Still Hating America.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Are you kidding me? You can't think of government policies that benefit those more wealthy than the average taxpayer? You're not thinking very hard.

But thank you for answering the question indirectly.

No. Thank you. You can't cite me a single policy that takes a dollar from a poor person's pile and adds it to a rich person's.

The best you can cite are indirect policies like, say, the capital gains tax rate, which you'd say took money from the poor and gave it to the rich, but actually does no such thing. Maybe you'd cite all the deductions the rich can take that the poor generally don't enjoy. Ah, but if you did that, you'd get smacked with the fact that they're a product of your own blessed progressive system, and that - again - they aren't taking anything from the poor.

Why don't you rephrase your point, because I think what you ought to be saying is "There are a lot of govt policies which allow the rich to avoid giving as much money to the poor in the form of govt administered services and benefits as is intended under progressive taxation." That's a lot different than saying the govt is taking dollars from the poor and giving them to the rich.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Are you kidding me? You can't think of government policies that benefit those more wealthy than the average taxpayer? You're not thinking very hard.

capitalism?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
No. Thank you. You can't cite me a single policy that takes a dollar from a poor person's pile and adds it to a rich person's.

The best you can cite are indirect policies like, say, the capital gains tax rate, which you'd say took money from the poor and gave it to the rich, but actually does no such thing. Maybe you'd cite all the deductions the rich can take that the poor generally don't enjoy. Ah, but if you did that, you'd get smacked with the fact that they're a product of your own blessed progressive system, and that - again - they aren't taking anything from the poor.

Why don't you rephrase your point, because I think what you ought to be saying is "There are a lot of govt policies which allow the rich to avoid giving as much money to the poor in the form of govt administered services and benefits as is intended under progressive taxation." That's a lot different than saying the govt is taking dollars from the poor and giving them to the rich.

Don't be stupid. When the government spends tax dollars on things that benefit the rich more than the poor, that's redistribution. It may be "indirect," and it may help some rich more than others -- cynical Sebby would say those who hired the lobbyists, if he weren't being muzzled by dopey Sebby -- but it is redistribution nonetheless.

OTOH, I take some pride in having flushed out naive, dopey Sebby. This means summer will be two weeks longer.

[SlaveNoMore]

sebastian_dangerfield
No. Thank you. You can't cite me a single policy that takes a dollar from a poor person's pile and adds it to a rich person's.

The best you can cite are indirect policies like, say, the capital gains tax rate, which you'd say took money from the poor and gave it to the rich, but actually does no such thing. Maybe you'd cite all the deductions the rich can take that the poor generally don't enjoy. Ah, but if you did that, you'd get smacked with the fact that they're a product of your own blessed progressive system, and that - again - they aren't taking anything from the poor.

Why don't you rephrase your point, because I think what you ought to be saying is "There are a lot of govt policies which allow the rich to avoid giving as much money to the poor in the form of govt administered services and benefits as is intended under progressive taxation." That's a lot different than saying the govt is taking dollars from the poor and giving them to the rich.

The Democrat party: re-distributing everyone else's wealth since 1920 (And please pass the Cristal)

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Don't be stupid. When the government spends tax dollars on things that benefit the rich more than the poor, that's redistribution. It may be "indirect," and it may help some rich more than others -- cynical Sebby would say those who hired the lobbyists, if he weren't being muzzled by dopey Sebby -- but it is redistribution nonetheless.

OTOH, I take some pride in having flushed out naive, dopey Sebby. This means summer will be two weeks longer.

Don't sprain your jack off hand patting yourself on the back. Claiming victory with some bullshit declaration doesn't change the fact that you haven't come up with a fucking stitch of a response. Remember sweetheart, that was my shtick long ago.

What - save that obscene gift to the defense industry we have raging abroad - has our govt "given" to the rich? You going to cite me those oil royalty gifts the govt handed out? I'll spot you those. That was a gift, and an ugly, ill timed one at that.

Use the word "spend" accurately in your response. The govt giving tax breaks to corporations is not "spending" money for the rich's benefit. If you don't like my adherence to technical meanings, reference our argument a few weeks back where you did the same exact thing, counselor.

"Redistribution" for purposes of this discussion will be exactly what you called it earlier - taking money from one person's pcket and putting the money into another's.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You can assume that he'll call the Secret Service first to tell them he's coming, and that they will respect the law.

Remember how Billy signed all these environmental rules in his last month that we couldn't live with? You know, things he didn't do for 8 years but put in place in his last few weeks so the first adult in the office for awhile had to reverse Clinton's "brave policies?"

