Conservatives

[edthecynic]

Since you've made such a huge issue out of the distinction between "earned" and "unearned" income, I'd like to ask you if you know the difference between the two?

Thank you

Unearned in quotes no less. You MUST be a CON$ervative. LOL CON$ need their Straw Men like Linus needs his security blanket.
Where exactly does LimpBoy say "unearned?" He says "versus OTHER KINDS of income."
Earned income would be wages and fees, for example, and other kinds could be Capital Gains.

I put the two words in quotes so as to bring them to your attention without upsizing them as you just did. As far as I know those are the two only kinds of income, so when Rush mentions "earned" income the only other is "unearned", and both are taxable. It would be useful for you to tell us what you know about those two types of income, to see if you understand what Rush was talking about, and by extension if you do too.

And a half truth is a whole lie. Capital gains is not taxable until it is realized. Relatively little of it is ever taxed. It is like an unlimited IRA, it can grow tax free until you want to realize part or all of it. There is no higher tax rate penalty if you are below retirement age no early withdrawal penalty. In fact at any age you pay a lower tax rate than earned income on the cap gains you realize. And for the truly wealthy that tax can be offset by donating the stock (a capital asset) you control your monopoly with to yourself as head of your "charitable" foundation leaving you with ZERO taxable income.

For example, when Nelson Rockefeller was appointed VP he made his previous years income tax public, and on millions of income he paid not one single penny in taxes.
LimpBoy said it's hard to have no taxable income, but he's paid to deliberately mislead you, for some it's Piss Easy.

RUSH: It does, exactly, and here's the dirty little secret if you ever to pull it off. It's hard. This is why most people don't understand the tax-the-rich business. You've got to structure your life so you have no "earned" income. I'm out of time. I'll explain that. There's a category called earned income versus other kinds of income. Earned income is what the income tax rate is on. That's how "the rich" do it. They don't have "earned" income.
END TRANSCRIPT

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

More leftist blather to reinforce their failing ideology...

You mean like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin and Abraham Lincoln?

Our founding fathers opposed your regressive ideas of complete government dominance of our lives.

"The same prudence which in private life would forbid our paying our money for unexplained projects forbids it in the disposition of the public moneys." --Thomas Jefferson to Shelton Gilliam, 1808. ME 12:73

That sure doesn't sound like something you'd support.

WHERE and WHEN did I promote "regressive ideas of complete government dominance of our lives."

Right at the point where you promoted the interests of government intervention in the proviate markets which promotes the REGRESSION OF THE ECONOMY... I believe you're on record in advocating for the fascist FDR and his "new Deal"... It doesn't GET any more regressive than that.

WHY is polarized thinking at an epidemic level in right wingers?

Ah... declaring the condemnation of their opposition as Polarization... I'd say that 'perspective' tends toward an attempt to roll back condemnation... ANOTHER somewhat MORE RECENT EXAMPLE OF YOUR REGRESSIVE TENDENCIES...

FIRST you need to paint me totally black for your lily white philosophy to have merit...

Ignorance is darkness Comrade, and you've painted yourself in that absence of light... and your attempt to avoid the argument through this appeal to pity is YET ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF YOUR ADVOCACY OF REGRESSION.

Our founding fathers fought the Revolution War over oppressive government AND oppressive corporations...

Yep... and you're entire argument has advocated FOR OPPRESSIVE GOVERNMENT AND THEIR PARTNERSHIP WITH OPPRESSIVE CORPORATIONS...

So...WHAT Pray tell could be YOUR POINT?

And by that, I mean: How in the HELL do you cite the Founders fight against oppressive government; and ADVOCATE FOR OPPRESSIVE GOVERNMENT?

 

[Bfgrn]

Liberals are the least friendly people on earth; they're mouthy little bitches with no respect for themselves or anyone else...

>>>PubliusInfinitum...You're doing a pretty good impression of a liberal...

I AM a liberal... An advocate of LIBERTY... the antithesis of the ideological leftist.

And while you want to project my position as being that of a mouthy little bitch... my position is the key to your intellectual veracity... unlike you sis, my position is substantive, well reasoned, intellectually sound and logically valid; I do not rely on tired cliches and vacuous platitudes... which is to say: I OWN YOU

When do you show respect for yourself and others... only when others agree with you?

You advocate for liberty; are you for or against the Patriot Act and FISA?

If FDR was all wrong when confronted with Americans out of work, out of food and without shelter, what would YOU do?


Men often make up in wrath what they lack in reason.
W. R. Alger

 

[mash107]

Liberals are the least friendly people on earth; they're mouthy little bitches with no respect for themselves or anyone else...

