What's new

On the 47% who don't pay taxes

Lets just see where this is all going. I dont see anything wrong with not paying our bills. We'll just file BK on the world.

And we got the most biggest guns ever here. We'll just rob the rest of the world if we have to.

Let me explain something to you jack asses. All a country needs to survive is a super wealthy 1%. Thats why we are bankrupting the middle class. We dont need them. And once all the decent paying jobs have been outsourced then we can put everybody on food stamps or unemployment. And this will be a jobless paradise. I dont want to work anymore. Do you?

And obviously the money to fund our super world dominating terrorists *** stomping army will come from printing more money. This is simple economics. Vote Romney 2012
 
I think you have to have class to be middle class?
My bankroll is growing. What's your excuses?

Ya Im sure you're mega rich. Care tell all of us what you do for a living?

You sound like a drug dealer.

Hey everybody Franklin is rich, he can pay for all the wars. No need to worry.

He's a man class.

What I really believe is that you are lying?
 
I didn't take that tone, but cowhide certainly did about "the rich". You want to rephrase with no basis to avoid giving a real answer, feel free.

That you read notions like "evil", "less of a person", or "terrible" into cowhide's remarks says quite a bit more about your position than it does about cowhide's. Becasue the connection was so meager, I was completely unaware that you intrended that as a specifric response, and instead though you were crafting a general response.

So, I would say my rephrase had the same level of (no) basis that your original phrasing contained. It just took the liberal rephrasing for you to see that the conservative prhasing was basically empty and meaningless. You know, because you're such an independent.
 
I think you have to have class to be middle class?
My bankroll is growing. What's your excuses?

Yet, you would agree, not the current middle class as a whole is going bankrupt, but that the numbers in the middle class is shrinking as a percentage of the population, right? If so, even if the post is poorly phrased, you agree with what one I suspect the poster meant.
 
Well, no per se. I suppose they could have had incredibly bad misfortune. Otherwise yeah, you're probably right about the lazy thing. Either that or they're young or old, and wouldn't be expected to be in their earning prime.

Or mentally disturbed. Or suffered a debilitatiing illness early in their life. Or being severly disfigured. Or stayed home ot raise the their children, and then found themselves widoweded/divorced without adequate resources. Or found themselves on the wrong street corner on the wrong day with the wrong skin color, and are now limited by a criminal history. Or living in the remote Applachian mountains or various small towns. Other than that, and probagbly a dozen other things if I really thought hard about it. It[s probagbly better just to say "lazy", then you won't have to cogitate on the remarkable amount of luck that goes into being a self-made man.

LOL. It's funny how you frame these things skewed to useless oblivion.

I was matching a uselessly skewed frame with a uselessly skewed frame. Thank you for noticing.

Do you really want to go line for line over Obama's White House budget release and see where the increases that need to be paid for are? Because the first thing I'm going to point out is the greatest increase in military spending of any president ever. Then we'll move on to his endless unemployment benefits. Making this sound like roads and bridges is as dumb as KOC Begone and that stupid crush on Elizabeth "I can't answer a question" Warren.

While I'm curious what questions you think Warren refuses to answer (and offer no judgement on that statement's accuracy without more details), I agree with you on the budget.
 
That you read notions like "evil", "less of a person", or "terrible" into cowhide's remarks says quite a bit more about your position than it does about cowhide's. Becasue the connection was so meager, I was completely unaware that you intrended that as a specifric response, and instead though you were crafting a general response.

So, I would say my rephrase had the same level of (no) basis that your original phrasing contained. It just took the liberal rephrasing for you to see that the conservative prhasing was basically empty and meaningless. You know, because you're such an independent.

So you still didn't answer the question, which says a lot about your position. But you did a fine job of setting up a thinly veiled ad hominem.

Interesting how many people around here think that to be independent you always have to show zero leaning, or at least are required to lean left on every single topic.

And if you really read cows post as being completely neutral and unbiased, it shows just how deep your own biases run.
 
