Random Truths

[PoliticalChic]

1. Dennis Prager tells his Rabbi..'I'm not n the mood for afternoon prayer" Rabbi changed his life with two words: "So what?" Obligations trump moods.

What does ones mood or feelings have to do with responsibilities???

2. Secular worldview is based on refusal to accept reality: men claim to be women, whites claim to be black. Feeling becomes dominant to knowing.

3. Objective metrics indicate Obama to be a failure: the economy is worse since the recession ended, race relations are worse, and the world is less safe after applications of his policies.

4. Traditionalists understand this fact: the nuclear family is the best for raising children.

5. DNA is the forensic basis for identifying a human being, and the DNA of a human being is present at conception.

6. Neither higher education nor improved financial outlook deter evil people from terrorism.

7. In America, political power resides in the people. Any judges who throw out the results of honest elections are no more than fascist dictators.

8.Any who expose communism are attacked in the most vicious manner: there is absolutely no truth to the myth that J. Edgar Hoover was seen in women's dresses.

9. If there is no God, then morality is subjective, and good and evil never more than an opinion.

10. Liberalism goes further than refusing to recognize evil: it's aim is to replace normalcy with deviancy. Judges are their facilitators.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Here's an analogy....

Truth has the same effect on Liberals as Dorothy's bucket of water had on the Wicked Witch.....








So....adding to the thread's 60 "Random Truths,"...

A few more:

The more education one has in the social sciences, the dumber one becomes.
Yet, Liberals snap to attention when they hear 'studies say....'



No democracy is possible without an unbiased press. That is the reason for the first amendment.
And the reason we no longer have a democracy.

 

[NYcarbineer]

10. If the desire is for a ‘level playing field,’ how to explain progressive income tax?

The progressive income tax applies equally to everyone. The taxable income you earn in each bracket is taxed the same as everyone else who earns money in that bracket.

".... progressive income tax applies equally...."

You have a facility with language....just not the English language.

The progressive income tax breaks down income into brackets. A certain tax rate is applied to the money you make within that bracket.

If you make money in a given bracket, you pay the same rate on it as anyone else.

 

[PoliticalChic]

10. If the desire is for a ‘level playing field,’ how to explain progressive income tax?

The progressive income tax applies equally to everyone. The taxable income you earn in each bracket is taxed the same as everyone else who earns money in that bracket.

".... progressive income tax applies equally...."

You have a facility with language....just not the English language.

The progressive income tax breaks down income into brackets. A certain tax rate is applied to the money you make within that bracket.

If you make money in a given bracket, you pay the same rate on it as anyone else.

"If you make money in a given bracket, you pay the same rate on it as anyone else."

Of course, this is simply the sort of sophistry (read 'lie') that Liberals regularly attempt to get away with.

The truth is, if you earn more. you pay a greater portion of same than someone who earns less.



Why?

Do you get more benefits? Are there more and faster public roads that only you can use? Are there public facilities that only you can use?
Do you get more votes?
Does the Constitution give the federal government authority over 'income inequality'?

1. Professors at the University of Chicago law school, Blum and Kalven examined and found very little support for progressive taxation as “the possible rationale for desiring to lessen economic inequalities within the confines of a private enterprise and market system,” and found, on the contrary, that since there have been enormous increases in wealth, even among the poorest, and yet the issue of inequality has become more outspoken, “It initially appears that what is involved is envy, the dissatisfaction produced in men not by what they lack but by what others have.” Blum and Klaven, jr., “The Uneasy Case for Progressive Taxation.”
2. Where in this discussion is the question of personal responsibility in achieving success or of the free market’s hand in distributing rewards? Or is the assumption that these factors don’t exist? Why not presume that the richer person merited his wealth?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

There are so many conservative commentators, and conversations, that have contributed to these truths....you may recognize some of your words, as well.....