>>>PubliusInfinitum...You're doing a pretty good impression of a liberal...

I AM a liberal... An advocate of LIBERTY... the antithesis of the ideological leftist.

And while you want to project my position as being that of a mouthy little bitch... my position is the key to your intellectual veracity... unlike you sis, my position is substantive, well reasoned, intellectually sound and logically valid; I do not rely on tired cliches and vacuous platitudes... which is to say: I OWN YOU

When do you show respect for yourself and others... only when others agree with you?

You advocate for liberty; are you for or against the Patriot Act and FISA?

If FDR was all wrong when confronted with Americans out of work, out of food and without shelter, what would YOU do?


Men often make up in wrath what they lack in reason.
W. R. Alger

I'm against the patriot act and FISA, obviously. Against both wars. Against pretty much everything Bush did. But Obama is the same old statist, in a different face. Same policies, coming from a different political party, does not have different outcomes. He expanded the war in Afghanistan. Obama has not reversed the Patriot Act. He has not reversed FISA. Instead, he bails out those not worthy of bailouts with money of those that had nothing to do with this crisis.

As for what I would do if I was FDR. Realizing that Hoover's interventionist policies were a complete and utter failure, I'd allow the market to work. Realizing Hoover's bailouts would never cure the economy, I'd simply allow bad companies to fail. I'd certainly not create the conditions for more men to be forced out of work, out of food and without shelter. But I am a reasonable man, and FDR was a ruthless dictator.

Einstein said the mark of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and hoping for different results. I think we can firmly conclude that the entire government is insane, by that justification.

 

[DiveCon]

I AM a liberal... An advocate of LIBERTY... the antithesis of the ideological leftist.

And while you want to project my position as being that of a mouthy little bitch... my position is the key to your intellectual veracity... unlike you sis, my position is substantive, well reasoned, intellectually sound and logically valid; I do not rely on tired cliches and vacuous platitudes... which is to say: I OWN YOU

When do you show respect for yourself and others... only when others agree with you?

You advocate for liberty; are you for or against the Patriot Act and FISA?

If FDR was all wrong when confronted with Americans out of work, out of food and without shelter, what would YOU do?


Men often make up in wrath what they lack in reason.
W. R. Alger

I'm against the patriot act and FISA, obviously. Against both wars. Against pretty much everything Bush did. But Obama is the same old statist, in a different face. Same policies, coming from a different political party, does not have different outcomes. He expanded the war in Afghanistan. Obama has not reversed the Patriot Act. He has not reversed FISA. Instead, he bails out those not worthy of bailouts with money of those that had nothing to do with this crisis.

As for what I would do if I was FDR. Realizing that Hoover's interventionist policies were a complete and utter failure, I'd allow the market to work. Realizing Hoover's bailouts would never cure the economy, I'd simply allow bad companies to fail. I'd certainly not create the conditions for more men to be forced out of work, out of food and without shelter. But I am a reasonable man, and FDR was a ruthless dictator.

Einstein said the mark of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and hoping for different results. I think we can firmly conclude that the entire government is insane, by that justification.

the powers available in the Patriot act are very serious, and with an honorable man in charge of them, someone like John Ashcroft, i had no problems with them
when he left, i had BIG problems

as for FISA, the telephone network is not a private system, its a public network
anyone and everyone can access it
you do NOT have privacy in public
btw, the internet uses virtually the same network

 

[Peejay]

When do you show respect for yourself and others... only when others agree with you?

You advocate for liberty; are you for or against the Patriot Act and FISA?

If FDR was all wrong when confronted with Americans out of work, out of food and without shelter, what would YOU do?


Men often make up in wrath what they lack in reason.
W. R. Alger

I'm against the patriot act and FISA, obviously. Against both wars. Against pretty much everything Bush did. But Obama is the same old statist, in a different face. Same policies, coming from a different political party, does not have different outcomes. He expanded the war in Afghanistan. Obama has not reversed the Patriot Act. He has not reversed FISA. Instead, he bails out those not worthy of bailouts with money of those that had nothing to do with this crisis.

As for what I would do if I was FDR. Realizing that Hoover's interventionist policies were a complete and utter failure, I'd allow the market to work. Realizing Hoover's bailouts would never cure the economy, I'd simply allow bad companies to fail. I'd certainly not create the conditions for more men to be forced out of work, out of food and without shelter. But I am a reasonable man, and FDR was a ruthless dictator.

Einstein said the mark of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and hoping for different results. I think we can firmly conclude that the entire government is insane, by that justification.

the powers available in the Patriot act are very serious, and with an honorable man in charge of them, someone like John Ashcroft, i had no problems with them
when he left, i had BIG problems

as for FISA, the telephone network is not a private system, its a public network
anyone and everyone can access it
you do NOT have privacy in public
btw, the internet uses virtually the same network

Now that is rich! You don't judge laws on the merits, but who is enforcing them. Beautiful.

