Tea Terrorists

It doesn't. I know this and am willing to freely admit this in this debate or any other. Why am i an ideologue? Because i refuse to accept your premise that FICA, Medicare and excise taxes somehow don't count as contributions to the federal government? Say it with me: everyone with an income pays some form of federal taxes. Or continue to be an ideologue. Originally Posted by Doove

the EIC refunds FICA taxes and then some to many lower income earners, they in effect receive more than they ever pay in. as far as excise taxes, you mean if they buy a set of tires?

The point is we all pay excise, Fica, Medicare, sales taxes and so forth. But some of us pay a hell of a lot in INCOME TAXES on top of that. A 4% raise in income tax across the board for everyone would go a long ways towards raising revenue without undue stress on the population. We are in a crises situation and all Americans should be required to help their country out. Not just the top 20% or so.

A 4% raise in income tax across the board for everyone would go a long ways towards raising revenue without undue stress on the population. We are in a crises situation and all Americans should be required to help their country out. Not just the top 20% or so. Originally Posted by Jdriller

Tell that to the Tea Party folks....I actually agree with you. All of the Bush tax cuts should expire.

But you realize there are folks that do not even want to close tax loop holes!

You can call me an idiot, a moron, a mis-informed fiscal right winger all you want... Originally Posted by MrGiz

How about just MrGiz?

Though I'd have a hard time disagreeing with you assessment

... you can even remain fixated on my cock if you wish... Originally Posted by MrGiz

I keep telling you it is the anger I am fixated on, not you itty bitty weenie

but your self-inflated ego is much like your Government... it only services itself! Originally Posted by MrGiz

My Government?

Come on now, I'm not King yet.

And I'll have you know that many a lady have serviced King to be WTF. Not that I haven't serviced myself a time or two...

dear Jim

i copied this post of yours but i could have copied any of them..or all of them

read through the posts here...of course you make sense but the entrenched zealousness of the habitue de least common denominator will not read nor consider them. their minds revert to fear of loss and lash out with non sequiturs and illogic.

too bad Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

yes sir, well said!!!!!!

the EIC refunds FICA taxes and then some to many lower income earners, they in effect receive more than they ever pay in. Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

And i'm sure there are plenty of studies out there which show that poor people have a shorter life expectancy - which means they're more likely to pay in more than they receive as compared to the more well off.

as far as excise taxes, you mean if they buy a set of tires?

Or a gallon of gas. Or a pack of cigarettes. Or a case of beer.

Maybe you should giveitathought sometime.

Dovie, the topic we are discussing is whether the Tea Party held up the debt-ceiling bill not whether you agree with every little thing I say. We’ve discussed this before. You pick one thing in debate that you disagree with, ignore the bulk of the statement then drag in unrelated material. Everyone knows this is common, gutter tactics used when there is no real substance on your side of the argument in an attempt to impeach your opponent, to throw the dogs off the scent or both. So......................

[quote=Little Stevie;1558181]Blanket Moron warning!

The fucking Tea Terrorists TIED the historically uncontested debt ceiling bill to a balanced budget/deficit reduction bill. THAT is what caused the crash, IDIOTS. Go back and read the report and watch the interviews. All the rest of the reasons could have been averted by separating the legislation and passing a clean debt ceiling hike.

It was simple blackmail/kidnapping/hostage-taking by the Tea Terrorists in digging in their heels and saying "our way or the highway or we'll shut down the government"................/quote]

.................Back to the substantive, no the Tea Partiers did not hold up the bill. If there were enough votes to eliminate the Tea Partiers threat to the bills easy, and really should it have been easy? passage, then we wouldn’t be having this discussion would we? The rest of the cohesive congress would have swamped the Tea Partiers protests and efforts.
The bottom line is we are now a fractional, coalition government just like countries run by parliamentary rule with a separately elected executive. Shame, we could us ea vote of confidence just now.

It has been much too long since I have been fortunate enough to be positioned directly under the delectable Ms. Howard. She's back on top!

