Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Applying GOP logic to Obama "taking credit away from the SEALS", how dare Eisenhower take credit for D-Day, Patton for winning the Battle of the Bulge, and that pesky MacArthur for taking back the Philippines   (edition.cnn.com) divider line 689
    More: Asinine, obama, Battle of the Bulge, human beings, MacArthur, GOP, D-Day, Eisenhower, Osama bin Laden  
•       •       •

2746 clicks; posted to Politics » on 30 Apr 2012 at 9:51 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



689 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-30 07:44:33 PM  

Nem Wan: Republicans would desperately like to equate Obama taking credit for finishing Osama to something as absurd as if Nixon had taken credit for Kennedy and Johnson's man on the moon


Well I'll be. I somehow thought that the first moon landing was before Nixon by a few months, but I checked my recollection and I was mistaken:

Nixon Inagueration January 20, 1969
Moon Landing July 20, 1969.

Thanks for giving me an opportunity to re-calibrate my mental timeline.
 
2012-04-30 07:53:00 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: and "what not" aren't already mitigated by itemized deductions under the current tax system for taxpayers at the quarter million dollar a year income level.


No need to be hostile.

But for what it's worth, some of the ones I mentioned already (like federal tuition assistance) stop well below that mark. Another example is that Earned Income Child credit pays the same for 5 kids as it does for 2. deduction for student loan interest also goes away below that level. Ailing elderly parents can be a real burden, because you cannot claim them as dependants in all circumstances without affecting some federal aid programs, and so you don;t get any deductions for out-of-pocket expenses for someone other than yourself or dependants. (I saw this first hand when Medicare/Medicaid did not provide enough to cover medical equipment and in-home care). There are others, and I have provided a sampling above, and if you are really interested, you can certainly find that information.

My point is that we WANT people to be able to handle thier expenses themselves without requiring federal subsidies. When those with the income to handle these things without taxpayer money are able to do so, it is a benefit to all of us, and increasing their tax burden to the point that they are not able to do so runs counter to what I understand our objectives to be.
 
2012-04-30 07:59:36 PM  
Following the Obama logic... He only inherited the 'bad things' from Bush. Years and years and years of work gathering intel and tracking bin Laden magically went away in a puff of smoke and it was only when Obama came to office and ordered it, that all new intelligence was gathered and bin Laden was found.

President Obama inherited the opportunity to kill Osama bin Laden from Bush. Which is not to say that the continued work of the intelligence community after Obama took office should be dismissed the same way liberals, including Obama, are dismissing the work that took place before he took office.
 
2012-04-30 08:01:12 PM  

Nem Wan: Jake Havechek: I don't know where he is. I really just don't spend that much time on him, to be honest with you.

-- George W. Bush

Republicans would desperately like to equate Obama taking credit for finishing Osama to something as absurd as if Nixon had taken credit for Kennedy and Johnson's man on the moon, but Kennedy never said, "I don't know where Russia is. I truly am not that concerned about Sputnik or that Yuri fellow."


Yep. They are trying to make Obama look weak on defense by claiming any policy victory was someone ease's work that's hes taking credit for. They cannot stand a strong on defense democrat, it flies against their propaganda
 
2012-04-30 08:01:59 PM  

BojanglesPaladin:

My point is that we WANT people to be able to handle thier expenses themselves without requiring federal subsidies. When those with the income to handle these things without taxpayer money are able to do so, it is a benefit to all of us, and increasing their tax burden to the point that they are not able to do so runs counter to what I understand our objectives to be.


Those programs and incentives exist to help people who need it. Are you seriously arguing that somebody pulling in a quarter million dollars a year needs them?
Since we're in wishful thinking land here: Wouldn't it be nice if everybody had suitable employment and that the work paid a truly living wage?
Because that is the sufficient and necessary condition for this - "we WANT people to be able to handle thier expenses themselves without requiring federal subsidies" - to happen.

Taxpayer money? There's a huge logical fallacy built into that expression. Ben Franklin has a few thoughts on it.

Nobody is arguing that taxes should be increased to the point that they're unpayable. That's a ridiculous straw man.
 