Since you think that these powers have fallen into the wrong hands, I must ask, were you stupid enough to think that wouldn't happen? Ooops.....forgot who I was talking to. Yep. Plenty stupid.

 

[KittenKoder]

I'm against the patriot act and FISA, obviously. Against both wars. Against pretty much everything Bush did. But Obama is the same old statist, in a different face. Same policies, coming from a different political party, does not have different outcomes. He expanded the war in Afghanistan. Obama has not reversed the Patriot Act. He has not reversed FISA. Instead, he bails out those not worthy of bailouts with money of those that had nothing to do with this crisis.

As for what I would do if I was FDR. Realizing that Hoover's interventionist policies were a complete and utter failure, I'd allow the market to work. Realizing Hoover's bailouts would never cure the economy, I'd simply allow bad companies to fail. I'd certainly not create the conditions for more men to be forced out of work, out of food and without shelter. But I am a reasonable man, and FDR was a ruthless dictator.

Einstein said the mark of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and hoping for different results. I think we can firmly conclude that the entire government is insane, by that justification.

the powers available in the Patriot act are very serious, and with an honorable man in charge of them, someone like John Ashcroft, i had no problems with them
when he left, i had BIG problems

as for FISA, the telephone network is not a private system, its a public network
anyone and everyone can access it
you do NOT have privacy in public
btw, the internet uses virtually the same network

Now that is rich! You don't judge laws on there merits, but who is enforcing them. Beautiful.

Since you think that these powers have fallen into the wrong hands, I must ask, were you stupid enough to think that wouldn't happen? Ooops.....forgot who I was talking to. Yep. Plenty stupid.

Um .. have you seen Obamas newest plan for internet "security"? Probably not or you wouldn't be trying this angle at all.

 

[Bfgrn]

Mash & DiveCon...I want to reply to your posts, but I need to get some sleep...

Goodnight....


It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners.
Camus

 

[DiveCon]

I'm against the patriot act and FISA, obviously. Against both wars. Against pretty much everything Bush did. But Obama is the same old statist, in a different face. Same policies, coming from a different political party, does not have different outcomes. He expanded the war in Afghanistan. Obama has not reversed the Patriot Act. He has not reversed FISA. Instead, he bails out those not worthy of bailouts with money of those that had nothing to do with this crisis.

As for what I would do if I was FDR. Realizing that Hoover's interventionist policies were a complete and utter failure, I'd allow the market to work. Realizing Hoover's bailouts would never cure the economy, I'd simply allow bad companies to fail. I'd certainly not create the conditions for more men to be forced out of work, out of food and without shelter. But I am a reasonable man, and FDR was a ruthless dictator.

Einstein said the mark of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and hoping for different results. I think we can firmly conclude that the entire government is insane, by that justification.

the powers available in the Patriot act are very serious, and with an honorable man in charge of them, someone like John Ashcroft, i had no problems with them
when he left, i had BIG problems

as for FISA, the telephone network is not a private system, its a public network
anyone and everyone can access it
you do NOT have privacy in public
btw, the internet uses virtually the same network

Now that is rich! You don't judge laws on the merits, but who is enforcing them. Beautiful.

Since you think that these powers have fallen into the wrong hands, I must ask, were you stupid enough to think that wouldn't happen? Ooops.....forgot who I was talking to. Yep. Plenty stupid.

no pissjay
i figured that an honorable man would not abuse powers
and YES, i thought about what would happen when he left office
but, the PA has not taken a single right from either of us
you are just too fucking STUPID to understand that

 

[Peejay]

the powers available in the Patriot act are very serious, and with an honorable man in charge of them, someone like John Ashcroft, i had no problems with them
when he left, i had BIG problems

as for FISA, the telephone network is not a private system, its a public network
anyone and everyone can access it
you do NOT have privacy in public
btw, the internet uses virtually the same network

Now that is rich! You don't judge laws on there merits, but who is enforcing them. Beautiful.

Since you think that these powers have fallen into the wrong hands, I must ask, were you stupid enough to think that wouldn't happen? Ooops.....forgot who I was talking to. Yep. Plenty stupid.

Um .. have you seen Obamas newest plan for internet "security"? Probably not or you wouldn't be trying this angle at all.

It would depend on the merits of the plan. Don't give a rats ass who comes up with it. If it's a privacy issue, I will most likely fall on the side of privacy.

