SoCal Deek Posted February 17, 2023 Posted February 17, 2023 8 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: Oh, then you definitely didn’t cover your fair share, and you’re really comfortable being lied to about who is at a disadvantage, especially given the impetus of the article you enjoyed so much. I respect your right to your opinion, but for all the full of $&@@ people in Washington, he’s probably the most full of it. Wouldn’t the fairest system be if everyone paid the same percentage of their income? I mean if we’re all in this together, let’s ALL be in this together! 1
Joe Ferguson forever Posted February 17, 2023 Posted February 17, 2023 13 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: Oh, then you definitely didn’t cover your fair share, and you’re really comfortable being lied to about who is at a disadvantage, especially given the impetus of the article you enjoyed so much. I respect your right to your opinion, but for all the full of $&@@ people in Washington, he’s probably the most full of it. perhaps the most earnest. 1
nedboy7 Posted February 17, 2023 Posted February 17, 2023 1 hour ago, SoCal Deek said: Not in the debate you were having. No it definitely is not. The classic liberal crap….if we just tax the heck out of the rich, my life will magically be better. Yet somehow their lives are never better even after managing to have spent over $30,000,000,000,000 more than we’ve taken in. When exactly does the magic kick in already? then why tax anyone. You really have interesting opinions. 55 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: Oh, then you definitely didn’t cover your fair share, and you’re really comfortable being lied to about who is at a disadvantage, especially given the impetus of the article you enjoyed so much. I respect your right to your opinion, but for all the full of $&@@ people in Washington, he’s probably the most full of it. have you heard of George santos? 🤪 1
Tommy Callahan Posted February 17, 2023 Posted February 17, 2023 Classical liberalism, contrary to liberal branches like social liberalism, looks more negatively on social policies, taxation and the state involvement in the lives of individuals, and it advocates deregulation. Classical liberalism is a political tradition and a branch of liberalism that advocates free market and laissez-faire economics; civil liberties under the rule of law with especial emphasis on individual autonomy, limited government, economic freedom, political freedom and freedom of speech. It gained full flowering in the early 18th century, building on ideas stemming at least as far back as the 13th century within the Iberian, Anglo-Saxon, and central European contexts and was foundational to the American Revolution and "American Project" more broadly. How did classical liberal get into this? a classic liberal is more on par with libertarianism and anarchy than any of todays parties.
SoCal Deek Posted February 17, 2023 Posted February 17, 2023 16 minutes ago, nedboy7 said: then why tax anyone. You really have interesting opinions. 🤪 You’re kidding, right? The problem is not that we’re taxing people. The problem is that our government is picking a seemingly arbitrary amount to spend. Or haven’t you been paying attention to the nonstop debt limit extensions? 1 2 1
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted February 18, 2023 Posted February 18, 2023 3 hours ago, nedboy7 said: then why tax anyone. You really have interesting opinions. have you heard of George santos? 🤪 Hmmm. I was thinking of Washingtonian’s higher up on the chain, senatorial/presidential level. That wasn’t meant to be a compliment to those other than Sanders, btw. Santos is pretty high up on the list just based on the limited amount of time he’s been in office, but he’s a minor leaguer at this point. In fact, if you spread his stories out over a few decades he’s basically Joe Biden—making up and embellishing on a regular basis, often leaving people scratching their head as to why a particular embellishment was even necessary. I think Santos will be one and done pretty quickly, if he makes it that far, so l’ll leave him off my list for now. No argument he is f-o-s. 4 hours ago, redtail hawk said: perhaps the most earnest. If earnest means he’s full of cr a p, then yes.
Joe Ferguson forever Posted February 18, 2023 Posted February 18, 2023 (edited) 4 hours ago, Chris farley said: Classical liberalism, contrary to liberal branches like social liberalism, looks more negatively on social policies, taxation and the state involvement in the lives of individuals, and it advocates deregulation. Classical liberalism is a political tradition and a branch of liberalism that advocates free market and laissez-faire economics; civil liberties under the rule of law with especial emphasis on individual autonomy, limited government, economic freedom, political freedom and freedom of speech. It gained full flowering in the early 18th century, building on ideas stemming at least as far back as the 13th century within the Iberian, Anglo-Saxon, and central European contexts and was foundational to the American Revolution and "American Project" more broadly. How did classical liberal get into this? a classic liberal is more on par with libertarianism and anarchy than any of todays parties. what is commonly understood is the meaning now. sorta like republicanism. 18 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: Hmmm. I was thinking of Washingtonian’s higher up on the chain, senatorial/presidential level. That wasn’t meant to be a compliment to those other than Sanders, btw. Santos is pretty high up on the list just based on the limited amount of time he’s been in office, but he’s a minor leaguer at this point. In fact, if you spread his stories out over a few decades he’s basically Joe Biden—making up and embellishing on a regular basis, often leaving people scratching their head as to why a particular embellishment was even necessary. I think Santos will be one and done pretty quickly, if he makes it that far, so l’ll leave him off my list for now. No argument he is f-o-s. If earnest means he’s full of cr a p, then yes. frank and ernest... Edited February 18, 2023 by redtail hawk
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted February 18, 2023 Posted February 18, 2023 4 hours ago, SoCal Deek said: Wouldn’t the fairest system be if everyone paid the same percentage of their income? I mean if we’re all in this together, let’s ALL be in this together! That’s never going to happen and as such, I don’t spend much time thinking about it. Truth be told, I don’t have a major problem with a progressive tax. My issues tend to me more the audacity of Congress and people who support continuing to raise the tax rate. Based on a 37% federal income tax rate, a person works Jan 1 through May 15 for the government, and that assumes no state or other tax, of which there are many. It’s absurd. On the other hand, this notion is “fair share” spread by many, including Sanders, is just another bs political talking point. There’s no such thing in a progressive system, there are always people carrying a heavier burden to prop up the system. 6 minutes ago, redtail hawk said: frank and ernest... Thankfully, he’s an old timer and with luck, his time in office will draw to a close soon. Then he can be frank, ernest and gone.
