antagon
The Man
- Dec 6, 2009
- 3,572
- 295
- 48
this is reaganomics, house. it originated on the right side of the aisle.
explanation please?
permanent deficit spending and public-debt-based fiscal financing.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
this is reaganomics, house. it originated on the right side of the aisle.
explanation please?
this is just a demo that behind your rhetoric, you are a partisan hack without real interest in balanced budgets. i agree we could do with plenty more balance in government, but the complexion of politics at the moment is the result of a backlash against disingenuous 'conservatives' like yourself looking to spend future money rather than continue budget responsibility.Clintoon makes me laugh for many reasons... One of them being how some Clintonistas have built up strong forearms holding up his picture...
Still, I do yearn for the gridlock that comes when one-party-rule fails... Thankfully, we're about to get that in a couple of weeks... Friggin' Sweet, huh?
I will quote my good friend The T...
And under what auspices of the US Constitution allowed for 'Socialist' programs.
Government is tasked with Roads, bridges, public safety (Which includes Police/Fire Rescue and safeguarding liberty).
Not much else.
The Money earned by a person's sweat equity belongs to them...period.
You idiots are bound and determined to let the gov't make all your decisions for you.... You are not true Americans IMO.... you're drones waiting to be told what to do.
I'll tell ya what to do..... go jump in a lake.
Sorry Charlie, But I am no librul, no Obamabot and no democrap.
But the fact of the matter is that you own no money and you never will.
This is an extremely important central concept in understanding the way our legal system really works and you are absolutely resistant to groking it because you live in a partisan maze.
Gold is the currency of Kings. Silver is the currency of gentlemen. Barter is the currency of peasants. Debt backed paper is the currency of slaves.
Your sacred debt backed paper money is the currency of slaves and you fight an impossibly uphill battle claiming to own it. Nothing could be more ironic or humiliating.
"How eager they are to be slaves"~ Tiberius/ Roman Emporer
THAT is your response? After all of your blather about who owns what ,how the government is basically the "company store" you come up with "you are tarded"?..Sorry, chump, but I am amazed at how impossibly ill informed people are about the basic civics of their own nation.
The feds own my money too. Duh!
But if you get off your partisan horse you might learn some profound lessons about how the world really works.
Chump?...are you sure you want to start a war of insults?...Should you think of going in that direction, I will warn you I am cruel crude and nothing is out of bounds.
There are no rules in a street fight. And you are about to start one.
Keep it civil.....You've been warned.. 'Nuff said.
Back to subject matter. You are acting like a know-it-all. In fact you are psoting as though you have access to an inner sanctum. I think you are embelishing. I also think you are taking facts and using your own interpretations.
You have posted things such as what appears on the top of a car title. I just looked at one of mine and it says no such thing about the state owning my vehicle. If what you claim is true then any official representing the state could in theory( yours) come to my home and without warning confiscate my vehicle at any time.
Or are you now going to back off and make statements that indicate I am now taking YOU out of context?
Which is it?
you are tarded.
(I happen to live in the desert, so water is the most obvious example to my mind). Yet I cannot ask a man to starve. Indeed, that flies in the face of the very reason we seek to build this infrastructure in the first place, let alone all moral decency.
You might answer this in a PM. What would unlimited fresh water do for your region?
I understand this topic well, thank you.
flat-taxes are less evil than progressive-taxation because they do not force the taxman to judge citizen's behavior.
I say the government does not have the morale authority to determine who "deserves" their income.
You think the government must redistribute income according to need
I am arguing against my immediate self-interest, yes.I pay no Federal taxes, save Medicare and Social Security.
And here you are crying about socialism and taxes
Are they not linked?We're not discussing the recent HCR act. We're discussing progressive versus flat taxation.