1. The Left survives on demonization of the Right…rather than debating ideas: they teach their drones that the Right is not wrong, but evil…
2. The minute you envy another, your happiness is injured,and breeds unhappiness. Religious folks tend to be happy with what they have. Thus Marx hated that view because the Utopia had to be here and now…
3. Government must be limited in scope Madison: laws must be simple clear few. Must be understood by all: otherwise it is government by experts, bureaucrats and technocrats. a. Sure enough, Liberals snap to attention when they hear 'studies show....'
4. Unlimited opportunity can only come with limited government.
5. What leftism has done to every profession is to put leftism above being good at the task…
   a. Famine under communist rule in the USSR is a perfect example.
   
   6. The danger is not a man like Barack Obama, but a citizenry capable of entrusting the office of the presidency to a man like Barack Obama
   
   7. The mind of the Liberal: Whatever they imagine, they believe must be imposed.
   
   8. For Liberals, wishful thinking substitutes for an understanding of reality…thus…the view of the Arab Spring as a good thing…and overthrowing of Mubarak in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood
   
   9. We want liberty…but mistakenly say democracy…you can have democracy but deprive people of liberty (see Egypt)
   
   10. If the desire is for a ‘level playing field,’ how to explain progressive income tax?

Think the Right survives on demonization of the Left too judging by how you guys can never talk up your accomplishments and seem to spend most of your time denouncing their's.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

If there's any objective truth to politics is that no one ideology, political party, or idea is entirely right. Instead, some from every side should be incorporated. Not all Republicanism, nor Democratism, nor even Moderatism, but some from each.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[

The truth is, if you earn more. you pay a greater portion of same than someone who earns less.

The tax rate for the lowest bracket is the same for the billionaire as it is for the person whose entire taxable earnings are in that bracket.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Per post #207.....let me add these 'Random Truths'....

[

The truth is, if you earn more. you pay a greater portion of same than someone who earns less.

The tax rate for the lowest bracket is the same for the billionaire as it is for the person whose entire taxable earnings are in that bracket.

"... in that bracket."

So...you repeat the attempt to lie by obfuscation?

....consistent with your reputation.



The reason for the progressive income tax is

a. the party that pushes the 'income equality' ploy sees votes accrue.

b. envy.

1. Sociologist Helmut Schoeck’s observation: “Since the end of the Second World War, however, a new ‘ethic’ has come into being, according to which the envious man is perfectly acceptable. Progressively fewer individuals and groups are ashamed of their envy, but instead make out that its existence in their temperaments axiomatically proves the existence of ‘social injustice,’ which must be eliminated for their benefit.” Helmut Schoeck, “Envy: A Theory of Social Behavior,” p. 179

 

[NYcarbineer]

Per post #207.....let me add these 'Random Truths'....

[

The truth is, if you earn more. you pay a greater portion of same than someone who earns less.

The tax rate for the lowest bracket is the same for the billionaire as it is for the person whose entire taxable earnings are in that bracket.

"... in that bracket."

So...you repeat the attempt to lie by obfuscation?

....consistent with your reputation.



The reason for the progressive income tax is

a. the party that pushes the 'income equality' ploy sees votes accrue.

b. envy.

1. Sociologist Helmut Schoeck’s observation: “Since the end of the Second World War, however, a new ‘ethic’ has come into being, according to which the envious man is perfectly acceptable. Progressively fewer individuals and groups are ashamed of their envy, but instead make out that its existence in their temperaments axiomatically proves the existence of ‘social injustice,’ which must be eliminated for their benefit.” Helmut Schoeck, “Envy: A Theory of Social Behavior,” p. 179

You confirm my observation that conservative economic policy invariably tries to increase the gap between richer and poorer.

 

[Jantje_Smit]

Sociologist Helmut Schoeck’s observation....

Helmut sounds like a delusional teabagger, hoping the wealth from the Kock brothers will tinkle down on him....

What happened to Ann btw., doesn't she have some insight on why it's evil for billionaires to pay taxes?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Per post #207.....let me add these 'Random Truths'....

[

The truth is, if you earn more. you pay a greater portion of same than someone who earns less.