We've been through all this before.

As British subjects we had global cartels that created cash cows to beat the band. The British Far East Trading Company was a legalized dope operation and the biggest depositor in Eupopean banks, which Kings listened to. The bankers themselves had quite a racket in financing both sides in great wars, and always had the government tax revenuers bringing the peasants' cash in to pay all the interest. The feudal lords managed the peasants and kept them in debt to them as well.

When the international cartel folks wanted to secure monopolies on American trade or merchants, they got the King to impose taxes, and send tax collectors, and refused to let competitor ships dock and unload, and shut down local manufacture. It was a "great" time in world history, just like today. European nations were making colonies of the rest of the world, and bringing all the stuff home to enable the posh excesses of high society at home. Those who were "The 1%" did very well.

It financed the industrial revolution as well. International trade was where it was at. The BFETC took American cotton to England, where the mills had abundant cheap labor from the oppressed peasant hordes and used machinery to compound their advantages to make cloth and clothing for sale all over the world. They took the cheap stuff to India, and undercut local cotton and clothing producers. When the farmers couldn't get a good price for cotton, the British got them to produce opium, which the BFETC loaded on their boats and took to China, and traded for silk and other stuff. On the way back to England, the ships stopped on the coasts of Africa and loaded up with slaves, and headed for the West Indies and the South. As if all this profitable business just wasn't enough, they had to keep the French, the Dutch, and the Spanish from undercutting their prices in the Colonies.

The British and French fought over lucrative fur trade with the Indians, and competed for influence with them. On every front the Americans were being hemmed in, and restricted, and taxed.

The colonies revolted, and with French helped them win their bid for independence. Later, the constitutional congress met, at first primary because of continued British efforts at exploiting American trade, and among all their other innovations, chose to protect their independence with a unified tariff system. It was a stroke of genius actually. And it is what made American independence thrive. We were able to develop our own productive enterprises, manufactures, and use our own resouces to advantage. Our "Alliance with none, Commerce with all" foreign policy enabled us to develop our own trading relations all around the world.

Our present involvement in World governance schemes dominated by international cartels and other sorts of elites is the reason why we are failing now.

Abolish the income tax, and tax the cartels, and create the conditions that will favor competitors to challenge the biggies. Consumers would pay higher prices for stuff, initially, but in the long run we will get better prices if we break up the monopolites. And we would reduce the influence of lobbyists and fat cat contributors to politicians.
 
So you still didn't answer the question, which says a lot about your position. But you did a fine job of setting up a thinly veiled ad hominem.

I was not aware you intended it as a serious question, either. Please forgive my oversight.

Does being in the upper 20% make one evil or somehow less of a person than being in the other 80%?

No, being in the upper 20% does not make you evil or somehow less of a person.

Also why is it a terrible thing for people to want to actually keep what they have earned?

There is nothing wrong with wanting to keep what you have earned, per se.

Better now?

But you did a fine job of setting up a thinly veiled ad hominem.

While appreciate the compliment, an ad hominem would have been a claim that your arguments are untrustworthy because of some trait of yours. I don't believe I have ever claimed that who you are as aperson makes an argument of yours untrustworthy.

Interesting how many people around here think that to be independent you always have to show zero leaning, or at least are required to lean left on every single topic.

I don't think that, but "independent" does have a connotation within politics, and it goes beyond "is not exclusively loyal to a party". No one describes the Tea Party nor Occupy Wall Street as independents, but they are "independent" by the definition you have used to justify that label for yourself.

Personally, I use independent for people who lean strongly left on some issues, and strongly right on others. Do you see yourself that way? On what issues do you think you are strongly left?

And if you really read cows post as being completely neutral and unbiased, it shows just how deep your own biases run.

Must I choose between "neutral and unbiased" and claims that he meant people were "evil" and "terrible? Perhaps I have some alternate notion on cowhide's not represented by those choices? To be clear, I find either characterization of his post inaccurate.
 
Back
Top