What Is Wrong With America ?

[protectionist]

If you're trying to pass this pile of crap off as a refute for my post which you quoted, I feel sorry for you. Seriously. Another example of a post trounced by the quote it was supposed to refute. All one needs to do is read this thing, and then go back and read my post # 790, which clearly refutes it, in all it's LAMEness.

Son, you're a mindless little OWS monkey who thinks that smoking dope is a contribution to society. Then you become enraged that no one bought you an XBox One with all the new games - NO FAIR. The "rich people" are ripping you off, because they have the new games and you don't...Fuck off, and grow up.

Another example of your capitulation to failure in this debate. Positive proof of it > the resort to insults, instead of meeting criticism with substance. What do you have to say about Post # 817, Mr. Insult/Surrender ?

 

[protectionist]

I think they save a greater percentage then middle income people, have greater tax-exempt investments etc.

Who do you think "they" are? Do you think that everyone is the owned of the democratic party, George Soros, with billions? Hardly, the "rich" that you of the left target to fleece are mostly those of us making about $250K a year.

Currently, your owner pays nothing in federal taxes - he owns your party, which writes tax law to ensure he pays nothing. With a sales tax, he would have no way to escape, because the tax is transactional, not direct. This is the main reason that you are instructed by the hive to oppose sales and use taxes.

what about my other points?

They were not worth addressing.

Yes they were. Now get out from under that desk and answer his other points, you gutless coward.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Another example of your capitulation to failure in this debate. Positive proof of it > the resort to insults, instead of meeting criticism with substance. What do you have to say about Post # 817, Mr. Insult/Surrender ?

I'll give you a hint, for free: The fact that no one has any respect for you is not "capitulation."

True story.

 

[protectionist]

I CHALLENGE every Reaganist (foolishly believing he's a conservative) in this thread, to respond to my post # 817.

G'wan boys respond. G'wan.

 

[protectionist]

Another example of your capitulation to failure in this debate. Positive proof of it > the resort to insults, instead of meeting criticism with substance. What do you have to say about Post # 817, Mr. Insult/Surrender ?

I'll give you a hint, for free: The fact that no one has any respect for you is not "capitulation."

As a REAL (Eisenhower) Conservative, I'm not interested in "respect" from a bunch of Reaganist screwballs. Keyword here is RESPONSE (to Post # 817), not respect. So if you think you have a response to 817, good. Let's hear it.

 

[protectionist]

How do merchants identify poor people to charge them a higher rate?

I predict he will completely ignore this question or give a non-answer and pretend as though he has refuted it.

Actually, he ignored my post, and pretended he refuted it by issuing this non-question (disguised as an answer (but YOU KNEW that)

 

[dcraelin]

I think they save a greater percentage then middle income people, have greater tax-exempt investments etc.

Who do you think "they" are? Do you think that everyone is the owned of the democratic party, George Soros, with billions? Hardly, the "rich" that you of the left target to fleece are mostly those of us making about $250K a year.

Currently, your owner pays nothing in federal taxes - he owns your party, which writes tax law to ensure he pays nothing. With a sales tax, he would have no way to escape, because the tax is transactional, not direct. This is the main reason that you are instructed by the hive to oppose sales and use taxes.

what about my other points?

They were not worth addressing.

your language is a bit hard to follow, hard to believe you make $250K a year.

I agree Soros and wealthy "leftists", movie stars, actors, internet tycoons can avoid big chunks of income tax, thats part of why i've advocated eliminating the tax-exemption of municipal bonds. Obama did have a partially taxable build-america bonds program which should have been continued (without some of its provisions)

I dont think a national sales tax is realistic even if I was convinced it wasn't regressive.

My other points were worth addressing.

 

[protectionist]

Wrong again, 0-9

the program came as a result of pressure from the Mexican government to stop illegal entry of Mexican Laborers in the United States based largely on the Bracero Program.

The reality of "Operation Wetback" wasn't so simple. Eisenhower's sweep was effective because it was mass deportation on the Soviet model, not because it was admirable, let alone fair or, in thousands of cases, legal. Mexicans were especially targeted whether they were legal immigrants or not. Children of Mexican parents, who were American citizens for having been born on American soil, were deported, too".

