for a few moments.

Ok, got that soaked in?

The top 1% earned more than $380,354, which represents 20% of all income earned. In dollars this is:

$1,685,472,000,000

Let's do the math:

$1,685,472,000,000 Top 1% earned income
$1,074,514,000,000 Bottom 50% earned income
--$610,958,000,000

Are you assimilating all this data so far? From IRS data, the top 1% earned 1.6 times more than the entire botton 50% combined.

Got all that data? Now that you have the facts, how much more of this 12.75% of the total income earned should the bottom 50% of American wage earners pay?

Keep in mind as you ponder:

The bottom 50% pays full FICA and Medicare taxes, state taxes, sales taxes, ad valorem taxes on vehicles, fuel taxes, telephone taxes, and other miscellaneous taxes just like the wealthy. Further, while the lowest income earners recieve the Earned Income Tax Credit, the upper earners of the bottom 50% paid 2.59% of all federal income taxes.

The top 400 U.S. individual taxpayers got 1.59% of the nation’s household income in 2007, according to their tax returns, three times the slice they got in the 1990s, according to the Internal Revenue Service. They paid 2.05% of all individual income taxes in that year.

In its annual update of the taxes paid by the 400 best-off taxpayers, who aren’t identified, the IRS also said that only 220 of the top 400 were in the top marginal tax bracket. The 400 best-off taxpayers paid an average tax rate of 16.6%, lower than in any year since the IRS began making the reports in 1992.

To make the top 400, a taxpayer had to have income of more than $138.8 million. As a group, the top 400 reported $137.9 billion in income, and paid $22.9 billion in federal income taxes.

About 81.3% of the income of the top 400 households came in the form of capital gains, dividends or interest, the IRS data show. Only 6.5% came in the form of salaries and wages.


Sources:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010020718/top-1-lower-tax-rate-their-secretaries

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

The "fair tax" system is a major benefit to the richest Americans. The tax burden would be shouldered by those in the $25,000 - $200,000 income range - that's the small buisness class, and the wage class. Those in the top 1% would have no incentive to spend on infrastructure, much like the current system. So the top earners will continue to hoard their wealth just like they are right now. The "fair tax" is not exactly "fair" in this regard is it? The only difference I see is that the wealthy will pay even less tax as a percentage of their income than they do now. Great system for the wealthy like Boortz who earned over $300,000 (excluding endorsements) with his 1995 contract with WSB radio in Atlanta, before he went syndicated - I'm sure he earns much more now - and congressman John Linder with a net worth in the neighborhood of $26,000,000.

So retro, if you were a high earner like Boortz and Linder, I could understand why you would support the fleecing of the working class. But I'd wager you are a wage earner like most Americans.

Tell me retro...why do you vote against your own best interests, and against the interests of the American middle class?

Additionally, you never addressed the issues I brought up with double taxation of businesses, businesses raising prices on products in order to maintain their profit margins (thus indirectly raising taxes on the population as a result), and how sole proprietorships are singularly unfair to the small business owner because the business income counts as their own, even if the business operates at a loss. If you want me to answer your questions, please do answer the issues that I've raised already and you've ignored other than telling me that I'm wrong.

I've not ignored anything, and you have addressed nothing. I'm still waiting for you to explain how all your ideas will allegedly work. All you have done thus far is repeat over and over that your ideas will work, but no details as to how. I suggest you go back and actually read my posts instead of skimming over them.

I've owned one C corp in a partnership, and 2 sole proprietorships. The C corp was a record keeping pain in my ass to be sure, but run correctly, it provides excellent tax shelters. The sole proprieterships were much easier, and the only drawback for me was the exposure of my personal assets to business liability, but insurance covered that issue. Both structures provided me with a major tax advantage over income earned via wages alone.

What you are going to have to explain is how the "fair tax" is going to make life better for small business. I'm not seeing it. I do see how this "fair tax will make profits far greater for big corporations, and high earners who take their compensation in the form of capital gains. But there is nothing "fair" about it to the middle class and small business.

How about you tell me how it is better for the middle class to pay the bulk of taxes, while the top 1% pay less as a percentage of their incomes with this "fair tax"?

 

[Panacea]

I predict some of these: :24:

 

[Johnfromokc]

I predict some of these: :24:

Yup. That's pretty much all they've got to offer. They'll read it and go>>>>>>:willy_nilly:and then post these :24: just as you predict.

I'm always willing to listen to facts and figures. I'm waiting for one of them to show us how voting against our best interests is actually in our best interests.........