Dovie, the topic we are discussing is whether the Tea Party held up the debt-ceiling bill not whether you agree with every little thing I say. We’ve discussed this before. You pick one thing in debate that you disagree with, ignore the bulk of the statement then drag in unrelated material. Everyone knows this is common, gutter tactics used when there is no real substance on your side of the argument in an attempt to impeach your opponent, to throw the dogs off the scent or both. So...................... Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

First off, it's Doovie.

Secondly, sorry, Olivia, i'm not going to go back and re-read this thread to figure out what you're talking about. Making a generic statement about a supposed comment of mine without citing that comment is what qualifies as, how you say, gutter tactics used when there is no real substance on your side of the argument in an attempt to impeach your opponent, no?

I will, however, answer you in similarly generic terms. If you make an argument based on certain points, and i disagree with those points, then i'll rebut those points. I think, in my doing so, it's inferred that i'm disagreeing with your entire overall point. That's how debates work.

First off, it's Doovie.

Secondly, sorry, Olivia, i'm not going to go back and re-read this thread to figure out what you're talking about. Making a generic statement about a supposed comment of mine without citing that comment is what qualifies as, how you say, gutter tactics used when there is no real substance on your side of the argument in an attempt to impeach your opponent, no?

I will, however, answer you in similarly generic terms. If you make an argument based on certain points, and i disagree with those points, then i'll rebut those points. I think, in my doing so, it's inferred that i'm disagreeing with your entire overall point. That's how debates work.

Originally Posted by Doove

Where do the birthers fit in that? Originally Posted by Doove

Actually it's Doove, not Doovie. I just noticed that so pardon me. Secondly, you don't rebut your opponents view point. You try to deliver a KO with your little non-sequilar (sp) declarations, but your rebuttals fall short of the jugular. I'm not you wife. I shouldn't have to have a shitty little arguments with you. Debate isn't sitting around the kitchen pissed because your job sucks and you didn't get what you wanted for supper.

What does questioning Obama's citizenship, which is clearly outside this topic, have to do with whether the ridiculous congressional veterans can or cannot come up with cohesive legislation outside the desires of a sixty freshman congressmen? Nothing that's what. Maybe if he hadn't changed his name(s) and presented the damn thing in the first place when he was asked to, no one would have questioned him. But that has no merit whether or not the Tea Partiers are constructive or destructive.

You beleaguer birther or any other pejorative you can come up with repeatedly regardless of whether it is germane to the discussion at hand. Here's one of your favorites: You refuse to understand that anyone that declares that nearly 50% of income earners don't pay taxes - when the train of thought of the thread is clearly about FEDERAL INCOME TAXES - means federal income taxes. Someone else carried that torch so I didn't quote it.

Actually it's Doove, not Doovie. I just noticed that so pardon me. Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

What does questioning Obama's citizenship, which is clearly outside this topic, have to do with whether the ridiculous congressional veterans can or cannot come up with cohesive legislation outside the desires of a sixty freshman congressmen? Nothing that's what.

Come on Olivia. I don't even have to go back and look to know that the comment you're referring to was a response to your claiming that you would like to see the fringe on both sides go away. It was a dig at your own belief that frankly, belonged on the outer fringes with the 9/11 Truthers.

Maybe if he hadn't changed his name(s) and presented the damn thing in the first place when he was asked to, no one would have questioned him.

And if you would have accepted the fact that the whole scenario being suggested by the birthers was nothing short of utterly ridiculous, i wouldn't be able to knock you over the head with it every chance i get.

You beleaguer birther or any other pejorative you can come up with repeatedly regardless of whether it is germane to the discussion at hand.

Once you criticize left leaning ideas as being fringe, and wishing those who held them would simply shut up and go away, you made your birther beliefs germane to the discussion.

Here's one of your favorites: You refuse to understand that anyone that declares that nearly 50% of income earners don't pay taxes - when the train of thought of the thread is clearly about FEDERAL INCOME TAXES - means federal income taxes. Someone else carried that torch so I didn't quote it.

