TEA party compared to 47% pay no fed income taxes
-
Ian, a VAT or Sales type tax will not hurt the poor any more than the rich. Think about it, if the rich aren't spending their money, then they aren't being taxed. They can't enjoy their money if they aren't spending it. However if they are saving it, that money is being invested into the economy (IE SPENT) and since it would be spent all throughout the economy, it would be taxed. Interest on that money would be taxable because the bank sold its serviced to the rich man who deposited that money. DO you get it? Also, slapping high taxes on higher income workers still hurts the poor, because they pay high prices when they buy things to make up for the loss of income for the more skilled and productive worker, and to pay for all the business taxes ontop of that.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Ian, a VAT or Sales type tax will not hurt the poor any more than the rich
Incorrect. The lower class currently DOES NOT PAY income tax, for the most part, as is shown by the links in this thread. With a VAT or Sales tax, you have no way to distinguish between rich and poor (Since the tax is applied at time of purchase), so everyone pays the same rate. This means a significant increase to the tax burden of the lower class, which is least capable of shouldering that burden.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Think about it, if the rich aren't spending their money, then they aren't being taxed. They can't enjoy their money if they aren't spending it.
They spend a small fraction of their annual income to "enjoy" it. The rest sits in investment accounts and trusts. Poor people spend almost every cent they earn. Rich people don't.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
However if they are saving it, that money is being invested into the economy (IE SPENT) and since it would be spent all throughout the economy, it would be taxed. Interest on that money would be taxable because the bank sold its serviced to the rich man who deposited that money. DO you get it?
Sure, it's being invested... It's already being invested. But investing wouldn't generate taxes under your system, any more than it does now. When they buy stocks and bonds, they don't pay sales tax. It wouldn't make sense to apply VAT to that kind of transaction. And sure, the interest would be taxed, just as it is now, but that's a small fraction of the money being invested. Tax revenue from the rich would still drastically decrease.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Also, slapping high taxes on higher income workers still hurts the poor, because they pay high prices when they buy things to make up for the loss of income for the more skilled and productive worker, and to pay for all the business taxes ontop of that.
Either way, the costs will hit the consumers, whether it's by taxing the rich or applying VAT to every purchase.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
The tea party members are people of principle.
Thank you for a good laugh!
Hey, easy there... He's right about them being people of principle... But he never specified what those principles ARE. Hell, even the KKK had principles. Bad ones.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
AND spending cuts.
Obviously not. I haven't seen any republican or teabagger(not that there is any real difference between the two) propose any serious attempt to balance the budget. Just bust it with more and more tax cuts for the rich.
The closest thing to that is Paul Ryan's proposal that has some funny math about having tax cuts, but not having them taken into account of the budget. Some how the government getting less money and spending only slightly less is supposed to balance the budget. I'm calling BS on that. This of course was scored by the CBO like all the other budgets and legislation being proposed. I've found an article by Megan McArdle at the Atlantic about Paul Ryan looking to have the revenue scored by the JCT because they do tax scoring not CBO; however, a simple google search find they have, do and reviewing the site where there is a tax link says otherwise. I wonder if these journalists know there is this thing called google. Of course I find http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=966[^] also interesting since it blows the idea that the Bush tax cuts haven't had any deficit impacts.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
-
Seriously!? You are so clueless about teabaggers that you are unaware of their hatred for Hispanics and Muslims? Read about their loathing of the 14th amendment and the hand wringing over the Burlington Coat factory swimming pool.
You are the one filled with blind hatred and bigotry. The tea party members don't want open boarders, and for good reason. Mexico is a collapsed state, so they all come rushing up here and they get free welfare and work under the table, and get into the black market. They come from a totally corrupt and broken down country of near total lawlessness and they bring that up there with them. I here a lot of bashing of muslims here on this forum from even the most liberal of socialists. All I read is how Islam and all the other religions are pure trash and scum. A bunch of hypocrites.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
Hey, easy there... He's right about them being people of principle... But he never specified what those principles ARE. Hell, even the KKK had principles. Bad ones.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
The closest thing to that is Paul Ryan's proposal that has some funny math about having tax cuts, but not having them taken into account of the budget. Some how the government getting less money and spending only slightly less is supposed to balance the budget. I'm calling BS on that. This of course was scored by the CBO like all the other budgets and legislation being proposed. I've found an article by Megan McArdle at the Atlantic about Paul Ryan looking to have the revenue scored by the JCT because they do tax scoring not CBO; however, a simple google search find they have, do and reviewing the site where there is a tax link says otherwise. I wonder if these journalists know there is this thing called google. Of course I find http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=966[^] also interesting since it blows the idea that the Bush tax cuts haven't had any deficit impacts.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
Yeah, that's why I qualified it as any serious attempt to balance the budget. Ryan's budget is [edit] not [/edit] a serious attempt to balance the budget, but it is a serious attempt to destroy SS and Medicare.