2012-04-30 08:12:55 PM  

BojanglesPaladin:
My only point is that annual taxable income alone is an insufficient metric for determing who can absorb additional taxes without negative consequences. Particularly when that income is overwhelmingly salary based (as opposed to financial investments, stocks, real estate revenue, etc.) and when ther emay be other sunstantial expenses such as special needs medical care. multiple children, elderly parents and what not. When those with the income to handle these things without taxpayer money are able to do so, it is a benefit to all of us, and increasing their tax burden to the point that they ar enot able to do so runs counter to what I understand our objectives to be.


Taxable income as currently defined by the US tax Code? I heartily agree with this - I was a large case IRS auditor for the IRS for many years. To see tax returns from folks (obviously I can't name names) of astonishing wealth present quite legally a negative taxable income is to understand the great irony of the "1% pay almost all the taxes" chimera. As noted earlier, your 250k wage earner ALREADY gets a massive built in tax cut. You neither address this in your defense of the expense-ridden, nor, as also noted above, provide a better metric, or fully address why you find the 250k mark so galling, but rather prattle on with your fact-free mumblings about the dratted unfairness of it all, because only "some" people who make in the top few percent of wage income are actually "rich" as opposed to "comfortably well off".
 
2012-04-30 08:14:23 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Are you seriously arguing that somebody pulling in a quarter million dollars a year needs them?


No. Read again from the top. You may notice I have said EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of that.

demaL-demaL-yeH: Wouldn't it be nice if everybody had suitable employment and that the work paid a truly living wage?


Sure it would.

Just curious. Are you sure you know what I said that you think you are arguing against?
 
2012-04-30 08:25:03 PM  

Paul Baumer: To see tax returns from folks (obviously I can't name names) of astonishing wealth present quite legally a negative taxable income is to understand the great irony of the "1% pay almost all the taxes" chimera.


Sure. Perhaps you notice that this is not an argument I put forward?

Paul Baumer: As noted earlier, your 250k wage earner ALREADY gets a massive built in tax cut.


Could you explain what you mean by a "massive built in tax cut" here? I'm assuming you mean something other than the lower captial gains tax rate, since I have been clear that I am not speaking of other types on income, and I see no issue with reverting the Capital gains tax rate to a previous level at least in principle. Do you mind providing the specifics of what you mean?

Paul Baumer: or fully address why you find the 250k mark so galling


Again, I did not say it was "galling" or anything of the kind. I said that that "annual taxable income alone is an insufficient metric for determing who can absorb additional taxes without negative consequences." The premise previously having been stated by others that "the rich" can afford it and don't need that extra money.

Paul Baumer: but rather prattle on with your fact-free mumblings about the dratted unfairness of it all


Again, I did not say that either.

I'm interested in your perspective on this, but I don't feel inclined to spend half of every response trying to pull out the words you keep trying to put in my mouth.
 
2012-04-30 08:26:23 PM  

randomjsa: Following the Obama logic... He only inherited the 'bad things' from Bush. Years and years and years of work gathering intel and tracking bin Laden magically went away in a puff of smoke and it was only when Obama came to office and ordered it, that all new intelligence was gathered and bin Laden was found.

President Obama inherited the opportunity to kill Osama bin Laden from Bush. Which is not to say that the continued work of the intelligence community after Obama took office should be dismissed the same way liberals, including Obama, are dismissing the work that took place before he took office.


Here is where one would post quotes from bush, him shutting down the unit, or Torah bora. But you are an idiot so all I way say is.

Haha you have to vote for Romney!
 
2012-04-30 08:31:35 PM  
BUSH killed bin laden.

Since obozo couldn't make a decision, he let the BUSH procedures continue. THAT is what led to the end of bin laden.

And by now is documented fact that barry did not ORDER anything - he deferred to the military in the (correct) hopes that barry could get the credit if it worked and the military could join everyone else under the bus if it failed.




lol
 
2012-04-30 08:35:58 PM  

BojanglesPaladin:
Paul Baumer: As noted earlier, your 250k wage earner ALREADY gets a massive built in tax cut.

Could you explain what you mean by a "massive built in tax cut" here? I'm assuming you mean something other than the lower captial gains tax rate, since I have been clear that I am not speaking of other types on income, and I see no issue with reverting the Capital gains tax rate to a previous level at least in principle. Do you mind providing the specifics of what you mean?