Perhaps you need new glasses?We're not discussing whether income taxes should exist. we're discussing the merits of progressive taxation a society where taxation is already a given. Stop being an idiot and stay on topic.
flat-taxes are less evil than progressive-taxation because they do not force the taxman to judge citizen's behavior.
this is just a demo that behind your rhetoric, you are a partisan hack without real interest in balanced budgets. i agree we could do with plenty more balance in government, but the complexion of politics at the moment is the result of a backlash against disingenuous 'conservatives' like yourself looking to spend future money rather than continue budget responsibility.Clintoon makes me laugh for many reasons... One of them being how some Clintonistas have built up strong forearms holding up his picture...
Still, I do yearn for the gridlock that comes when one-party-rule fails... Thankfully, we're about to get that in a couple of weeks... Friggin' Sweet, huh?
I am arguing against my immediate self-interest, yes.I pay no Federal taxes, save Medicare and Social Security.
And here you are crying about socialism and taxes
If you haven't noticed, I'm fucking poor. I bet you're wondering why I don't STFU and take my handout nicely?
I understand the mathematics and morality behind it...a practical application of the marginal value theorem.If you're 'fucking poor', then you shoulkd appreciate the point of progressive taxation and the reason why you're exempt from most taxation.
The only taxes you pay aside from SS/Medicare is regressive 'sales' taxes (a purchasing tax, in reality, as the buyer, not the seller, pays it) which I oppose.
A proficient chess player knows when stalemate is inevitable.Evade, post strawmen, and then run away.End of discussion.
I used to think you were above such things.
Since you think your money is not your's pay my share.What if everybody in the private sector stopped working where does the government get it's money?
Sorry but my money is my money.
I tell you what you need to do if you think the government owns everybody's money pay my share to.
If it's all your money, why do you pay your taxes? Are you stupid, or just a pussy?
Since you think your money is not your's pay my share.If it's all your money, why do you pay your taxes? Are you stupid, or just a pussy?
Stop being a retard. Stop! Now!
Do you pay your taxes?
I understand the mathematics and morality behind it...a practical application of the marginal value theorem.If you're 'fucking poor', then you shoulkd appreciate the point of progressive taxation and the reason why you're exempt from most taxation.
I just disagree with applying the theorem to income taxation. Progressive taxation creates severe moral hazard.
The only taxes you pay aside from SS/Medicare is regressive 'sales' taxes (a purchasing tax, in reality, as the buyer, not the seller, pays it) which I oppose.
Would you then support a value-added tax, like they have in Europe, which is a sales tax on everything?
Also, would you agree that sales tax (paid by buyer) and excise tax (paid by seller) are identical, hurting the buyer and seller identically?
A proficient chess player knows when stalemate is inevitable.Evade, post strawmen, and then run away.End of discussion.
I used to think you were above such things.
I stated why I think progressive taxation is wrong. You disagree. We cannot change eachothers' minds, only fight with rhetorical flourishes. Anyone still following this thread is so entrenched in their philosophy, that further discussion is pointless.
Agree?
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.The only solution is to ask each man to give as he is able- to ask all members of society to contribute as they are able to ensure society as a whole can continue to thrive.
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.The only solution is to ask each man to give as he is able- to ask all members of society to contribute as they are able to ensure society as a whole can continue to thrive.
Great idea, uncle Karl.
That is his intention, look who proposed it, just saying.That's debatable.
US HB4646 - 111th Congress | eLobbyist
Received an email about this. If it passes it will be so-long to both financial and personal privacy. Proposed bill by Chaka Fattah (D-PA) and has the blessing of Nancy Pelosi with the idea of quietly passing it after Nov. elections. I could post the email if anyone is interested.
E-mail short: 1% tax on every transaction you can imagine. Every bank deposit (including automatic deposits), withdrawal, transfer from savings to checking and vice versa, every check written, every credit/debit card transaction.
That would put the banks out of business.
Progressive taxation creates severe moral hazard.
Would you then support a value-added tax, like they have in Europe, which is a sales tax on everything?
Also, would you agree that sales tax (paid by buyer) and excise tax (paid by seller) are identical, hurting the buyer and seller identically?
A proficient chess player knows when stalemate is inevitable.