I didn't read this post for 2 reasons.

1. The print is too large, and bothers my eyes.

2. The content is IDIOCY. There was NOTHING "wrong" with my post, and for you to say it was, only makes your post all the more "wrong". You're sinking even further.

You didn't read the post because you are not going THE HISTORICAL FACTS get on the way of your prejudice.

.

You did not present any historical facts that refuted anything I said. Not one iota. Here is my post again, 100% INTACT

Ding dong. Your instructor is at the door. Here to educate you about illegal immigration PRIOR TO 1965. IN 1954, illegal immigration was so bad that then President Eisenhower called emergency meetings among top experts to deal with it. The result was Operation Wetback.


One day in 1954, Border Patrol agent Walt Edwards picked up a newspaper in Big Spring, Texas, and saw some startling news. The government was launching an all-out drive to oust illegal aliens from the United States.

The orders came straight from the top, where the new president, Dwight Eisenhower, had put a former West Point classmate, Gen. Joseph Swing, in charge of immigration enforcement.

General Swing's fast-moving campaign soon secured America's borders – an accomplishment no other president has since equaled. Illegal migration had dropped 95 percent by the late 1950s. The agents went door to door in Southwestern states hunting down illegal aliens, arresting them and deporting huge numbers of them. More huge numbers of them fled back to Mexico.

Several retired Border Patrol agents who took part in the 1950s effort, including Mr. Edwards, say much of what Swing did could be repeated today.

"Some say we cannot send 12 million illegals now in the United States back where they came from. Of course we can!" Edwards says.

Donald Coppock, who headed the Patrol from 1960 to 1973, says that if Swing and Ike were still running immigration enforcement, "they'd be on top of this in a minute."

You must be one of those young Reaganists, too young to remember the Eisenhower days. Not me. When Operation Wetback went into full swing (no pun intended), I was in the 4th grade, and I cut a clipping about it out of the newspaper, and glued it to a loose leaf paper, and made a current events report about it to the class. And I've been following the illegal immigration issue ever since (for the past 60 years).

Operation Wetback - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You might also note that even before Operation Wetback, there was an illegal immigration problem from Mexico, as the Bracero Program (1942-1964) did not allow as many Mexicans into the US, as wanted to come. The excess arrived as illegals, which eventually culminated in Operation Wetback, and soon after that, the end of the Bracero Program. Caution: I might give a quiz on this so, be a good student and learn it well.

 

[protectionist]

your language is a bit hard to follow, hard to believe you make $250K a year.

He's currently learning to read and write English (maybe to speak it too)

 

[protectionist]

I predict he will completely ignore this question or give a non-answer and pretend as though he has refuted it.

Back in the late 80's and Early 90's, The late, great Harry Browne began promoting the revocation of income taxes in favor of a national sales tax. The left came unglued. Taxation is their primary weapon in buying votes and influence. Without the ability to grant tax breaks to donors, the corrupt DC insiders would have to concoct a new game to continue the graft that defines our federal government.

Most of what the left concocts is designed to fool the stupid. If examined closely, the platitudes that come from the left crumble to dust. But few people take the time to examine idiotic statements.

The claim that sales taxes are "regressive" came out of that era. Obviously no one can actually claim that a flat tax is regressive, so the left made claim that the EFFECT was regressive. Protectionist just isn't bright enough to learn his talking points competently. As I quickly demonstrated, sales tax does not have a regressive effect, and in fact has a progressive effect based on the percentage of income that is expended on taxable verses non-taxable goods.

You ARE the left (as you do their bidding, promoting immigration, Islamization, affirmative action, reducing the military & law enforcement, etc)

 

[protectionist]

[MENTION=45665]protectionist[/MENTION], have you been a coward your whole life, or just since you became a dumb ass old fart? Theft is theft. You may have some excuse and desire to justify your criminal acts, but redistribution is nothing more than larceny.