As I mentioned earlier, SSA collection ends at 110k. A 250k pays about 10k less right there. That's a massive tax break by any standard.

Paul Baumer: or fully address why you find the 250k mark so galling

Again, I did not say it was "galling" or anything of the kind. I said that that "annual taxable income alone is an insufficient metric for determing who can absorb additional taxes without negative consequences." The premise previously having been stated by others that "the rich" can afford it and don't need that extra money.


And again, nobody but you has defined that class as "the rich". Nor has anyone here advanced the argument that "they can afford it" as they rationale for progressive taxation. Further, you say "annual taxable income alone is an insufficient metric" as an absolute truth without offering anything but anecdotal support for it. How do you know this to be true? It's certainly not axiomatic. And compared to what? You offer no foundation even for why you think this is so, let alone proffer a "sufficient metric" in response to the problem of your own construction. And so I say again, put some meat on your premise. It has none at the moment.
 
2012-04-30 08:55:08 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: The premise previously having been stated by others that "the rich" can afford it and don't need that extra money.


Where did anyone specifically say that?
 
2012-04-30 09:19:31 PM  
Of course this Republican logic will also negate the ONE AND ONLY "accomplishment" of the George W. Bush administration that any Republican even cites: "He kept us safe" .

/probably has already been said many times.
//DRTFT
 
2012-04-30 09:20:13 PM  

Paul Baumer: As I mentioned earlier, SSA collection ends at 110k. A 250k pays about 10k less right there. That's a massive tax break by any standard.


I'm confused about how you consider that a "tax break" if Social Security is ostensably a system you pay into and recieve in the form of benefits at a later date, and someone who earns that much in salary will never see Social Security benefits anywhere close to their level of income (as it SHOULD be). Remembering that SS is supposed to be a supplement to normal retirement and a bulwark against helpless widows and orphansd and the elderly being left out in the street, it doesn;t really make sense to be collecting retirement money from people who will presumably not need it. The idea behind not collecting SS taxes above that level is that Social Secuirity will never pay it back beyond that level and anyone earning that much should be able to handle their own retirement savings.

But you know what? Take that as a tax cut. Any others you can think of as a former large case IRS auditor for the IRS for many years?

Paul Baumer: And again, nobody but you has defined that class as "the rich".


Didn't we already go over this? since we are talking about the income level above which citizens can "afford it" (see comments above), then that is the definition of "the rich" for practical purposes regarding increasing taxes.

But don't take my word for it.

Let's see how Obama defines "rich":

"If you are making 150 thousand or less as a family, then you are middle class, or you may be poor."
"I would argue that if you're emaking more than $250 thousand, then you are in the top 3-4 percent of this country.. you're doing well."
"Now these things are all relative. I'm not suggesting that everyone making over 250 Thousand is living on easy street...[See? The president and I are saying the same thing].
"If you are making 250 Thousand a year or more you are going to see a modest increase. What I'm trying to do is create a sense of balance and fairness..."


If you can get past the McCain parts, and the bias, here's a quick video clip primer on full of Obama's comments on the subject:

How Obama has defined 'the wealthy'.

Further, he has defined the Middle-Class as only people making less than 97K a year.

In fact, Obama has said that he considers anyone making above $97K a year to be "Upper class". He said "UNderstand that only 6% of Americans make more than 97 Thousand dollars a year. So 6% is not the middle class. It's the upper class."

Now Obama was explicit that ONLY the middle class and below would get ANY tax cuts and anyone who is NOT middle class or below should expect a "modest" tax increase. And $200-$250K a year is where he drew the line between "Middle-class" and below and those who were not that. So if you aren't middle-class, and you aren't poor, you must be rich.

He has said "the top 2% is the wealthiest Americans who don't need a tax break..."

It goes on and on. It is simply foolish, obstinant, or intentionally disingenous to keep saying that "no one is saying people earning over $250K a year are rich". From the President down to Farkers, that has been widely accepted as the threshold for "the wealthy".

And in many cases, it is, as I have explained in detail above.