The tax rate for the lowest bracket is the same for the billionaire as it is for the person whose entire taxable earnings are in that bracket.

"... in that bracket."

So...you repeat the attempt to lie by obfuscation?

....consistent with your reputation.



The reason for the progressive income tax is

a. the party that pushes the 'income equality' ploy sees votes accrue.

b. envy.

1. Sociologist Helmut Schoeck’s observation: “Since the end of the Second World War, however, a new ‘ethic’ has come into being, according to which the envious man is perfectly acceptable. Progressively fewer individuals and groups are ashamed of their envy, but instead make out that its existence in their temperaments axiomatically proves the existence of ‘social injustice,’ which must be eliminated for their benefit.” Helmut Schoeck, “Envy: A Theory of Social Behavior,” p. 179

You confirm my observation that conservative economic policy invariably tries to increase the gap between richer and poorer.

So...by changing the subject, you are bowing to the correctness of my post?
Great.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Per post #207.....let me add these 'Random Truths'....

[

The truth is, if you earn more. you pay a greater portion of same than someone who earns less.

The tax rate for the lowest bracket is the same for the billionaire as it is for the person whose entire taxable earnings are in that bracket.

"... in that bracket."

So...you repeat the attempt to lie by obfuscation?

....consistent with your reputation.



The reason for the progressive income tax is

a. the party that pushes the 'income equality' ploy sees votes accrue.

b. envy.

1. Sociologist Helmut Schoeck’s observation: “Since the end of the Second World War, however, a new ‘ethic’ has come into being, according to which the envious man is perfectly acceptable. Progressively fewer individuals and groups are ashamed of their envy, but instead make out that its existence in their temperaments axiomatically proves the existence of ‘social injustice,’ which must be eliminated for their benefit.” Helmut Schoeck, “Envy: A Theory of Social Behavior,” p. 179

You confirm my observation that conservative economic policy invariably tries to increase the gap between richer and poorer.

So...by changing the subject, you are bowing to the correctness of my post?
Great.

No, I'm still talking about the progressive income tax.

If you flatten the tax rates, the benefit disproportionately goes to the richer, thus, relatively measured,

the richer get richer and the poorer get poorer.

Now YOU stay on topic.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Sociologist Helmut Schoeck’s observation....

Helmut sounds like a delusional teabagger, hoping the wealth from the Kock brothers will tinkle down on him....

What happened to Ann btw., doesn't she have some insight on why it's evil for billionaires to pay taxes?

"... sounds like...."


So....have you ever read anything?



As I have shown, the basis of the progressive tax has nothing to do with income equality.
In point of fact, it fools the most inept and uneducated among us.....e.g., you....The explanation is that the weakness of the economic basis for the tax pales in comparison to the political basis.

1. As government taxes more and subsidizes more, a greater portion of society’s wealth passes through its hands. Individuals and families have less income to dispose of as they see fit. “…redistribution is in effect far less a redistribution of free income from the richer to the poorer, as we imagined, than a redistribution of power from the individual to the State.” Bertrand de Jouvenel, “The Ethics of Redistribution,” p. 73

 

[PoliticalChic]

Per post #207.....let me add these 'Random Truths'....

[

The truth is, if you earn more. you pay a greater portion of same than someone who earns less.

The tax rate for the lowest bracket is the same for the billionaire as it is for the person whose entire taxable earnings are in that bracket.

"... in that bracket."

So...you repeat the attempt to lie by obfuscation?

....consistent with your reputation.



The reason for the progressive income tax is

a. the party that pushes the 'income equality' ploy sees votes accrue.

b. envy.

1. Sociologist Helmut Schoeck’s observation: “Since the end of the Second World War, however, a new ‘ethic’ has come into being, according to which the envious man is perfectly acceptable. Progressively fewer individuals and groups are ashamed of their envy, but instead make out that its existence in their temperaments axiomatically proves the existence of ‘social injustice,’ which must be eliminated for their benefit.” Helmut Schoeck, “Envy: A Theory of Social Behavior,” p. 179

You confirm my observation that conservative economic policy invariably tries to increase the gap between richer and poorer.

