Debunked? Uh, it's true. That you have another metric you wish to employ doesn't debunk a fact.
History Quiz for Conservatives....
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
Debunked? Uh, it's true. That you have another metric you wish to employ doesn't debunk a fact.
christiefan915
Catalyst
I've read comments like this on numerous sites: "After leaving the military in 1953, he returned to Plains, Georgia to help on the farm upon his father's death. He expanded the peanut business to the point of making him very wealthy."
"Carter then took over and expanded his family business in Plains. There he was involved in a peanut farming accident that left him with a permanently bent finger. His farming business was successful and during 1970 gubernatorial campaign he was considered a wealthy peanut farmer."
http://www.xtimeline.com/evt/view.aspx?id=153073
Airstrip One
Completely Effed
He was tripping again...
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
You forgot a few..
What was our credit rating when Obama took office?
What is our credit rating now?
What was the value of the US dollar when Obama took office?
What is the current value of the US dollar?
How many countries were we militarily engaged in when Obama took office?
How many countries are we currently engaged in?
What was the average price of a gallon of gas when Obama took office?
What is the current average price?
How many promises had Obama made when he took office?
How many promises has Obama fulfilled as president?
What were Obama's economic recovery plans when he was elected, and did they work?
What are Obama's economic plans if he is reelected?
canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
Few more
How many innocent civilians killed by drone strikes before e was inaugurated?
How many now?
How many American citizens murdered by US president before he was inaugurated? How many now?
What were health insurance premiums when he was inaugurated? What are they now?
When you look at the entire list it is no wonder the libs think this is a slam dunk and Romney has no chance. I mean Romney paid more than he owed in taxes that dastardly bastard
On Jan. 1, 2007, unemployment was 4.4%, Bush was POTUS, Congress was entirely Republican
On Jan. 3, 2009, unemployment was 9.4%, Bush was POTUS, Congress was entirely Democrat
What changed ?
I even gave you a hint Jughead.
Then that mistake continued and was compounded by a Dim. POTUS and continues until today
The Democratic Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995.
canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
that is going to leave a mark
That is one thing that pisses me off about the GOP. They sit there like little victims when OWEdummy lies.
FACT: When the GOP controlled the Congress and the White House unemployment was 4.5%, and deficit was $150 billion.
Now?
I rest my case your honor
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
The same reason people can't see how great Gary Johnson would be as president or why we should legalize pot and gay marriage! Not everyone in America thinks like you! Most of us simply don't believe the same things you believe!
I happen to think a consumption tax is the BEST way to tax a large consumer-driven nation. When you apply the intellectual theory on taxation, that any thing which is taxed, necessarily decreases, this means there would be less consumerism. That would be the effect of a consumer-based tax. When we have less consumption, it means that the demand is less than supply, which means prices of goods and services decrease, the value of the dollar then increases. These are all things which build strength economically. Free enterprise and free markets would also contribute positive attributes to such a taxation, not wanting to be disadvantaged by the chunk of built-in federal taxation, they would find ways to absorb some of this cost themselves. Case in point, a pack of cigarettes costs $5 or more, and most of it is taxation. Cigarette companies are obviously still in business because they found ways to remain competitive and profitable.
It's the most "fair" taxation you can imagine, because it only taxes people for what they consume. I am a proud Native American, and this is just something I believe in strongly, you should pay tax based on what you are consuming, not what you earned and made with your own efforts and hard work. You should own those, it belongs to only you, not a government. What you take, what you need or want from others, THAT is what should be levied taxation on, it's fair and impartial to all. So perhaps we just have a philosophical difference here, I don't know, but I think it is important for you to understand, life's a wasting... we can't go through it with you believing there is somehow going to be some social epiphany, where we ALL become brainwashed into thinking exactly as you do. That isn't going to happen.
A major change in tax policy is a pointless waste of time and poltical capital. We have to reduce spending and restructure our long term liabilities. If we do not the dollar will crumble. A tax increase along with closing of loopholes is viable, can be used to induce spending cuts/freezes and might lead to growth (less accountant man hours wasted moving numbers and creating financial fictions).
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Regardless of tax policy, we are going to need to cut spending and restructure long term liabilities based on growth of GDP. The dollar will collapse if political Marxists continue to print unbacked currency.
The beauty of a consumer tax is, it closes and ends all loopholes. If you consume a lot, you pay a lot of tax. If you consume little, you pay little or no tax. If you have a lot of wants and desires, you'll be a higher tax payer than someone who can get by with less. It no longer would matter how much money you made, it would matter how much you spend. If you want to make rich folk pay, this is a far better way to do it. rich people don't have to earn incomes, but most of them do like to spend money.
Tax increases, we've tried before, they don't work unless they are on the middle class, or unless you broaden the base to include more taxpayers. Again, a consumer tax removes this from even being a consideration, we don't have to argue about it anymore. You want to pay less taxes? Buy less stuff! You don't mind paying the taxes? Buy more stuff!
canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
Three problems with a flat tax in my opinion.
First, like the founding fathers I believe it is immoral to tax income. It comes down to private property rights and freedom.
Second, too many people can avoid income taxes through manipulation. Sure, there would be less incentive to do so with a flat tax, but it would still be there. Drug dealers don't pay income tax but they still buy stuff.
Third, as we can see from recent history an income tax is subject to political manipulation and demagoguery.
Look at how the income tax was justified when the 16th Amendment was ratified. It was promised at the time that it would never be higher than 1% and only apply to the top 1%. Simple huh? How did that promise work out?
Now compared to today's boondoggle of a tax code, a flat tax sounds appealing and I was once an adherent. But, I don't believe it is a long term viable solution.
This is why I believe a consumption tax is both morally and financially superior
canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
I disagree it is necessary. Our long term liabilities are being restructured as we speak. Uncle Ben is inflating it away. Of course he is destroying the dollar in the process, but who cares? We can keep printing more. It is like that saying "I can't be out of money, I still have checks"
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
I wasn't trolling. I was answering his questions. Like Jarod, you were not intelligent enough to understand that.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
That plan sounds familiar...
I have yet to find someone who can argue with that plan. Yes, the percentage or the exemption numbers might need to be tweaked, but the structure is sound, it is fair, it is progressive. There is only one reason politicians have for not implementing such a plan... it would reduce the lobbying money they get.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
String... a tax increase and closing of loopholes is largely window washing. The second something passes like that the lobbyists line up to bribe their favorite politicians to give them 'special breaks'. How long after Obama care passed did we start seeing special 'exemptions'?
End it. What Soc suggested eliminates ALL loopholes and deductions and raises taxes. It also would reduce the tax code from 70k+ pages to ONE. Talk about reduction in accounting hours. It is fair, it is progressive, it is simple enough even a liberal should be able to understand.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Can you provide an example of how people would avoid taxes through manipulation?
Every form of taxation has that same problem.
A consumption tax is one of the most easily manipulated forms of taxation. It is also a very regressive form of taxation.
canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
That plan sounds familiar...
I have yet to find someone who can argue with that plan. Yes, the percentage or the exemption numbers might need to be tweaked, but the structure is sound, it is fair, it is progressive. There is only one reason politicians have for not implementing such a plan... it would reduce the lobbying money they get.
That is not the reason. The reason is that the easiest way to control the American populace is through the tax code. Both parties know it and both parties want to do it.
Want to increase home ownership? Give deductions on interest incentivizing debt.
Want to stop smoking? Increase taxes
This is why the GOP is stupid. They should play the game the way demalquedacrats do. Tax welfare benefits and tax abortions