But as the President ALSO said, income level alone does not denote excess wealth.

Surely you can agree with that? Or is Obama wrong?
 
2012-04-30 09:28:00 PM  
I think that's enough for me today kiddos.

Feel free to carry on the discussion in myabscence. What the hell go buckwild and start talking about the thread topic! Go nuts!

Everyone have a nice evening. Thanks as always for keeping it civil.
 
2012-04-30 09:29:45 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: I think that's enough for me today kiddos.

Feel free to carry on the discussion in myabscence. What the hell go buckwild and start talking about the thread topic! Go nuts!

Everyone have a nice evening. Thanks as always for keeping it civil.


u r a dick
 
2012-04-30 09:31:02 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Ya, guess I should ask Dave, Mordechai, Bill, JohnnyZ, John, Femi, and Vernon for a refund or a refresher.
Thanks for pointing out my lack of grounding in basic economics.


you think they'd be ashamed that you're playing dumb?
 
2012-04-30 09:31:07 PM  
BojanglesPaladin

2012-04-30 09:28:00 PM


I think that's enough for me today kiddos.

Feel free to carry on the discussion in myabscence. What the hell go buckwild and start talking about the thread topic! Go nuts!

Everyone have a nice evening. Thanks as always for keeping it civil.

Displayed 666 of 666 comments


Yeesh. Can't go out on that count - it would prove to many FArkers right :)

...So I'll go out on THIS one :)
 
2012-04-30 09:32:12 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: I think that's enough for me today kiddos.

Feel free to carry on the discussion in myabscence. What the hell go buckwild and start talking about the thread topic! Go nuts!

Everyone have a nice evening. Thanks as always for keeping it civil.


Christ you spammed this one to death.
 
2012-04-30 09:33:41 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Didn't we already go over this? since we are talking about the income level above which citizens can "afford it" (see comments above), then that is the definition of "the rich" for practical purposes regarding increasing taxes.

But don't take my word for it.


Seriously when your whole argument rests on a edited youtube video from a wingnut source you might not have much of an argument.
 
2012-04-30 09:47:29 PM  
skullkrusher:
Favorite: Not playing dumb.

/A pissing contest? You chose poorly.
//A well: You're standing in one.
 
2012-04-30 09:52:01 PM  

Thrag: skullkrusher: oooooooh, I see what you're trying to do here.

I'm trying to get an actual definition of your plan out of your idiotic and often contradictory statements.

No, your taxes wouldn't change because you spent more on stuff than someone else and therefore had less buying power.

I'm sorry, hasn't your entire farking point been that taxes should take into account your "real buying power".

I could have sworn we just had this exchange when I tried to get you to define what specifically you mean by "real buying power".

Thrag: Your "real buying power" is not the "true metric". It's not even a metric since unless I missed some math above while skimming the thread you haven't even defined it in a way that can be calculated. After a quick scan I don't even see any specific definition of what you mean by "buying power". If I move to a bigger house and thus the money I have left over after paying my new bigger mortgage is less than before would you say my "buying power" has decreased?

yes, when you buy something, you have less buying power than you had previously. Really straight forward.

If houses are the only thing to buy in the economy and the cost of a house in location X is $250,000, if you move to location Y where a house costs $500,000, your real buying power has been cut in half.

You just said that the larger mortgage reduces your buying power. You say want takes to take into account buying power.

I really wish you would just make up your mind and settle on some definitions and actually define this tax system that you desire that takes into account whatever you will decide to define as "real buying power" next.


I'm starting to think that this isn't actually an act...
 
2012-04-30 09:54:48 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: skullkrusher:
Favorite: Not playing dumb.

/A pissing contest? You chose poorly.
//A well: You're standing in one.


I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. My mistake. You're not playing either.
 
2012-04-30 10:00:28 PM  

skullkrusher: demaL-demaL-yeH: skullkrusher:
Favorite: Not playing dumb.

/A pissing contest? You chose poorly.
//A well: You're standing in one.

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. My mistake. You're not playing either.


Nor am I stupid, selfish, a putz, or insulting your poor mother (who must be a saint since you're still stealing oxygen from the rest of us).

And here you are all warm and wet... not crapping all over another thread.

