CAPITALISM: I used to think the Republican side was clearly better...

[AAAintheBeltway]

Quote from axeman:

Although I agree to a degree, I think they are simply trying
to avoid the situation where another tyrant gains power
and takes over the country and oil reserves.
Then we're right back where we started, and everyone will
say I TOLD YOU SO.

Saddam 2 is not the answer.


peace

axeman

You're right, that is not the answer, but neither is having US taxpayers foot the entire bill, then turn it over to some local thugs and crooks in a year.

It is also becoming increasingly clear that I was right in my earlier colloquy with KymerFye that we should have immediately imposed harsh security measures in Iraq. I see now that Ahmed Shalabi agrees with me.

 

[axeman]

Exactly!!!

Im soooooooooo sick of these bleeding hearts.
They have the entire game RIGGED so that ANY tax
cut, is always a tax cut for the "rich".

Well duh... when 1.6% pf tax payers in california pay
50% of the taxes, FOR EXAMPLE, it's IMPOSSIBLE to pass
a tax cut that doesn't benefit the rich the most.

In fact... this is probably true EVERWHERE in the US.


MORE TAX CUTS FOR THE *** TAX PAYERS *** please!
Ahem.... cough cough... the RICH!


peace

axeman

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:



Oh no, the horror!!! People who pay the most in taxes got more dollars back. Nevermind percentages. That is just soooo unfair!!!!

Anyway I think the Brookings example is seriously flawed because I doubt it takes into account the vastly increased child tax credit, which adds a huge cut to families with a couple of kids. I saw another example in the WSJ that said the average family got around $1500 in cuts, which is serious jack to "middle income wage earners". Note to liberal readers: that phrase is normally translated as "the rich" or "those most able to pay" by your politicians.

 

[bungrider]

AAA, I know you're not crazy about W, but for the record, are you for or against the current levels of military spending and deficit spending?

Of course, I'd also like to hear your arguments.

I read yesterday some excerpts from the Cheney interview that the rich tax-cut contributed 25% to the deficit, which was about 5x higher than what I would've expected off the top of my head.

Thanks,
-b

 

[tampa]

Quote from axeman:

Exactly!!!

Im soooooooooo sick of these bleeding hearts.
They have the entire game RIGGED so that ANY tax
cut, is always a tax cut for the "rich".

Well duh... when 1.6% pf tax payers in california pay
50% of the taxes, FOR EXAMPLE, it's IMPOSSIBLE to pass
a tax cut that doesn't benefit the rich the most.

In fact... this is probably true everywhere in the US.


MORE TAX CUTS FOR THE *** TAX PAYERS *** please!
Ahem.... cough cough... the RICH!


peace

axeman

apparently the taxes that they were paying did not keep them from becoming - in your words - rich. One can only conclude that not cutting their taxes now will not keep them from remaining rich.

With so many rich people running around, what's the rush to give them tax relief? Perhaps you can enlighten me?

 

[axeman]

Your missed my point entirely.

In their minds: TAX PAYER = RICH

If your making more than 40k a year, most of these people
will consider you rich. Thats a JOKE.

Try living in california making 40K/year. Ha!


Your logic is also horribly flawed.
Your basically saying its OK to unfairly abuse people
if they were able to overcome the abuse and "make it" anyway.


Once again..... punish the successful, is the party line.

I guess since I have saved a decent amount of money
under the heavy weight of unfair taxation, I should not be
provided any relief right?

Maybe the wife that is constantly beaten by her husband
each night, and manages to survive and continue living
with him should also be "left alone" since she is doing OK
under her harsh conditions


peace

axeman

Quote from tampa:



apparently the taxes that they were paying did not keep them from becoming - in your words - rich. One can only conclude that not cutting their taxes now will not keep them from remaining rich.

With so many rich people running around, what's the rush to give them tax relief? Perhaps you can enlighten me?

 

[tampa]

Quote from axeman:

Your missed my point entirely.

In their minds: TAX PAYER = RICH

If your making more than 40k a year, most of these people
will consider you rich. Thats a JOKE.

Try living in california making 40K/year. Ha!


Your logic is also horribly flawed.
Your basically saying its OK to unfairly abuse people
if they were able to overcome the abuse and "make it" anyway.


Once again..... punish the successful, is the party line.

I guess since I have saved a decent amount of money
under the heavy weight of unfair taxation, I should not be
provided any relief right?

Maybe the wife that is constantly beaten by her husband
each night, and manages to survive and continue living
with him should also be "left alone" since she is doing OK
under her harsh conditions


peace

axeman

Might you be kind enough to cite anyone, or any group who have proclaimed the threshold of wealth to be 40K?

I could be wrong, but I suspect that you are just blowing smoke to cover your flawed meritless argument in defense of the rich. Another way of phrasing that, is that you are making shit up in a stupid and foolish defense of a class of people you do not belong to, nor are likely to be joining. The percentage of your income paid in taxes and fees is grossly disproportionate to the rich, and goes up every year to subsidies cuts for the very people you defend.