So...by changing the subject, you are bowing to the correctness of my post?
Great.

No, I'm still talking about the progressive income tax.

If you flatten the tax rates, the benefit disproportionately goes to the richer, thus, relatively measured,

the richer get richer and the poorer get poorer.

Now YOU stay on topic.

I'm not only on topic...but have created the topic....and I'm giving you an education on the topic.

Progressive taxation is anything but fair.


"The ‘progressive’ tax rate structure effectively imposes a penalty for producing and earning more. Consequently, it naturally results in less productive activity, reducing economic growth and GDP.

Despite these negative economic effects, the progressive tax rate structure is advanced in the name of fairness, on the grounds that it is supposed to be fair for ‘the rich’ to pay more. But it is the flat rate tax structure that is the most fair: if A earns 10 times more than B, then A pays 10 times what B pays….The penalty on higher incomes is both economically counterproductive and unfair.'
Ferrara, “America’s Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb,” p. 214.

 

[PoliticalChic]

And....more "Random Truths."


Sometimes an understanding of truth follows from consideration of a shrewd query...as in the following....

Atheists vs. Believers: which group hopes that they are correct?


How to explain that the Democrat Party stands for almost everything that the Communist Party did?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Per post #207.....let me add these 'Random Truths'....

The tax rate for the lowest bracket is the same for the billionaire as it is for the person whose entire taxable earnings are in that bracket.

"... in that bracket."

So...you repeat the attempt to lie by obfuscation?

....consistent with your reputation.



The reason for the progressive income tax is

a. the party that pushes the 'income equality' ploy sees votes accrue.

b. envy.

1. Sociologist Helmut Schoeck’s observation: “Since the end of the Second World War, however, a new ‘ethic’ has come into being, according to which the envious man is perfectly acceptable. Progressively fewer individuals and groups are ashamed of their envy, but instead make out that its existence in their temperaments axiomatically proves the existence of ‘social injustice,’ which must be eliminated for their benefit.” Helmut Schoeck, “Envy: A Theory of Social Behavior,” p. 179

You confirm my observation that conservative economic policy invariably tries to increase the gap between richer and poorer.

So...by changing the subject, you are bowing to the correctness of my post?
Great.

No, I'm still talking about the progressive income tax.

If you flatten the tax rates, the benefit disproportionately goes to the richer, thus, relatively measured,

the richer get richer and the poorer get poorer.

Now YOU stay on topic.

I'm not only on topic...but have created the topic....and I'm giving you an education on the topic.

Progressive taxation is anything but fair.


"The ‘progressive’ tax rate structure effectively imposes a penalty for producing and earning more. Consequently, it naturally results in less productive activity, reducing economic growth and GDP.

Despite these negative economic effects, the progressive tax rate structure is advanced in the name of fairness, on the grounds that it is supposed to be fair for ‘the rich’ to pay more. But it is the flat rate tax structure that is the most fair: if A earns 10 times more than B, then A pays 10 times what B pays….The penalty on higher incomes is both economically counterproductive and unfair.'
Ferrara, “America’s Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb,” p. 214.

You're desperately dodging my point.

Conservatives want to widen the gap between richer and poorer with every relevant policy conservatives support.

Flattening the tax rate system is a great example of that.

 

[NYcarbineer]

How to explain that the Democrat Party stands for almost everything that the Communist Party did?

It doesn't.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Per post #207.....let me add these 'Random Truths'....
"... in that bracket."

So...you repeat the attempt to lie by obfuscation?

....consistent with your reputation.



The reason for the progressive income tax is

a. the party that pushes the 'income equality' ploy sees votes accrue.

b. envy.

1. Sociologist Helmut Schoeck’s observation: “Since the end of the Second World War, however, a new ‘ethic’ has come into being, according to which the envious man is perfectly acceptable. Progressively fewer individuals and groups are ashamed of their envy, but instead make out that its existence in their temperaments axiomatically proves the existence of ‘social injustice,’ which must be eliminated for their benefit.” Helmut Schoeck, “Envy: A Theory of Social Behavior,” p. 179

You confirm my observation that conservative economic policy invariably tries to increase the gap between richer and poorer.