/Know how to keep a troll in suspense?
 
2012-04-30 10:06:10 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Paul Baumer: As I mentioned earlier, SSA collection ends at 110k. A 250k pays about 10k less right there. That's a massive tax break by any standard.

I'm confused about how you consider that a "tax break"


Because the argument you were making (you keep changing it) is that some wage earners are disproportionately disadvantaged by an income based tax. This clearly gives the lie to that proposition.

But you know what? Take that as a tax cut. Any others you can think of as a former large case IRS auditor for the IRS for many years?

And I can think of dozens of other tax breaks that are far more readily available to people with 250k per year income. Do I really need to enumerate the countless tax-advantaged investment strategies available at a higher level of deposit? Again, never with an affirmative defense from you, never an proposal of your own, or even a yardstick of how to measure what you claim. You are just a bereft tar baby forever repeating your own truisms.

Paul Baumer: And again, nobody but you has defined that class as "the rich".

Didn't we already go over this? since we are talking about the income level above which citizens can "afford it" (see comments above), then that is the definition of "the rich" for practical purposes regarding increasing taxes.

But don't take my word for it.

Let's see how Obama defines "rich":


How bitterly representative of your tortured logic that you would choose a quote in which the word "rich doesn't appear.

From the President down to Farkers, that has been widely accepted as the threshold for "the wealthy".

Again, only in the half baked correlation you seem bent on repeating until someone besides you sees it that way. Your entire belief set appears to be founded in half truths and assertions.
 
2012-04-30 10:08:32 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: skullkrusher: demaL-demaL-yeH: skullkrusher:
Favorite: Not playing dumb.

/A pissing contest? You chose poorly.
//A well: You're standing in one.

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. My mistake. You're not playing either.

Nor am I stupid, selfish, a putz, or insulting your poor mother (who must be a saint since you're still stealing oxygen from the rest of us).

And here you are all warm and wet... not crapping all over another thread.

/Know how to keep a troll in suspense?


Read the thread. Guess who is shiatting all over it? That's right, you are. LOL they have different currencies in Arizona? I am going to pay my credit card with Arizona dollars. LOL. U troll skullkrusher.

yeah, you're a putz.
 
2012-04-30 10:19:35 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: It goes on and on. It is simply foolish, obstinant, or intentionally disingenous to keep saying that "no one is saying people earning over $250K a year are rich".


Reading comprehension fails here again. The President never said anything about those "earning over $250 a year are rich". If you're going to quote something then please attribute the quote.

"I would argue that if you're emaking more than $250 thousand, then you are in the top 3-4 percent of this country.. you're doing well." is not the same thing. What is your problem with this statement apart from creating a strawman argument.
 
2012-04-30 10:53:31 PM  

skullkrusher:
After tax income Manhattan: $190593
After tax income Phoenix: $90635


You claimed in order for these after-tax incomes to be equal, the New Yorker would need to have an additional $15,000.
Keeping in mind that both after-tax numbers are denominated in US dollars, I pointed out sarcastically the absurdity of your claim that one "Phoenix" US dollar is worth $2.28 in "NYC" US dollars.

You really are either a young-earth-creationist stupid, entitled twoont or the world's second most stubborn troll.

/Got an answer for how to keep a troll continent, er, in suspense?
 
2012-04-30 11:00:49 PM  
i47.tinypic.com

Actual pic of situation room on that special day.
 
2012-04-30 11:09:48 PM  
Okay, that's funny.
 
2012-04-30 11:17:48 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: You claimed in order for these after-tax incomes to be equal, the New Yorker would need to have an additional $15,000.
Keeping in mind that both after-tax numbers are denominated in US dollars, I pointed out sarcastically the absurdity of your claim that one "Phoenix" US dollar is worth $2.28 in "NYC" US dollars.


while pretending to not get the point. I know, the problem is that you aren't nearly as witty or funny as you give yourself credit for.

demaL-demaL-yeH: You really are either a young-earth-creationist stupid, entitled twoont or the world's second most stubborn troll.


this is why you are the stereotype that people mock.

demaL-demaL-yeH: /Got an answer for how to keep a troll continent, er, in suspense?


this speaks to the above. Not funny, not witty, nothing of interest to say. Looking over your shoulders for the internet accolades you're sure are forthcoming. They're not.
 