modified on Monday, August 23, 2010 2:22 PM
-
You are the one filled with blind hatred and bigotry. The tea party members don't want open boarders, and for good reason. Mexico is a collapsed state, so they all come rushing up here and they get free welfare and work under the table, and get into the black market. They come from a totally corrupt and broken down country of near total lawlessness and they bring that up there with them. I here a lot of bashing of muslims here on this forum from even the most liberal of socialists. All I read is how Islam and all the other religions are pure trash and scum. A bunch of hypocrites.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
The tea party members don't want open boarders,
So? No one is talking about open borders. I was talking about the 14th amendment.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
I here a lot of bashing of muslims here on this forum from even the most liberal of socialists.
Even if true, so what? Does that excuse teabaggers? I'll answer that for you - NO!
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Ian, a VAT or Sales type tax will not hurt the poor any more than the rich
Incorrect. The lower class currently DOES NOT PAY income tax, for the most part, as is shown by the links in this thread. With a VAT or Sales tax, you have no way to distinguish between rich and poor (Since the tax is applied at time of purchase), so everyone pays the same rate. This means a significant increase to the tax burden of the lower class, which is least capable of shouldering that burden.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Think about it, if the rich aren't spending their money, then they aren't being taxed. They can't enjoy their money if they aren't spending it.
They spend a small fraction of their annual income to "enjoy" it. The rest sits in investment accounts and trusts. Poor people spend almost every cent they earn. Rich people don't.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
However if they are saving it, that money is being invested into the economy (IE SPENT) and since it would be spent all throughout the economy, it would be taxed. Interest on that money would be taxable because the bank sold its serviced to the rich man who deposited that money. DO you get it?
Sure, it's being invested... It's already being invested. But investing wouldn't generate taxes under your system, any more than it does now. When they buy stocks and bonds, they don't pay sales tax. It wouldn't make sense to apply VAT to that kind of transaction. And sure, the interest would be taxed, just as it is now, but that's a small fraction of the money being invested. Tax revenue from the rich would still drastically decrease.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Also, slapping high taxes on higher income workers still hurts the poor, because they pay high prices when they buy things to make up for the loss of income for the more skilled and productive worker, and to pay for all the business taxes ontop of that.
Either way, the costs will hit the consumers, whether it's by taxing the rich or applying VAT to every purchase.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
Incorrect. The lower class currently DOES NOT PAY income tax
They still do pay for all of the taxes imposed on the more skilled and productive workers, and businesses, because when the poor purchase a good or service, they must pay a higher price to pay for the taxes on the other end.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
They spend a small fraction of their annual income to "enjoy" it. The rest sits in investment accounts and trusts. Poor people spend almost every cent they earn. Rich people don't.
As I already explained, investments still generate considerable tax revenue because money invested is spent, and additionally interest is taxed because the investment firm or bank sold the rich guy its services.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
When they buy stocks and bonds, they don't pay sales tax.
That is why we need reform, our current tax system is broken. There are all kinds of loopholes and tricks for a select few to take advantage of. I figured you would have known this by now.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
And sure, the interest would be taxed, just as it is now, but that's a small fraction of the money being invested. Tax revenue from the rich would still drastically decrease.
That interest taxed is just a cherry on top for the government on top of all the VAT/Sales type taxes collected from that investment money being spent by the people who where invested in.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Either way, the costs will hit the consumers, whether it's by taxing the rich or applying VAT to every purchase.
Which is my point, there is no purpose for complex tax schemes other than micromanagement of the economy. The whole (it will hurt the poor) thing is just a load of crap to keep people supporting a system of control and loopholes. ================================== TO break everything down, taxes should only be collected on money spent, not money earned from labor (income). ALL goods and services should be taxes equally (IE no special tax on cars, cigarettes ...) and (NOT PERMITTED for instance e-books being taxed at 5% while regular books being taxed at 10%)
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
The tea party members don't want open boarders,
So? No one is talking about open borders. I was talking about the 14th amendment.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
I here a lot of bashing of muslims here on this forum from even the most liberal of socialists.