I told a whole bunch of republicans that they would regret a whole lot of this shit when the democrats were in charge. And I'll say the same for any idiotic partisan crap the democrats pull. The other side will always get their turn at this stuff.

 

[Xenophon]

anyone with at least half a functioning brain can see it is biased

Onl;y very insecure people would want to do such a study, and naturally it will yeild the results they crave, it's quite childlike.

 

[Peejay]

the powers available in the Patriot act are very serious, and with an honorable man in charge of them, someone like John Ashcroft, i had no problems with them
when he left, i had BIG problems

as for FISA, the telephone network is not a private system, its a public network
anyone and everyone can access it
you do NOT have privacy in public
btw, the internet uses virtually the same network

Now that is rich! You don't judge laws on the merits, but who is enforcing them. Beautiful.

Since you think that these powers have fallen into the wrong hands, I must ask, were you stupid enough to think that wouldn't happen? Ooops.....forgot who I was talking to. Yep. Plenty stupid.

no pissjay
i figured that an honorable man would not abuse powers
and YES, i thought about what would happen when he left office
but, the PA has not taken a single right from either of us
you are just too fucking STUPID to understand that

So then why do you have a problem with the Patriot Act now ? To quote, a "BIG" problem with the Patriot Act.

 

[DiveCon]

Now that is rich! You don't judge laws on the merits, but who is enforcing them. Beautiful.

Since you think that these powers have fallen into the wrong hands, I must ask, were you stupid enough to think that wouldn't happen? Ooops.....forgot who I was talking to. Yep. Plenty stupid.

no pissjay
i figured that an honorable man would not abuse powers
and YES, i thought about what would happen when he left office
but, the PA has not taken a single right from either of us
you are just too fucking STUPID to understand that

So then why do you have a problem with the Patriot Act now ? To quote, a "BIG" problem with the Patriot Act.

because it can be ABUSED
what part of that do you miss?
someone can think it gives them powers it doesnt
like that DA that tried to get Rush Limbaugh

 

[Peejay]

no pissjay
i figured that an honorable man would not abuse powers
and YES, i thought about what would happen when he left office
but, the PA has not taken a single right from either of us
you are just too fucking STUPID to understand that

So then why do you have a problem with the Patriot Act now ? To quote, a "BIG" problem with the Patriot Act.

because it can be ABUSED
what part of that do you miss?
someone can think it gives them powers it doesnt
like that DA that tried to get Rush Limbaugh

Oh....I see. So then, considering that toothpicks can be abused, do you have a problem with them too?

Or more appropriately, did you hear any of the arguments, what so ever, about the possibility of the Patriot Act being abused BEFORE it was passed ? Or were you politically deaf then ?

And getting even clearer, do you have a big problem with the constitution? Because it might be abused? The Bill of Rights? Federal Code?

Do tell us, what other things, prone to abuse, to you have a BIG problem with, due to the possibilty of abuse? It is surely a long list.

 

[DiveCon]

So then why do you have a problem with the Patriot Act now ? To quote, a "BIG" problem with the Patriot Act.

because it can be ABUSED
what part of that do you miss?
someone can think it gives them powers it doesnt
like that DA that tried to get Rush Limbaugh

Oh....I see. So then, considering that toothpicks can be abused, do you have a problem with them too?

Or more appropriately, did you hear any of the arguments, what so ever, about the possibility of the Patriot Act being abused BEFORE it was passed ? Or were you politically deaf then ?

And getting even clearer, do you have a big problem with the constitution? Because it might be abused? The Bill of Rights? Federal Code?

Do tell us, what other things, prone to abuse, to you have a BIG problem with, due to the possibilty of abuse? It is surely a long list.

yes, i did hear that
and i had reservations about it
but having a man like John Ashcroft in charge, i was not all that worried about it


and ya know, your fucking condescending attitude is piss poor
you really suck at this

 

[Peejay]

because it can be ABUSED
what part of that do you miss?
someone can think it gives them powers it doesnt
like that DA that tried to get Rush Limbaugh

Oh....I see. So then, considering that toothpicks can be abused, do you have a problem with them too?

Or more appropriately, did you hear any of the arguments, what so ever, about the possibility of the Patriot Act being abused BEFORE it was passed ? Or were you politically deaf then ?

And getting even clearer, do you have a big problem with the constitution? Because it might be abused? The Bill of Rights? Federal Code?

Do tell us, what other things, prone to abuse, to you have a BIG problem with, due to the possibilty of abuse? It is surely a long list.

yes, i did hear that
and i had reservations about it
but having a man like John Ashcroft in chargte, i was not all that worried about it


and ya know, your fucking condescending attitude is piss poor
you really suck at this

I can't really say anything about this. It speaks for itself.