Doc Posted February 18, 2023 Posted February 18, 2023 17 hours ago, nedboy7 said: have you heard of George santos? 🤪 Have you heard of Joke Biden?
nedboy7 Posted February 19, 2023 Posted February 19, 2023 10 hours ago, Doc said: Have you heard of Joke Biden? Not going w Fetterman Mr Predictable? 23 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: Hmmm. I was thinking of Washingtonian’s higher up on the chain, senatorial/presidential level. That wasn’t meant to be a compliment to those other than Sanders, btw. Santos is pretty high up on the list just based on the limited amount of time he’s been in office, but he’s a minor leaguer at this point. In fact, if you spread his stories out over a few decades he’s basically Joe Biden—making up and embellishing on a regular basis, often leaving people scratching their head as to why a particular embellishment was even necessary. I think Santos will be one and done pretty quickly, if he makes it that far, so l’ll leave him off my list for now. No argument he is f-o-s. If earnest means he’s full of cr a p, then yes. actually not even close bud.
nedboy7 Posted February 19, 2023 Posted February 19, 2023 On 2/17/2023 at 5:37 PM, SoCal Deek said: You’re kidding, right? The problem is not that we’re taxing people. The problem is that our government is picking a seemingly arbitrary amount to spend. Or haven’t you been paying attention to the nonstop debt limit extensions? Your over simplification of issues is rather confusing and doesn’t leave much room for rational thought. What are the consequences of not paying your debt. I think we agree both parties spend like drunken sailors. The topic of who pays the tax bill isn’t exactly what you are addressing either. You continually avoid topics by generalizing into a different direction. 1
Doc Posted February 19, 2023 Posted February 19, 2023 1 hour ago, nedboy7 said: Not going w Fetterman Mr Predictable? Why? Joke's told more lies than anyone.
Joe Ferguson forever Posted February 19, 2023 Posted February 19, 2023 On 2/17/2023 at 10:43 PM, leh-nerd skin-erd said: On the other hand, this notion is “fair share” spread by many, including Sanders, is just another bs political talking point. There’s no such thing in a progressive system, there are always people carrying a heavier burden to prop up the system. and those carrying a lighter burden than they could possibly miss. Didn't you say something to that effect?
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted February 19, 2023 Posted February 19, 2023 10 hours ago, nedboy7 said: actually not even close bud. You could be right—one got laughed out of a political bid for the WH for creative storytelling, on something demonstrably false, easily refutable and at that stage of his career completely unnecessary. To his credit though, it really seemed that he wanted those particular lies to be true. At some point, you have to appreciate his dedication to making things up. 1
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted February 19, 2023 Posted February 19, 2023 8 hours ago, redtail hawk said: and those carrying a lighter burden than they could possibly miss. Didn't you say something to that effect? Hmm. “…something to that effect” covers a lot of ground, some/much of it subjective. Can you be more clear?
Joe Ferguson forever Posted February 19, 2023 Posted February 19, 2023 On 2/17/2023 at 4:57 PM, leh-nerd skin-erd said: As for you, again, following the narrative, the fact that you have paid plenty of taxes doesn’t mean you’ve paid a fair share relative to the less fortunate R voters living in squalor in Okeyhoma. Likely, you should have done much, much more and it probably would not have impacted your lifestyle to any great degree. sure.
SoCal Deek Posted February 19, 2023 Posted February 19, 2023 10 hours ago, nedboy7 said: Your over simplification of issues is rather confusing and doesn’t leave much room for rational thought. What are the consequences of not paying your debt. I think we agree both parties spend like drunken sailors. The topic of who pays the tax bill isn’t exactly what you are addressing either. You continually avoid topics by generalizing into a different direction. Let me be more clear then. I’m firmly against a progressive tax system. Until everyone is paying the exact same percentage of their income (all kinds of income) you’ll never fix most/any of the problems you’all are so desperate to argue about on here. Is that simple enough for you?
Joe Ferguson forever Posted February 19, 2023 Posted February 19, 2023 6 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said: Let me be more clear then. I’m firmly against a progressive tax system. Until everyone is paying the exact same percentage of their income (all kinds of income) you’ll never fix most/any of the problems you’all are so desperate to argue about on here. Is that simple enough for you? you realize that would make many red state residents even more poor...never gonna happen.
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted February 19, 2023 Posted February 19, 2023 5 minutes ago, redtail hawk said: sure. Thank you, I thought you might be referring to these comments, but since you said “…to that effect” it pays to seek clarity. I believe you’re misinterpreting what I said. “Following the narrative…” was an important part of what I wrote, and I didn’t suggest anything about what people might/might not miss. If you’re earning $750k per year and in the highest tax bracket, contributing an extra 13-20% of your income may not impact your lifestyle, depending of course on your lifestyle. The same argument can be viewed at any income level when we’re speaking about the emotional appeal of ‘doing more’. Whether you would miss it is a separate issue altogether and best viewed through the prism of time. People who support the fair share argument can always do more, at least to the point that they have paid 100% of their income in tax.
Recommended Posts