Even if true, so what? Does that excuse teabaggers? I'll answer that for you - NO!
You are just a bumbling idiot foaming at the mouth with hatred at the idea of a constitutional government with liberty and justice for all. Let me guess, you were/are an obama supporter?
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
You are just a bumbling idiot foaming at the mouth with hatred at the idea of a constitutional government with liberty and justice for all. Let me guess, you were/are an obama supporter?
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Incorrect. The lower class currently DOES NOT PAY income tax
They still do pay for all of the taxes imposed on the more skilled and productive workers, and businesses, because when the poor purchase a good or service, they must pay a higher price to pay for the taxes on the other end.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
They spend a small fraction of their annual income to "enjoy" it. The rest sits in investment accounts and trusts. Poor people spend almost every cent they earn. Rich people don't.
As I already explained, investments still generate considerable tax revenue because money invested is spent, and additionally interest is taxed because the investment firm or bank sold the rich guy its services.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
When they buy stocks and bonds, they don't pay sales tax.
That is why we need reform, our current tax system is broken. There are all kinds of loopholes and tricks for a select few to take advantage of. I figured you would have known this by now.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
And sure, the interest would be taxed, just as it is now, but that's a small fraction of the money being invested. Tax revenue from the rich would still drastically decrease.
That interest taxed is just a cherry on top for the government on top of all the VAT/Sales type taxes collected from that investment money being spent by the people who where invested in.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Either way, the costs will hit the consumers, whether it's by taxing the rich or applying VAT to every purchase.
Which is my point, there is no purpose for complex tax schemes other than micromanagement of the economy. The whole (it will hurt the poor) thing is just a load of crap to keep people supporting a system of control and loopholes. ================================== TO break everything down, taxes should only be collected on money spent, not money earned from labor (income). ALL goods and services should be taxes equally (IE no special tax on cars, cigarettes ...) and (NOT PERMITTED for instance e-books being taxed at 5% while regular books being taxed at 10%)
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Ian Shlasko wrote: When they buy stocks and bonds, they don't pay sales tax. That is why we need reform, our current tax system is broken. There are all kinds of loopholes and tricks for a select few to take advantage of. I figured you would have known this by now.
And how would you reform that? If I buy a few thousand shares of stock, why should I pay sales tax? I'm not receiving a product that I can use, or a service I can enjoy. I'm just changing my money into another form. If buying stock involved paying sales tax (i.e. taking a 10% loss right off the top), who in their right mind would actually invest in the stock market?
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
That interest taxed is just a cherry on top for the government on top of all the VAT/Sales type taxes collected from that investment money being spent by the people who where invested in.
The rich people still aren't paying. I understand completely how this is supposed to trickle down to more business income and lower prices, but the taxes will have to make up for all that money the rich aren't paying.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Which is my point, there is no purpose for complex tax schemes other than micromanagement of the economy. The whole (it will hurt the poor) thing is just a load of crap to keep people supporting a system of control and loopholes.
Right, so the poor won't see a huge difference, but the rich will be paying substantially less. Of course, that's only in theory. In practice, would prices really decrease enough to compensate for the increase in sales tax? I mean, sales tax would have to be a LOT higher than it is today, to make up for all of that lost tax revenue from the rich.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
TO break everything down, taxes should only be collected on money spent, not money earned from labor (income).
Despite your usual idiocy, that IS actually a good idea in theory... If I thought it was a viable solution (Able to provide the necessary tax income without putting more burden on the poor), I would get behind it.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
ALL goods and services should be taxes equally (IE no special tax on cars, cigarettes ...) and (NOT PERMITTED for instance e-books being taxed at 5% while regular books being taxed at 10%)
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Ian Shlasko wrote: When they buy stocks and bonds, they don't pay sales tax. That is why we need reform, our current tax system is broken. There are all kinds of loopholes and tricks for a select few to take advantage of. I figured you would have known this by now.
And how would you reform that? If I buy a few thousand shares of stock, why should I pay sales tax? I'm not receiving a product that I can use, or a service I can enjoy. I'm just changing my money into another form. If buying stock involved paying sales tax (i.e. taking a 10% loss right off the top), who in their right mind would actually invest in the stock market?
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
That interest taxed is just a cherry on top for the government on top of all the VAT/Sales type taxes collected from that investment money being spent by the people who where invested in.