There is no "redistribution" other than to restore America's tax system back to normal as it has been for most of the past 97 years, and for 90% of the time before the movie star taxation took over, and hoodwinked American conservatives into thinking the way you do now (that this is some kind of economic principle, other than pure GREED)

http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-individual-1.html

 

[RKMBrown]

[MENTION=45665]protectionist[/MENTION], have you been a coward your whole life, or just since you became a dumb ass old fart? Theft is theft. You may have some excuse and desire to justify your criminal acts, but redistribution is nothing more than larceny.

There is no "redistribution" other than to restore America's tax system back to normal as it has been for most of the past 97 years, and for 90% of the time before the movie star taxation took over, and hoodwinked American conservatives into thinking the way you do now (that this is some kind of economic principle, other than pure GREED)

National Taxpayers Union - History of Federal Individual Income Bottom and Top Bracket Rates

I'm not sure why you can't separate the two disparate concepts of taxation and spending. When taxed income is "distributed" to people based on "need" alone, not based on "products and services" provided, that is most certainly "RE-DISTRIBUTING INCOME." When taxed income is spent on products and services outlined in the constitution, that is the normal function of this government. When Peter pays one tax percentage that is higher than the percentage that Paul pays, that is taxation based on a goal to punish Peter and for the benefit of Paul. It's a sick world in which we live when people like you feel they are entitled to benefit from the labors of others.

Heads up... eventually Peter may become pissed enough to shoot Paul.

Oh and greed... yeah that's Paul wanting Peter's income without having to do the same work that Peter does. That's like an artist that demands to be paid like a superstar when he's just a part of the background. It's a stupid argument that you can only make happen with the aid of a gun, because no one is dumb enough to pay you what YOU think you are worth.

 

[Contumacious]

I didn't read this post for 2 reasons.

1. The print is too large, and bothers my eyes.

2. The content is IDIOCY. There was NOTHING "wrong" with my post, and for you to say it was, only makes your post all the more "wrong". You're sinking even further.

You didn't read the post because you are not going THE HISTORICAL FACTS get on the way of your prejudice.

.

You did not present any historical facts that refuted anything I said. Not one iota. Here is my post again, 100% INTACT

You have a very thick skull or too much pride.

WHAT FUCKING PROBLEMS WERE THE MEXICANS CAUSING THE US AT THAT TIME?

1-

2-

3-



Eisenhower was merely assisting the MEXICAN GOVERNMENT , IT was the one who requested it.

And don't tell me that their ilegality or their brown skin was the problem!!!!!!!!!!!!!

.

 

[RKMBrown]

Didn't we boot the Mexicans one time because of the drug trade? and another time because of unemployment repeat of dust bowl fears?

 

[Avatar4321]

How do merchants identify poor people to charge them a higher rate?

I predict he will completely ignore this question or give a non-answer and pretend as though he has refuted it.

Actually, he ignored my post, and pretended he refuted it by issuing this non-question (disguised as an answer (but YOU KNEW that)

Thank you for proving my point

 

[Uncensored2008]

As a REAL (Eisenhower) Conservative, I'm not interested in "respect" from a bunch of Reaganist screwballs. Keyword here is RESPONSE (to Post # 817), not respect. So if you think you have a response to 817, good. Let's hear it.

Son, if you want to be a Fakey Jake clone, at least learn the terminology. It's "Eisenhower Republican." There was nothing "Conservative" about Ike, and leftist like you are supposed to used the term to urge the GOP left.

Post 817 is complete idiocy that fails to make any sort of point. There is no substance - not that anything you post has substance, but that one less than usual.

Now, don't you have a police car to shit on, or something?

 

[Uncensored2008]

your language is a bit hard to follow, hard to believe you make $250K a year.

No one cares what you believe, nor is what I earn relevant to the discussion.

My point is that the "rich" that you democrats target to savage, are not the couple of dozen billionaires, but instead those making a couple hundred thousand. The class warfare that your party wages is aimed at the middle - it always has been.

I agree Soros and wealthy "leftists", movie stars, actors, internet tycoons can avoid big chunks of income tax, thats part of why i've advocated eliminating the tax-exemption of municipal bonds. Obama did have a partially taxable build-america bonds program which should have been continued (without some of its provisions)

I dont think a national sales tax is realistic even if I was convinced it wasn't regressive.

My other points were worth addressing.

Not in my opinion.