If I were W. if a dem wins in 2008 I would agree to every weird bs argument like you mention here.... in my very last week.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
What - save that obscene gift to the defense industry we have raging abroad - has our govt "given" to the rich?

Agricultural subsidies. Defense spending. Everything the Commerce Department does. Privatization of government services. All sorts of natural resource deals. Grazing subsidies. Earmarks. Etc.

Cynical Sebby knows this shit happens because rich people know how to retain lobbyists. Dopey Sebby thinks all the lobbyists in Washington D.C. work to increase the size of welfare.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
The Democrat party: re-distributing everyone else's wealth since 1920 (And please pass the Cristal)

Ah, but Ty's going to show us how the GOP has gone one step beyond that and actually taken money from the poor - money the poor had in their hands - and given it to the rich.

I'm intrigued, as I'd just recently read somewhere that the "Superrich" in this country paid some outrageous percentage of all income taxes collected. Perhaps you have the cite. I don't care to look, as Dopey Sebby's on his fourth Sierra Nevada porter.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Remember how Billy signed all these environmental rules in his last month that we couldn't live with? You know, things he didn't do for 8 years but put in place in his last few weeks so the first adult in the office for awhile had to reverse Clinton's "brave policies?"

If I were W. if a dem wins in 2008 I would agree to every weird bs argument like you mention here.... in my very last week.

I cited a Supreme Court case. Now it's your turn to find one.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Ah, but Ty's going to show us how the GOP has gone one step beyond that and actually taken money from the poor - money the poor had in their hands - and given it to the rich.

I'm intrigued, as I'd just recently read somewhere that the "Superrich" in this country paid some outrageous percentage of all income taxes collected. Perhaps you have the cite. I don't care to look, as Dopey Sebby's on his fourth Sierra Nevada porter.

If the average taxpayer who claims a mortgage deduction is wealthier than the average taxpayer, would you agree that's an example of redistribution?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Sure, there are some people like this. But you are buying into Slave's exagerrated worldview (you know, the same world where no Rs have ever printed or purchased a nasty bumpersticker, but the big meanie-head Ds plaster their cars with calls to shoot Bush).

Plenty of wealthy, successful Democrats recognize that it's perfectly fine to enjoy being wealthy and successful, and that you should encourage the government to adopt policies that make those privileges more accessible to others.

There is nothing inconsistent, for example, in arguing that we should do a better job at providing free public education, and sending your own kids to private school (because, right now, we are not doing such a good job at providing free public education).

These things are so obvious that it's only in this crowd that anyone needs to say them -- because the Rs here like to argue that, until you send your kid to a school in the ghetto, you have no standing to argue that any aspect of the public schools is either bad or good..

I'm sorry, there can't possibly be such people. On this board, we have only capacity for binary thinking. You are suggesting that there is a possiblity of there being more than one correct answer to every question or even questions for which there are no answers.

Ergo, you are full of shit, and obviously a Democrat. Shithead.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I'm sorry, there can't possibly be such people. On this board, we have only capacity for binary thinking. You are suggesting that there is a possiblity of there being more than one correct answer to every question or even questions for which there are no answers.

Ergo, you are full of shit, and obviously a Democrat. Shithead.

go to FB and post like 30 posts. I want to be 3rd or 4th biggest poster.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I'm sorry, there can't possibly be such people. On this board, we have only capacity for binary thinking. You are suggesting that there is a possiblity of there being more than one correct answer to every question or even questions for which there are no answers.

Ergo, you are full of shit, and obviously a Democrat. Shithead.

I'm really responding to sidd but I can't be bothered to find the post you quote: the problem isn't that rich Dems just send their kids to private schools- the problem is you do so AND support fucked up and failed policies and teachers AND block things like vouchers that prevent less wealthy people from getting their kids out of the fucked up schools your policies created. But sleep tight. All is well!!!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I want to be 3rd or 4th biggest poster.

Eat more pie.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
See, there you go again. It's "class warfare" when someone points out that poor people aren't doing so well. When someone institutes policies that make this happen, that's just the natural order of things.

Don't you realize that by trying to draw attention to this "alleged" class disparity you are obscuring the true crisis gripping all Americans today and threatening our very survival: the Clash of Civilizations?

If all these "poor" folks would just enlist in the Army, they could go help "defend" Iraq, earn a meager wage, and create more wealth here for the shareholders of defense contractors?