The rich people still aren't paying. I understand completely how this is supposed to trickle down to more business income and lower prices, but the taxes will have to make up for all that money the rich aren't paying.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Which is my point, there is no purpose for complex tax schemes other than micromanagement of the economy. The whole (it will hurt the poor) thing is just a load of crap to keep people supporting a system of control and loopholes.
Right, so the poor won't see a huge difference, but the rich will be paying substantially less. Of course, that's only in theory. In practice, would prices really decrease enough to compensate for the increase in sales tax? I mean, sales tax would have to be a LOT higher than it is today, to make up for all of that lost tax revenue from the rich.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
TO break everything down, taxes should only be collected on money spent, not money earned from labor (income).
Despite your usual idiocy, that IS actually a good idea in theory... If I thought it was a viable solution (Able to provide the necessary tax income without putting more burden on the poor), I would get behind it.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
ALL goods and services should be taxes equally (IE no special tax on cars, cigarettes ...) and (NOT PERMITTED for instance e-books being taxed at 5% while regular books being taxed at 10%)
Ian Shlasko wrote:
And how would you reform that? If I buy a few thousand shares of stock, why should I pay sales tax?
In the case of a VAT tax, you would only pay tax if you sold your stocks at a higher price than what you paid for them, and the amount in tax would be a percentage of the difference.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The rich people still aren't paying.
You don't get it. Nobody should have to pay taxes on money not spent.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Right, so the poor won't see a huge difference, but the rich will be paying substantially less.
This is not a bad thing. The more money so called rich people have, the better off the economy. "Rich" people tend to invest their money, which is excellent for the economy, good for the "poor" because jobs are created from investments.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Some of those actually make sense. Extra taxes on cars are, I presume, to help offset the cost of federal regulations and safety standards. Extra taxes on cigarettes are SUPPOSED to help pay for lung cancer research and treatment (As in, if you want to damage yourself, you help pay for the extra health care you'll need). Sure, they're abused to some degree by politicians, but just like the idea of switching to just sales tax, they're better in theory than in practice.
I'm sure you've heard of the phrase "Keep it simple stupid".
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
And how would you reform that? If I buy a few thousand shares of stock, why should I pay sales tax?
In the case of a VAT tax, you would only pay tax if you sold your stocks at a higher price than what you paid for them, and the amount in tax would be a percentage of the difference.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The rich people still aren't paying.
You don't get it. Nobody should have to pay taxes on money not spent.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Right, so the poor won't see a huge difference, but the rich will be paying substantially less.
This is not a bad thing. The more money so called rich people have, the better off the economy. "Rich" people tend to invest their money, which is excellent for the economy, good for the "poor" because jobs are created from investments.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Some of those actually make sense. Extra taxes on cars are, I presume, to help offset the cost of federal regulations and safety standards. Extra taxes on cigarettes are SUPPOSED to help pay for lung cancer research and treatment (As in, if you want to damage yourself, you help pay for the extra health care you'll need). Sure, they're abused to some degree by politicians, but just like the idea of switching to just sales tax, they're better in theory than in practice.
I'm sure you've heard of the phrase "Keep it simple stupid".
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
In the case of a VAT tax, you would only pay tax if you sold your stocks at a higher price than what you paid for them, and the amount in tax would be a percentage of the difference.
That's investment income. I thought you weren't going to tax income.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
You don't get it. Nobody should have to pay taxes on money not spent.
I understand completely, but like I keep saying, you're shifting the tax burden onto the lower class... The ones who can LEAST afford it.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
This is not a bad thing. The more money so called rich people have, the better off the economy. "Rich" people tend to invest their money, which is excellent for the economy, good for the "poor" because jobs are created from investments.
Nice selective quoting... As I said right after that, it's a good IN THEORY. In practice, I suspect the poor would see a GREATER tax burden, because prices would not decrease enough to compensate for the increased sales tax.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
I'm sure you've heard of the phrase "Keep it simple stupid".
Option 1: Everyone pays the same tax rate on everything, and the government has zero control. Option 2: The government can increase taxes on things that incur extra costs, either to compensate for the extra burden placed on government services, or to discourage their use. Likewise, the government can lower taxes on other services to encourage use (Such as solar power tax subsidies). I know you're firmly opposed to #2, as you hate anything having to do with government, but the simple reality is that what's profitable isn't always what's best for the nation, so the invisible hand can't be depended on to make all of the decisions.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Ian Shlasko wrote:
And how would you reform that? If I buy a few thousand shares of stock, why should I pay sales tax?
In the case of a VAT tax, you would only pay tax if you sold your stocks at a higher price than what you paid for them, and the amount in tax would be a percentage of the difference.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The rich people still aren't paying.