 

[KittenKoder]

Oh....I see. So then, considering that toothpicks can be abused, do you have a problem with them too?

Or more appropriately, did you hear any of the arguments, what so ever, about the possibility of the Patriot Act being abused BEFORE it was passed ? Or were you politically deaf then ?

And getting even clearer, do you have a big problem with the constitution? Because it might be abused? The Bill of Rights? Federal Code?

Do tell us, what other things, prone to abuse, to you have a BIG problem with, due to the possibilty of abuse? It is surely a long list.

yes, i did hear that
and i had reservations about it
but having a man like John Ashcroft in chargte, i was not all that worried about it


and ya know, your fucking condescending attitude is piss poor
you really suck at this

I can't really say anything about this. It speaks for itself.

Yes ... it does, he answered your question and responded quite well. Even if you disagree with part (I disagree with trusting Ashcroft, but he stated it as opinion so there is nothing to debate here) what are you saying in your response?

 

[AnnECUCherry]

...Item #9, you are incorrect vis-a-vis wealth: Taxation. It is the left's policy to tax, the answer to every problem, and the hallmark of the Democrat party. Have you asked yourself this question: when has a 'stimulus' historically worked on a recession, and were is the money going to come from in the next decade?

...when has a 'stimulus' historically worked on a recession ... ?

During the 1930's

I guess this means that you will have to give back your GED.

Check this out: ...In 1931, in some of the darkest days of the Great Depression and the middle of the Hoover administration, unemployment rate stood at 17.4 %. Seven years later, after five years of FDR, and literally hundred s of wildly ambitious new government programs, more than doubling of federal spending, the national unemployment rate stood at – 17.4 %....

Essentially, you've just tried to tell someone who was in Chicago on Wednesday, flew to LA on Thursday, then returned to Chicago on Friday that, because she was in Chicago on Wednesday and also there Friday, she never went anywhere else.

The unemployment rate in 1933 was 25%. Obviously, a rate of 17% a few years later represents a reduction in the unemployment rate when compared properly to the rate the year FDR took office.
Next time, try to post about some subject you actually know something about.

I don't need to comment on that line, now, do I?

 

[garyd]

It hit seventeen percent because there was a war in the not to distant future and the military was ratcheting up it's manpower requirements. And a hell of a lot of people had simply fallen off the radar.

 

[AnnECUCherry]

I wonder about definitions, such as 'poor."

"When you look at the people who John Edwards insists are poor, what you find is that the overwhelming majority of them have cable television, have air conditioning, have microwaves, have two color TVs; 45 percent of them own their own homes, which are typically three-bedroom homes with 1.5 baths in very good recondition. On average, poor people who live in either apartments or in houses are not crowded and actually have more living space than the average person living in European countries, such as France, Italy or England.

Also, a lot of people believe that poor people are malnourished. But in fact when you look at the average nutriment intake of poor children, it is virtually indistinguishable from upper-middle-class children. In fact, poor kids by the time they reach age 18 or 19 are taller and heavier than the average middle-class teenagers in the 1950s at the time of Elvis. And the boys, when they reach 18, are a full one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier than the GIs storming the beaches of Normandy. It’s pretty hard to accomplish that if you are facing chronic food shortages throughout your life. "

FrontPage Magazine

...When you look at the people who John Edwards insists are poor, what you find is that the overwhelming majority of them have cable television, have air conditioning, have microwaves, have two color TVs; 45 percent of them own their own homes, which are typically three-bedroom homes with 1.5 baths in very good recondition....

Pure baloney. Where's your evidence?

Are you familiar with Robert Rector, who made the statements?

Robert Rector is a leading national authority on poverty, the U.S.welfare system and immigration and is a Heritage Foundation Senior Research Fellow.

Dubbed the "intellectual godfather" of welfare reform by National Review Editor Rich Lowry, Rector concentrates on a range of issues relating to welfare reform, family breakdown and America's various social ills.

Rector played a major role in crafting the 1996 federal welfare reform legislation, which, for the first time, required recipients to work or get job training for their benefits. Since its passage, though, Rector has continued conducted extensive research on the economic costs of welfare and its role in undermining families.

Robert* E. Rector

Straight out of his Heritage Foundation bio.

]...In 1995, The Wall Street Journal declared, "to understand what Republicans are trying to do about welfare, don’t look to Newt Gingrich. Watch Robert Rector." ....
Robert Rector - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Heritage Foundation is an American conservative-leaning think tank based in Washington, D.C....

The Heritage Foundation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[/FONT

Yes, we are all aware that you just tried to pawn off conservative ideology as fact.