 

[protectionist]

[MENTION=45665]protectionist[/MENTION], have you been a coward your whole life, or just since you became a dumb ass old fart? Theft is theft. You may have some excuse and desire to justify your criminal acts, but redistribution is nothing more than larceny.

There is no "redistribution" other than to restore America's tax system back to normal as it has been for most of the past 97 years, and for 90% of the time before the movie star taxation took over, and hoodwinked American conservatives into thinking the way you do now (that this is some kind of economic principle, other than pure GREED)

National Taxpayers Union - History of Federal Individual Income Bottom and Top Bracket Rates

I'm not sure why you can't separate the two disparate concepts of taxation and spending. When taxed income is "distributed" to people based on "need" alone, not based on "products and services" provided, that is most certainly "RE-DISTRIBUTING INCOME." When taxed income is spent on products and services outlined in the constitution, that is the normal function of this government. When Peter pays one tax percentage that is higher than the percentage that Paul pays, that is taxation based on a goal to punish Peter and for the benefit of Paul. It's a sick world in which we live when people like you feel they are entitled to benefit from the labors of others.

Heads up... eventually Peter may become pissed enough to shoot Paul.

Oh and greed... yeah that's Paul wanting Peter's income without having to do the same work that Peter does. That's like an artist that demands to be paid like a superstar when he's just a part of the background. It's a stupid argument that you can only make happen with the aid of a gun, because no one is dumb enough to pay you what YOU think you are worth.

I don't know where you're getting all this crap. I'm a conservative, and I'm just as opposed to lazy, worthless, deadbeat do-nothings raking in tax dollars as any other conservative. But it looks like I might be opposed to it much more than you are, because (AS I STATED BEFORE - ho hum) your low tax, low spend policies are depriving the American people of the $$ we need to maintain national security. THAT National Security includes defending the US from the invasion of millions of illegal aliens, who account for most of the welfare drain that you keep crabbing about. They are who is getting most of the "redistribution". In other words YOU and YOUR dumb policies are to blame for what you are angry about. Get it ?

PS- this is the 4th or 5th time (I've lost count) that I've explained this to you (and supplied a link with it)

 

[protectionist]

You didn't read the post because you are not going THE HISTORICAL FACTS get on the way of your prejudice.

.

You did not present any historical facts that refuted anything I said. Not one iota. Here is my post again, 100% INTACT

You have a very thick skull or too much pride.

WHAT FUCKING PROBLEMS WERE THE MEXICANS CAUSING THE US AT THAT TIME?

1-

2-

3-



Eisenhower was merely assisting the MEXICAN GOVERNMENT , IT was the one who requested it.

And don't tell me that their ilegality or their brown skin was the problem!!!!!!!!!!!!!

.

No, amazing one. Eisenhower was NOT merely assisting the MEXICAN GOVERNMENT. He worked for the US govt, not the Mexican one. And lucky you, to have me here now, (who lived through that period) to explain to you why Operation Wetback occured. It occured for the same reason why we need to have another Operation Wetback right now. Because of all the HARMS to to the American people that getting too many too immigrants causes >>>


Harms of Immigration

1. Americans lose jobs.

2. Wage reduction.

3. Tax $ lost (due to off books work + lower wages paid).

4. Remittance $$$ lost. ($40 Billion year).

5. Tax $$ lost to immigrants on welfare.

6. Increased crime.

7. Increased traffic congestion.

8. Increased pollution.

9. Overcrowding in hospital ERs.

10. Overcrowding in recreational facilities.

11. Overcrowding in government offices.

12. Overcrowding in schools.

13. Decrease in funds available for entitlements.

14. Cultural erosion.

15. Overuse of scarce resources (oil, gasoline, fresh water, jobs, electricity, food, etc)

16. Introduction of foreign diseases.

And you don't have to tell me what to tell you or what not to tell you. I just told you the problem (16 of them)

 

[protectionist]

I predict he will completely ignore this question or give a non-answer and pretend as though he has refuted it.

Actually, he ignored my post, and pretended he refuted it by issuing this non-question (disguised as an answer (but YOU KNEW that)

Thank you for proving my point

You didn't have one.