And i stand by the points i made in follow up of that person. And frankly, i think wizardofahhhs has since proven me right in another thread.

The market dropped because the economy sucks which can be directly attributed to the policies of the last 10 years. Obama ran as not Bush. What is funny is that he has continued Bushes policies in Iraq and Afganistan and upped the ante with Libya.

Econimically he took the worst of Bush's economic policy which was bailing out corporations that should have been allowed to go through bankruptcy and spending more than the government had and dramatically increased it.

Now he accuses the Tea Party of irresposibility when thay are the only group pushing for a solution and not a temporary bandaid that will leave an even bigger problem for the future. He and all of the people like him in both parties are the ones being criminally neglegent. I can only hope the next election cycle sends more Tea Party members to DC. Not Republicans or Democrats.

Do you agree that all the Bush tax cuts should expire? Or just those on the lower income bracket? Originally Posted by WTF

I know this will probably cause you to go into a coughing fit, but I would support expiration of the Bush tax rates. (They've been in place for a decade. They are the current rates. Just because the gutless GOP Congress wouldn't make them permanent doesn't change the fact.) Catch your breath. Now for the rest of the statement: if they were part of a comprehensive revision of the tax code and every dime of the difference went to retiring the current debt (no fair using them for new spending). If you read between the lines that means scrapping the current tax code and a balanced budget amendment.

Do you know the difference between a regressive tax and a progressive tax. Originally Posted by WTF

I assume that is a rhetorical question. And because I said I wouldn't remind you again that the subject under discussion was FEDERAL INCOME TAXES, I won't justify it with an answer.

You sir, do not have a clue as to how the tax system works. Originally Posted by WTF

I guess I missed learning about the tax system while I was filling out all those tax returns in the over 35 years of my working life. And apparently you, sir, don't have a clue how to argue a point in a civil manner. Let me help you: "Jim, your example of a family earning $50,000 not paying taxes is not accurate. Blah, blah, family of four, blah, blah. Also, I will bring in the irrelevant, but necessary to prove my point, discussion of payroll taxes and 'contributions'."

Of course, I didn't do their taxes for them, I was cranking out a response before jumping in the shower to go to work, where I work behind a firewall and don't have time to play with ECCIE posts. And, I didn't say a family of four. Subtract the child deductions. Or make it a family of six, I don't care. The point is that - according to the CBO - in 2006 (the last year of presented data) the bottom two quartiles paid -5.6% (that's negative five point six percent) of all federal income taxes paid. http://cbo.gov/publications/collecti...stribution.cfm

Bottom line, even if it is 1% of income, everyone gets the benefits of living in this country, and should pay something towards it's maintenance.

Spare me the "where are they going to get the money to pay the tax?" mantra. According to the Census bureau, the average family in 2005 with income below the poverty level:

-lived in a house or apartment equipped with air conditioning and cable TV
- had a car (a third of the poor have two or more cars)
- had two color televisions, a DVD player, and a VCR
- if there were children in the home (especially boys), the family had a game system, such as an Xbox or PlayStation
- the household had a microwave, refrigerator, and an oven and stove
- other household conveniences included a clothes washer, clothes dryer, ceiling fans, a cordless phone, and a coffee maker

Now, obviously that doesn't apply to everyone below the poverty level or the systemically poor, but this doesn't even compare to the gut-wrenching poverty I saw overseas while I was serving in armed forces.

Sorry, it took so long to get back to you, but my computer hard drive took a hard crash and had to be replaced. And yes, I paid the taxes on it.

Bottom line, even if it is 1% of income, everyone gets the benefits of living in this country, and should pay something towards it's maintenance. Originally Posted by Colonel Jim

They do. A fact that's been pointed out to you on numerous occasions. A fact that you continue to ignore. A fact that's not going to go away simply because you refuse to acknowledge it.

They do. A fact that's been pointed out to you on numerous occasions. A fact that you continue to ignore. A fact that's not going to go away simply because you refuse to acknowledge it. Originally Posted by Doove

NOPE they do not. You and them can CRY me a river in 2013.