So...by changing the subject, you are bowing to the correctness of my post?
Great.

No, I'm still talking about the progressive income tax.

If you flatten the tax rates, the benefit disproportionately goes to the richer, thus, relatively measured,

the richer get richer and the poorer get poorer.

Now YOU stay on topic.

I'm not only on topic...but have created the topic....and I'm giving you an education on the topic.

Progressive taxation is anything but fair.


"The ‘progressive’ tax rate structure effectively imposes a penalty for producing and earning more. Consequently, it naturally results in less productive activity, reducing economic growth and GDP.

Despite these negative economic effects, the progressive tax rate structure is advanced in the name of fairness, on the grounds that it is supposed to be fair for ‘the rich’ to pay more. But it is the flat rate tax structure that is the most fair: if A earns 10 times more than B, then A pays 10 times what B pays….The penalty on higher incomes is both economically counterproductive and unfair.'
Ferrara, “America’s Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb,” p. 214.

You're desperately dodging my point.

Conservatives want to widen the gap between richer and poorer with every relevant policy conservatives support.

Flattening the tax rate system is a great example of that.

So THAT'S why you're known as the NYLiar!

 

[Jantje_Smit]

So....have you ever read anything?

Sure, I've read Marx for example

As I have shown, the basis of the progressive tax has nothing to do with income equality.
In point of fact, it fools the most inept and uneducated among us.....e.g., you....The explanation is that the weakness of the economic basis for the tax pales in comparison to the political basis.

1. As government taxes more and subsidizes more, a greater portion of society’s wealth passes through its hands. Individuals and families have less income to dispose of as they see fit. “…redistribution is in effect far less a redistribution of free income from the richer to the poorer, as we imagined, than a redistribution of power from the individual to the State.” Bertrand de Jouvenel, “The Ethics of Redistribution,” p. 73

You quote a lot of things but you show nothing

It's quite simple, government is funded by taxes. If you have a progressive tax system and replace that with a flat tax system that means the poor pay more and the rich less and that inceases income inequality. Unless you're an anarchist and want to abolish government of course, then you don't need taxes anymore.

Nothing wrong with supporting that, just don't be so hypocritical about it. Just admit that you love the 1% and hate the poor.

 

[PoliticalChic]

How to explain that the Democrat Party stands for almost everything that the Communist Party did?

It doesn't.

Shall I show that my statement is true?
Easy peasy lemon squeezy....

......it is ...extraordinary.....the correspondence between the aims of the communist party and the aims of the Democrats.....





1. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.



2. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces.



3. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.



4. . Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks.



5. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policy-making positions.



6. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.



7. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.



8. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."



9. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a "religious crutch."



10. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.



11. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."


12. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture--education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.



13. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce



..... all or almost all are clearly the aims and direction of Democrats/Liberals/Progressive leaders.





I got 'em from a website of declared communist goals...

The Communist Takeover Of America - 45 Declared Goals
The Communist Takeover Of America - 45 Declared Goals



You might take a look at this one, too.
10 planks of Communist manifesto
Communist Manifesto 10 Planks


1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.


2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.


3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.



"Obama Set To Propose Taxes On Capital Gains, Inheritance, And Wall Street"

Obama Set To Propose Taxes On Capital Gains, Inheritance, And Wall Street - Shadowproof




And this:

"Government control of private sector activity...is aptly described as Bolshevik- or Marxist, socialist, collectivist, statist, or, for that matter, fascist, too.Indeed, nationalized health care was one of the first programs enacted by the Bolsheviks after they seized power in 1917(Banks, insurance companies and means of communications were also taken over by Soviet authorities immediately."
Dziewanowski, "A History of Soviet Russia," p. 107.


They didn't call it ObamaCare....

Вы понимаете, comrade?