You don't get it. Nobody should have to pay taxes on money not spent.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Right, so the poor won't see a huge difference, but the rich will be paying substantially less.
This is not a bad thing. The more money so called rich people have, the better off the economy. "Rich" people tend to invest their money, which is excellent for the economy, good for the "poor" because jobs are created from investments.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Some of those actually make sense. Extra taxes on cars are, I presume, to help offset the cost of federal regulations and safety standards. Extra taxes on cigarettes are SUPPOSED to help pay for lung cancer research and treatment (As in, if you want to damage yourself, you help pay for the extra health care you'll need). Sure, they're abused to some degree by politicians, but just like the idea of switching to just sales tax, they're better in theory than in practice.
I'm sure you've heard of the phrase "Keep it simple stupid".
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
You think because the government gives them other people's tax money (directly or indirectly through progressive tax schemes) that those people should support the government or have no right to criticize the government? The tea party members are people of principle.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
You think because the government gives them other people's tax money (directly or indirectly through progressive tax schemes) that those people should support the government or have no right to criticize the government? The tea party members are people of principle.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
You think because the government gives them other people's tax money (directly or indirectly through progressive tax schemes) that those people should support the government or have no right to criticize the government?
No, his point is they shouldn't bitch about being taxed to death. As they do.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
The tea party members are people of principle.
Not that they've put much thought into them, but they do certainly seem to believe they have them. I haven't seen any examples of them, they do proclaim to have them.
-
According to http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-half-of-US-households-apf-1105567323.html?x=0&.v=1[^] 47% of all households pay no federal income taxes because of credits, etc. These numbers came from the Tax Policy Center. The source http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1001289_who_pays.pdf[^], first table. So that being said, what's the problem? If the tea party doesn't like how much tax is collected and 47% pay none then there should be no problem. Policy never matches what people believe.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
wolfbinary wrote:
tea party doesn't like how much tax is collected
Your attempt to cast the movement as a bunch of paranoid bean counters who are bad at math is accompanied by a strong fecal aroma. The people do not like what is being done with tax money and are sick of the arrogance of those who make policy and believe themselves to be above it all (ex: Charles Rengal), and believe in a smaller set of responsibilities for the Federal government than is currently held. The reasons for this are covered by CSS rather well on a daily basis. The government has been found to do stupid things when given the chance which is enabled by our tax dollars and our tacit approval of borrowing or printing money. The power to tax is the power to destroy--in so many different ways. This makes statements of the Tea Party movement consistent with the philosophy of our founders.
-
Seriously!? You are so clueless about teabaggers that you are unaware of their hatred for Hispanics and Muslims? Read about their loathing of the 14th amendment and the hand wringing over the Burlington Coat factory swimming pool.
Though you have to admit, they're creative as hell in explaining it away. They're apparently afraid of terrorists who haven't been born yet, who if born here would be citizens of the country, who could then be exported elsewhere to be trained, only to return and kill us all! I've read Lovecraft stories with a more straight forward plot than that.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
You think because the government gives them other people's tax money (directly or indirectly through progressive tax schemes) that those people should support the government or have no right to criticize the government?
No, his point is they shouldn't bitch about being taxed to death. As they do.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
The tea party members are people of principle.
Not that they've put much thought into them, but they do certainly seem to believe they have them. I haven't seen any examples of them, they do proclaim to have them.
Distind wrote:
No, his point is they shouldn't bitch about being taxed to death. As they do.
Exactly. I haven't seen anything constructive or problematic in solving the debt problem come out of any party except Democrats right now, which is a shame because Republicans used to have ideas instead of just propaganda. Rhetoric aside I see more problem solving than making on the Democratic side. If policy debate is what took place in politics right now nonsense like questioning people's citizenship, patriotism, etc we'd be much further ahead. I don't see how the tea partiers are helping that along at all. Seeing pictures of Obama on posters with a bone through his nose, calling him a socialist, marxist, closet muslim, fascist, etc may be part of the 1st amendment, but it certainly doesn't help the country solve problems. Some people like to bitch and moan and the tea partiers are those people.
Distind wrote:
Not that they've put much thought into them,
Very true.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
-
:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup: Although, I have tried to tell active people in the movement to get a better mission statement that stands up to this tax bracket rebuttal without having to explain it.
puromtec1 wrote:
get a better mission statement
Mission statements are for people who can't handle detail or don't want to bother explaining as you put it.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_