2012-05-01 12:28:50 AM  
skullkrusher:

If you believe your claim, put your money where your mouth is:

1. I will swap you "Phoenix" US dollars for "NYC" US dollars in any amount at your stated exchange rate. Heck, you can keep half of the twenty-eight cents over two NYC dollars. In your world, that would be arbitrage. Would Drew be an acceptable exchange agent for you?

No?
Then you're full of it and your argument is utter, self-serving, whining dreck.

2. If my argument is correct - that a dollar is a dollar is a dollar - then you have your hand out for a subsidy from taxpayers in the lower COLA zip codes: You are claiming an entitlement to a subsidy based on your choice of domicile. That is the point.

3. I made a mistake earlier. Remove "either" and replace "or" with "and".
 
2012-05-01 12:47:34 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: 1. I will swap you "Phoenix" US dollars for "NYC" US dollars in any amount at your stated exchange rate. Heck, you can keep half of the twenty-eight cents over two NYC dollars. In your world, that would be arbitrage. Would Drew be an acceptable exchange agent for you?


truly too stupid for words. Honestly, you are arguing that there is no difference between the CoL in NYC and that of Phoenix, AZ? See, because that's the point all along. That is what I have been saying - all this nonsense about differing currencies and exchange rates is stuff you made up. You thought it was humorous and incisive. Wrong on both counts.

demaL-demaL-yeH: 2. If my argument is correct - that a dollar is a dollar is a dollar - then you have your hand out for a subsidy from taxpayers in the lower COLA zip codes: You are claiming an entitlement to a subsidy based on your choice of domicile. That is the point.


actually I am looking to stop subsidizing others - see, when I am enjoying a lower standard of living than someone who earns the same as I do but lives in a cheaper area because of our tax policies, I am subsidizing that person's higher standard by bearing the additional loss to my actual purchasing power. It is the higher CoL areas bearing this burden because of how our tax system works which allows the lower CoL areas to enjoy more than their "share" of purchasing power for each given level of income. Even it out, make everyone have the same burden for each income level. Or I suppose you can continue to argue for inequity - ya know, being a selfish putz and all.
 
2012-05-01 01:34:20 AM  
Thought I'd swing by to see if there was any new info.

Paul Baumer:
Because the argument you were making (you keep changing it) is that some wage earners are disproportionately disadvantaged by an income based tax. This clearly gives the lie to that proposition.


Actually, i have NOT made that argument, though someone else did, and someone else talked about disproportionate burden to to cost of living. I think you may be confusing Farkers.

My point hasn't changed: I've only stated it liike a dozen times now, and it is not about fairness or the validity of our tax system.

"My only point is that annual taxable income alone is an insufficient metric for determing who can absorb additional taxes without negative consequences. Particularly when that income is overwhelmingly salary based (as opposed to financial investments, stocks, real estate revenue, etc.) and when ther emay be other sunstantial expenses such as special needs medical care. multiple children, elderly parents and what not. When those with the income to handle these things without taxpayer money are able to do so, it is a benefit to all of us"

And I can think of dozens of other tax breaks that are far more readily available to people with 250k per year income. Do I really need to enumerate the countless tax-advantaged investment strategies available at a higher level of deposit?

Well, I DID ask you to, and I DID say I was interested in your unique perspective if only you would stop trying to reframe what I have said by replacing it with your own take. I would also remind you that (as I have said repeatedly) we aren't talking about investment income. Maybe you missed it the first twelve times, but read up and you will see it clearly articulated in many of my posts. This is specific to those families with dual salary incomes. We aren't talking about investors here.

But since you are a big account audited with the IRS fir years and years, just drop a handful on us off the top of your head. All knowledge is good knowledge. And that IS why I came back, so....

I'm not denying that there aren't plenty. But you spent more time saying it would be a waste of effort that it would have taken to list a few. hell, I listed a handful of tex breaks you DON't get at that level off the top of MY head, and I'm not even an accountant like you are!

How bitterly representative of your tortured logic that you would choose a quote in which the word "rich doesn't appear....Again, only in the half baked correlation you seem bent on repeating until someone besides you sees it that way. Your entire belief set appears to be founded in half truths and assertions.

Wow. Really? That's how you want to go? I provided quote after quote and frkking video clips of the President defining income levels for middle-class, and 'upper class' and for 'the wealthiest Americans' and for 'the well off' and for 'not the middle class or poor' and 'the wealthiest 3-4 % of Americans, and so on and so on, and you still want to fark the chicken that Obama hasn't Set the threshold for 'rich'?

REALLY? And then you decide your best argument is to lobb some childish insults?

I have really been trying to give you the benefit if the doubt and engage in a reasonable discussion, but if your pastime is just bullshiat insult swapping, say so now, and I'll happily move on
 
2012-05-01 01:44:11 AM  

skullkrusher: demaL-demaL-yeH: 1. I will swap you "Phoenix" US dollars for "NYC" US dollars in any amount at your stated exchange rate. Heck, you can keep half of the twenty-eight cents over two NYC dollars. In your world, that would be arbitrage. Would Drew be an acceptable exchange agent for you?

truly too stupid for words. Honestly, you are arguing that there is no difference between the CoL in NYC and that of Phoenix, AZ? See, because that's the point all along. That is what I have been saying - all this nonsense about differing currencies and exchange rates is stuff you made up. You thought it was humorous and incisive. Wrong on both counts.

demaL-demaL-yeH: 2. If my argument is correct - that a dollar is a dollar is a dollar - then you have your hand out for a subsidy from taxpayers in the lower COLA zip codes: You are claiming an entitlement to a subsidy based on your choice of domicile. That is the point.

actually I am looking to stop subsidizing others - see, when I am enjoying a lower standard of living than someone who earns the same as I do but lives in a cheaper area because of our tax policies, I am subsidizing that person's higher standard by bearing the additional loss to my actual purchasing power. It is the higher CoL areas bearing this burden because of how our tax system works which allows the lower CoL areas to enjoy more than their "share" of purchasing power for each given level of income. Even it out, make everyone have the same burden for each income level. Or I suppose you can continue to argue for inequity - ya know, being a selfish putz and all.


Look, I can't say for any other topic, but on this one, you are just not ever going to get that dog to hunt. Your CoL is not higher because the Federal Income tax unfairly burdens you and reduces your 'buying power'.

Even if you did not pay a single penny in Federal income tax, your CoL and 'buying power' would still be disproportionate compared to other places.

I'm sorry to say that no matter how rude demaL-demaL-yeH and you may be to each other, He's right. Your logic s flawed because you are trying to correct the CoL problem by adjusting Federal income tax to offset it. And that IS a subsidy, no matter how you slice it.

And as detailed above, it's a terribly bad idea to actually try to Implement and is basically unworkable anyway.

A good thought, and a novel approach to the issue though.
 
2012-05-01 08:24:04 AM  
OBL was very wealthy and paid no federal taxes!!!!

/Trying to get back to something related to the headline
 
2012-05-01 09:33:44 AM  

Dan the Schman: valar_morghulis: IrateShadow: hubiestubert: They HAVE to spin this away from the President, or they are going to have to admit that their presumptive candidate has got little but a failed Presidential bid last go around, and a Governorship that saw an awful lot of compromise that they just can't stomach in the current climate.

They're really grasping at straws right now. Look at this fw:fw:fw:fw I received this morning and see if you can match the talking points to their recent headlines:

blah blah blah


I received a list similar to this in a chain e-mail. One month later I was diagnosed with brain cancer. Coincidence?

/true story.


Hope you're doing ok man. Beat that shiat down.
 
2012-05-01 09:35:36 AM  

Cletus C.: Starting some narrative on how Romney probably wouldn't have done the same thing is insultingly political. Who the hell could ever know?


well, RMoney said multiple times that going into Pakistan to get bin laden was a bad idea and that he would not do it and that Obama was reckless for saying he would.
 
2012-05-01 11:56:48 AM  

Cletus C.: Starting some narrative on how Romney probably wouldn't have done the same thing is insultingly political. Who the hell could ever know?


Well, Mitt Romney, for one.
 
Displayed 39 of 689 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report